Thank you, Bill. Our support is well-earned. Looking forward to reading the new essay, and to having the second edition in hand.

Thank for the second edition. It will look dandy on my bookshelf next to the first one.

So, did I miss a memo? What is ejectia.com all about?

That's one awesome logo!

So, is Ejectia.com going to be a parallel site, used for the Virtual City-State of Ejectia, with the essays still being posted here? Or are you moving this site? I'm just a tad confused.

Dang it, SkyeChild, you beat me to that question.

By the way, are you the same SkyeChild that posts over at the Rott?

Yeppers. Been to Frankj's and LGF on occasion, too. 8-)

In fact, I found the Rott via this place.

Hoo-Ah, Skye - This is where I found the Rott as well!

...and Frank J., for that matter...

Bill,

In truth (and you will always have the truth from me), I don't like the logo.

At first glance, I thought it was some kind of sinister smiley-face, ala That-Halloween-Movie-That-Had-Nothing-To-Do-With-Michael-Myers.

Just my $.02

- MuscleDaddy

Manliest logo. Evah. Looks like the possible logo for a super secret organisation of sheepdogs on watch.

MuscleDaddy, recognize the name. 8-). It's funny how the same people show up on all the same sites.

It took me a while, but after thinking that the logo above looked like a smiley face, I finally saw the E!3.

I do love the texture; the whole thing is very nicely done.

The logo is All That and the Proverbial Bag o' Chips. Incidentally, it resembles not a little some of the standard glyphs for money ($, the pound sign, the yen, the goofy Euro dongle, etc.). I wonder what the Ejectish (Ejectian? Ejecti? Ejectese?) paper money would look like--or are we going to adhere to the gold standard?

The logo gives me the creeps, if you must know (and even if you mustn't). It reminds me of things I used to see in nightmares and horror movies. *shudder*

The tension rises.... But, alas, the secret is kept hidden for now.
Perhaps another day....
The logo is, well, interesting. I'm not sure how to feel about it (I saw the "sinister smiley face" only after reading about it in the comments, it makes logical sense to me in the way it was intended)
All that being said, I'm still on the edge of my seat, waiting for the next development in all this...

Looks like Rush's EIB logo.

Funny thing about logos, they can be seen many different ways.

I like it. I'm thinking, "Would that look good as a tattoo"? But then Bill would own me, and be able to say,"Go hither", and i would have to. That would just piss off the wife, boss, etc.

No to the 'too.

If it wasn't for me, you people woudn't know what sinister was. So you can thank me for that too.

I have another project for you, Svin, old friend. Get a picture of the Spartan shield wall from "300" and put the logo on each and every shield.

I know this is off topic but...this set of paragraphs are burned into my mind since the day I read them. from "Seeing the Unseen Part 2"

"My father was interred at Arlington National Cemetery in 2002. I will never forget that day. It changed my life, and it was the event that started me writing here at Eject! Eject! Eject!

The man who coordinated that service was on a hill about a half-mile from that side of the Pentagon on the morning of September 11th, 2001. He told me that they had been informed that something was going on in New York that morning. Then he heard something that he said he thought was a missile attack -- a roar so loud and so far beyond a normal jet sound that he looked up at that exact moment expecting to die.

What he saw emerge from the trees overhead, perhaps a hundred feet above him, was American Airlines Flight 77 as it went by in a silver blur, engines screaming in a power dive as it hit the near side of the Pentagon. He told me -- to my face -- that body parts had rained down all over that sacred field. Just like red hail on a summer day. Those body parts are buried in a special place at the base of that hill.

Now. If Rosie O'Donnell and the rest of that Lunatic Brigade is right and I am wrong, then that man -- that insignificant Army chaplain and his Honor Guard of forty men -- are all liars. He is lying to me for Halliburton and Big Oil. That Chaplain -- and all of those decent, patriotic young men in the Honor Guard, and all the commuters on the roads who saw an American Airlines jet instead of a missile -- all of those people are liars and accessories to murder. And all of the firefighters who went into buildings rigged to explode were pre-recruited suicide martyrs dying for George W. Bush's plans for world conquest. Remember: NOTHING that happened on September 11th needed any more explanation than what was obvious from the second impact... namely, that Islamic terrorists hijacked four American aircraft and flew three of them into their targets. To try to convince people of missile attacks and rigged explosives and mystery jets is nothing more than an intentional assault on reason and common sense, one that damns the innocent and protects those mass murderers with our blood on their hands.

It's an obscenity. It's a filthy, God-damned, criminal obscenity. Nothing less."

Bill, when I bookmarked your site, this is where IE takes me to. It makes me want to print fliers of your essays and put them on people's windshields. Something...anything...to wake this country up.

Is anyone else suffering from that optical illusion where you can only see the black space in between the E!3 and not the actual E!3 logo itself?

Okay, maybe it's just me.

Bill, this is the best present anyone's ever gotten me. Not the book I'm buying as soon as I'm done with this comment, the fact that you're doing all this and we get to participate in some way apparently. Happy as a little girl . . .

I want an autographed hard cover! Heck, Frankj even drew me a cartoon on his book!

Christmas IS coming. Maybe Wednesday.
Kind of reminds me of childhood...Christmas is understood but days not necessarily, so when I wake up in the morning will it be Wednesday? Not totally confident but always hopeful.
Between you, Bill, and one of my brothers, Christmas is perpetually around the corner.
The brother, 59, "Grandpa", three weeks ago started a bike trip across America, on a recumbent bike no less.
Needless to say family and friends check his website for updates regularly. Six siblings and his wife somewhat more obsessively. Sound like the 1500?
Anyway. A woman posted something to his site on day thirteen after many encounters with everyday good folk in rural Oregon and after in particular a couple of fortuitous encounters when he really, really, needed help. She wrote - "What a blessing it was to read your journals today! It reminded me that the world isn't so bad after all. We never see it from the view of a bicycle.. just from our TV screens."
I hope there will be bikes in Ejectialand.
Andrea

The logo does sort of look like a sinister smiley face. Watchmen?

Maybe if it was more elliptical . . . stretched out horizontally to bring a little more emphasis to the "E" and "3" shapes?

Everytime I see 'helpful' comments about how the 'wording is little off' or the logo needs this or that, or your comments need a certain kind of correction, or you mis-speloed something... It makes me think about why Steven den Beste quick blogging. Too many people felt a need to correct and it just drove him away. Please don't let nit-pickers ever drive you away.

Nice logo... I like it.

Amen to that, Bruce.

Bill, have you seen Charles' post on LGF re: Sitemeter?

Hi everyone.

Regarding the "what is ejectia?" question...

Many have guessed along the lines I see it going: a parallel site for the online community. I would still post essays here at Eject! Eject! Eject!, and the comments section would still be available. And as I say, this speculation is fun, if cheating a little, because I will make this as clear as I can in the next essay. But what I hope to achieve is an international community of people who are willing to teach each other their own best skill sets in order to elevate and toughen all of us so that there is some hard core of prepared citizenry should things get a little dicey. And I suspect most of you think things will get a little dicey before we shuffle off this mortal coil.

The beauty of Ejectia!, as I see it, is that it will belong to all of us equally. I'll have no more say than anyone else in the decisions that are made there. (Okay - I'll likely have more say, but not any more authority.) That means, more than anything, that while I have a rough idea of something in my mind, I recognize that once it gets out into the world it will change beyond recognition and hopefully become more complex and useful than I ever imagined. Which is very exciting.

Because that will be common ground, I will be only an intermittent content provider, compared to what we all can generate for the mutual good.

One of the best parts about it is we can debate things and vote online, as we did on the Latin motto. This logo is a perfect example of this.

I will eventually set up a online vote once I get this essay out. Until then, debate it as passionately as you please, but keep in mind that I consider civiliazed behavior to consist of two parts only: respect for reason, and good manners.

I have seen many people who are so passionate about the first become absolute bastards about the second, and that just sows division, which we can little afford these days when divisive forces are so prevailant.

So debate away, and passionately, too -- but remember that one person went to the trouble to submit this, and that deserves respect and gratitude. If you have other suggestions, post them here or e-mail me and I will present them.

P.S. I do LOVE the shield idea. Sparta has been on my mind greatly as of late. I may go to the trouble of building that myself when I get this essay out.

Not a fan of the logo. Looks like something you would see representing the Evil doers in any Sci Fi flick. I look at that logo and see heels clicking/stomping in unison with Big Brothers voice booming in the background. I suppose I should follow up with a "better" idea, but alas, all I am forwarding is my visceral reaction. As much as I like your essays Bill, this new upcoming website makes me nervous. Times are getting dicey? Hard core of prepared citizenry? Well, as long as I won't have to learn to build my own power plant and slaughter my own cows. If so, not sure I wanna be around for the diceyness.

What about just a big, 3D metal version of E3 (as in "E-cubed" - can't get the exponent right in this formatting)?

In the interest of alternative-giving, rather than just-complaining (like I did earlier) ;-)

- MuscleDaddy

Craig, something like a third of Democrats surveyed said they believed GWB was behind 9/11. ONE THIRD. A second third said they "weren't sure." That leaves a third of the surveyed Democrats believing with certainly that 9/11 was an al Quaeda attack.

The Republican numbers are "better" -- to the extent that only 15% believe the government was behind 9/11. "Only!"

Do you honestly think a society so constructed can last, when those numbers grow every day?

I am deeply optimistic about the future of the United States and Western Civilization. I am not optimistic that so much paranoia will simply disappear. Islamic terrorists are something to worry about. A society that believes the works of Islamic terrorists were in fact orchestrated by our own government is something to be terrified about.

I didn't make up those poll results. I used to think that only miniscule numbers of cranks believed things like the Ft. Dix attack was a false flag political move to take pressure off Gonzalez. But millions and MILLIONS of people believe this. Take a look at the Amazon reviews for CASE CLOSED -- it's about 50/50 between rational people and those claiming Posner was hired by the CIA.

On the foreign front, we know that no less than two dozen major terrorist attacks have been thwarted since 9/11. What happens when one of them succeeds? Would you know what to do if you heard a dirty bomb went off a few miles from you? I don't. I would like to know.

Look, paranoia worries me. It worries me so much I constantly ask myself if I am becoming paranoid myself. The last thing I want is to create a hole for bitter and frightened people to crawl into.

But those threats appear to me to be verifiable and real, and in a decentralized war where the enemy is targeting civilians in the homeland, it seems to me we could and should be doing a lot more than we are.

I am deeply curious to get other people's take on this.

Bill
You are not at all paranoid. I would say that your 50% estimate of rationality is grossly over-optomistic(readers at this site excluded,of course).On 9-11 my wife and I were loading the last of our posessions into the truck for our move to a remote mountain in West Virginia. We had quit our jobs in Washington D.C. largely because of its potential to become Ground Zero. Imagine my paranoia when the pentagon was hit on the very day we were bugging out. Phone service gone. Roads gridlocked. Breaking news reports conflicting and uncertain. The Web of Trust was unraveling all around us and it was unraveling FAST. The more technologically advanced a society becomes, the quicker it can collapse upon itself. We shall all need Ejectia! in the future because, really, it is a state of mind. We fight as we train. Time to start training.
Svinrod

I'm waiting to hear from Svin on the logo design. What says the artist? For my part I see simplicity. It's easily recognizable, something you can put on a battlefield banner when it's time to rally the troops. I see also symmetry, harmony and balance. That qualifies the logo as genuine art. As far as I'm concerned, the Left in this country marches under the banner "Merde d'Artiste", but I'm known for my insensitivity to to the finer points of "modern" art. The hammered metal finish made me think immediately of a shield face, thus my earlier post. What better metaphor for a virtual city-state devoted to defending Western Civilization? For me it all fits quite nicely. We should not reject a symbol because it conveys power. Power is a good thing in the hands of righteous men and women. To me the most horrid symbol on the planet is a multi-colored rainbow. I see it and the following come to mind: indiscriminate sex regardless of age or gender, multi-culturalism (read: Balkanization of the electorate), faux pacifism (see cowardice), and sentimentality (the antithesis of rationality). "Strength and honor, Quitus." The quote is from Gladiator, scene one. Rent it if you don't own it. And prepare yourselves to act on the same when the time comes.

Bruce says:

"Everytime I see 'helpful' comments about how the 'wording is little off' or the logo needs this or that, or your comments need a certain kind of correction, or you mis-speloed something... It makes me think about why Steven den Beste quick blogging."

Well, in my opinion, if we can't speak our piece (respectfully, of course) on Bill Whittle's site, then what's the point of having it? I've been on too many sites where people are such sycophants that they would NEVER disagree with their host (LGF comes to mind).

So, Bruce, if you are referring to the comments about the logo, those of us who don't like it should be allowed to say so. Not every piece of art is liked by everyone.

Just my .02.

Svin, you finally made an appearance! To the point: Bill, your analysis is on target. The mark of a decadent society is its willingness to believe that danger does not exist. We have precedents. According to Gibbon the able youth of Rome refused to man the walls when confronted by the Vandals in A.D. 455. The city was turned over to the barbarians for 14 days of slaughter, plunder and rapine. No! A thousand times no! I will not see this country go down without a fight. The idiots on the left are weak minded, decadent and corrupt. Therein lies the battle. They must not win the policy debate. A few stand on the cusp between civilization and barbarism. "This is where we stand; this is where they die." The historical analogy is not quite right, but the sentiment is spot on.

Are you proud to be an American?

If your answer is "Yes,but"
Then it's off to the Ejectia re-education camp for you.
(Don't worry I'm sure Bill will be a very benevolent commandant. Dougman is the "Head-Dude- in-Charge-of-Propaganda-Stuff", but Bill doesn't listen to him.)

For every so called sin in America's past there is a corresponding penance.

Slavery?
We sacrificed up to 700,000 citizens on that alter.

Vietnam?
To this day, the carnage that followed our departure is not recognized as cause and effect.

To date, the greatest words written in the English language remain,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Have we always lived up to this goal?

No.

But we've never stopped trying.

And as long as I have my dander up, let me express a few more opinions. Aggressive force is not uncivilized when it defends the right and the good. In fact, in some situations aggressive counter-action is the moral course of action. Indeed, sometimes it's a duty. Ayn Rand said something about this, but I don't have the patience to look it up now just now. May I rant? The proper response to aggression is to stop it at the point of attack. Your opponent has violated all civilized norms. He deserves no quarter. Shoot him with a square bullet, and bury his cremated remains in a pig skin sack. When he fears us more than we fear him, we will achieve victory. Our sole aim should be to stop him, the enemy, by whatever means. The hell with sensitivity. The only thing I want UBL to sense is a bullet in the brain. I'm actually a very sensitive guy. It's true. I love my country. I love my students as a teacher should. I see my nation as moral, and generous, and in the right in most situations. THIS I will fight for. It's the muddled thinking on the Left that I cannot abide. They are not morally superior. They do not have better ideas. And their sentiments are worth a bucket of warm spit. No! The Left must be defeated politically before their stupid ideas become policy. How many examples through history do we need before civilization understands that the proper response to tyranny is an overwhelming and violent counter-response? Sorry. I'm in one of my moods tonight.

The logo is...en fuego.

Mark,
Thanks.
You said what I was trying to say.

...I might have commented on the logo to the effect of "I like it", but I think Tom Blogical pretty much said it all for me.

Hey Mark, you might enjoy this little essay. It's tangentially related to your rant, since it's about recognizing danger and your options thereafter.

I'm in a bit of an odd, stormy mood myself today... maybe it's the weather hereabouts?

Without clear leadership and direction, this community may soon resemble that which it is designed to remedy. As a natural law, strong people of opinion and will usually break off into smaller, less sophisticated groups unless there are hard rules and laws holding it together. Power struggles and arguments can cause reasonable people to become unreasonable.
A grand experiment this will be. Do we want a Constitution in place before proceeding? Or at least some rules of engagement other than what we should all know by now?
Just a thought.
By the way, I am not the same Charles as some might think I am from other boards.

I'm taking a wait-and-see approach myself.

I've seen (and been part of) a lot of good communities and a lot of bad ones. I've seen some common characteristics amongst the failures and successes, but one other thing I've seen is that a plan for a community only lasts until first contact with the enemy. (Which is, in most groups, the group itself.)

Be reasonable and be respectful sound like good starting points for me. I'm also sure they won't last as the only tools the community leaders need in their toolbox- especially as it grows- but in my view it's generally best to start simple and fashion new tools as appropriate.

I'm thinking of a first ten laws type of start. The basics after the basics. As adults, we all know the golden rule, but any of us (especially in these times and for these purposes) would willingly hurl poop at the enemy. Lord knows I am guilty. Perhaps some standard rules of engagement?

Charles, good point. It is the rule of law that separates a (small'r') republican society from populist government (read: mob) or a mass movement led by the charisma of a single individual. I doff my hat to you, sir.

Labrat, I would love to read your link, but for some reason it's not "hot" from my computer. Also, when my dixleskia kicks in (or sometimes good American bourbon) I see your name as LaBrat. Not insinuating anything, from me it's actually a compliment.

Nor to mine when I go back over it. I don't know if I typoed it or what, but here's the cut-n-paste version:

http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2007/05/at-core.html

Powers That Be, feel free to nuke it or alter it if it's throwing off scroll.

La Brat might be apt... I'm told I'm a little younger than some of the folks here. (Who can I smack with my yo-yo?)

Rules of engagement would require a lot of thought and no little experience... the point is very well taken, I'm just very, well, conservative when it comes to pre-setting bounds for community conduct that aren't the obvious.

Though maybe that's my cue to start digging up some other links to past Resources of Interest when it comes to group dynamics.

Charles,
That constitution thing...
I think we have one.
Only the people here seem to have actually read and understood it.
Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

OK as far as the logo...I think it would be cool if you make it look a bit more like the rebel alliance symbol. You already have roundedness to it so all it needs is refinement.

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/Rebel-Alliance.jpg
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/bingo275/menuREBEL1.jpg

Regarding leadership and so on...

See, the fact is I'm being greedy here. I get to test-fly ideas in the comments and get some feedback prior to really unveiling something, so apologies to the bleeding edge for being my test subjects.

So think of one of these comment sections as being three posts ahead of the curve. The time will hopefully come when I can produce the content fast enough to close that gap, but right now, it is incredibly valuable for me to get a guage on what people are thinking prior to finalizing an essay on a particular topic.

As soon as I post the lead essay, I want to discuss what kind of a society best suits 21st century life. I do see a constitution of sorts. I think that some kind of printed statement of priniples is what is needed to keep things together. That will be up for discussion, as will everything else.

Looking just past the introduction, however, I think the first issue will be CITIZENSHIP. I see this sharing of info being available to all at no obligation whatsoever. However, the decisions I see being made only by 'virtual citizens.' And - again, getting ahead of myself here - I am interested in what the requirements of citizenship would be.

There is much to think about there, but I will state one condition I am leaning strongly toward advocating, and that is this: self-identification.

Let me explain: I think that so much of the snark and sheer unhinged quality of web comments -- that is, trolls -- comes from the anonymity of their position. People do very strange things when they are in disguise.

I'm floating the idea of citizenship requiring that a person 'sign' their real-world name and general location, followed by a verifiable e-mail address.

For instance, my name is Bill Whittle, I live in Los Angeles and you van reach me at bill@ejectejecteject.com.

I understand that there may be some excellent security reasons not to do so, and that it does add some particle of danger for the 'citizen' to self-identify in this way.

With that said, consider that the open acceptance of such danger is a form of courage, and defiance, too -- and I think we need a LOT more of that open defiance. It not only builds morale, it complicates the terrorists targeting solution if they all of a sudden realize that not everyone out there is afraid of them.

Just some thoughts. As usual, I'm learning a lot.

My name is Stanfred Paul Ely.
(After my dad Fred and the apostle)
I live in Houston, Tx.
You can reach me at daddyquatro@hotmail.com.

PS
Don't call me Stanley!
That ain't my name.

LabRat, the link is now good, but the analogy to present circumstances is false. There's nowhere to run. The planet is fully populated. The last people to escape contemporary society for life in uncharted territory were the assorted English, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Germans, Scots, Irish, various Slavs, assorted Mediterraneans, a handful of Chinese, and Africans under duress who made it to America. The globe filled up two-hundred years ago. There's nowhere else to go (at least in the foreseeable future). As for the mythical puppet masters, I wonder how a rear haunch would taste after six or seven hours under mesquite and barbeque sauce? There's a good reason why herbivores flee at the sight of danger. They're food for the rest of us. When I grin in the mirror, I notice incisors meant for tearing meat. The "organic" man that I am (please, sir, could I have more bugs in my gruel?), the environmentalist, my inner child of nature demands "natural" food. Did you know that animal sinew provides for "natural" tooth floss? And it tastes good, too. I once killed and ate a liberal, but I found her . . . bitter. *Snark* Guess it's time for me to go.

The nature of the Internet is very much decentralized. I agree wholeheartedly about the anonymity giving a shield.

I've never had a problem signing my real name, and often do so. I'm sure plenty of others do have trouble, though -- But then, there's definitely something to giving people that sort of responsibility for their words ...

I just don't know if people would do it. There's not really any feasible ways to verify, unless it's something like requiring a credit card? Check an address via the Post Office (I know some online delivery places do this)?

There has to be something different with Ejectia, whether in the real names or tools or whatever it may be. I'm just not yet sure of what that may be.

Mark,
I've found that a brief soak in milk will soften the bitterness.

If this "community" will require a real name and basic location, this is one "citizen" who will have to move elsewhere. I don't give my real name out on blogs, or online communities or even web sites (unless it's a place I am buying from and can trust), any more than I would give out personal information over the phone, or my social security number.

Well, my real name and a reliable email addee is in my info here on this comment, and my other one up yonder ^

I live in Alexandria, Virginia. And anonymity is indeed the source of internet snark, for the same reasons that getting into a car turns nice normal people into complete baboons. "I'm not me, I'm somebody else. Therefore I can act like a moron and get away with it!"

Mr. Paules: That was one heck of a paragraph you posted there.

I know the main thrust of the worry around here concerns the rot of our society's insides being from the elite "top" down -- from the public mouthpieces of modern liberalism down to the bulk of American society. While that scares me as well, it's all so looney that I have a hard time really believing it to be the primary source of rot.

Maybe it's just a perspective thing, but doing what I do, I'm more worried about the decay from the bottom. Spend a week observing the criminal justice system up close, and there's one thing you can't miss: an absolute lack of a fundamental respect for others. I'm not just talking about a respect for authority -- the loss of that is a given that whole swaths of society now take pride in. I mean a absence of a basic respect for others as people. Forget debating rudely. Have ya'll viewed the video on CNN.com of the 91-yr-old WWII vet who was savagely beaten in a carjacking? As a prosecutor, I've seen some viscious stuff, but that video left me speechless. The kicker? A group of 5-6 other people were a mere two parking spaces away watching this happen, and did NOTHING! It's all well and good (and noble and worthwhile, for sure!) to fight and win the battle of ideas as Bill is calling us to do, but what about the ever-growing piece of our social pie that thinks the Rule of Law (rightfully cherished here) is nothing but a Tool of The Man? I ask ya'll, who's the more serious threat to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for those of us who love life here inside the walls of civilization? the O'Donnell's/Moore's/Sheehan's and the rest of the "Truthers" crowd of the looney left or the architects and purveyors of the hip-hop culture with its "Stop Snitchin'" campaign?

I'm floating the idea of citizenship requiring that a person 'sign' their real-world name and general location, followed by a verifiable e-mail address.

Unfortunately, someone else may make a comment that gets E3 or Ejectia declared a Hate Site by the PC Nazis. We have reached the point where the operative definition of 'racist' is 'winning an argument with a leftist'. By not posting my real name here, I deprive them of the ability to tell my employer that I'm putting the company in a bad light by being a Hater.

I haven't gone to great lengths to hide my name. You can follow that link for the E! cube I threw together the other day and find part of my name. Within minutes, you'd have the full name. I freely tell people I'm in Kansas City, KS, that The Bride of Monster works across the line in Misery, and that we have a Schneagle (Schnauser-Beagle mix) who is ready to join AARD (American Association of Retired Dogs) now that Monsterette 2 has graduated high school and will be off to college in a few months, and she won't have any sheep to protect from the wolves. But I haven't said where college is, nor where in MO TBoM works. And I won't. I can't be there to defend them.

As a former BBS sysop, I draw the line at Nymity. A person has to have a nick that is responsible for their words. I am willing to let the comments of my online persona stand or fall based on their own merits. I believe that I have developed a reputation for contributing positively to various online communities (I have excellent karma at Slashdot.) I am willing to disclose to you personally what my name is. I've sent you email that identifies me by name, discussing the alt text techie thing.

I'll gladly set up an account that requires a password to prove that I'm "The Monster", but if I have to post my name here, I'll have to constantly think about what some Guys in Ties (at the parent company's HQ in a country known for Multi-Culti insanity -- does the acronym ASBO ring a bell?) who have never met me would think if my name were associated with a controversy. And that would have a chilling effect on me. I'd probably have to decline to participate just to be safe.

Skye, it's not a rule...it's a proposal. What do you see as the risks?

Oh! Hi monster. There they are.

I, too, agree with Bill's assessment that anonymity breeds the courage to be crass. When I had a blog, I practiced what I preached, shedding the shield of anonymity for honesty. Then I got fired. Doh!

Now, I don't blog anymore. But I refuse to totally cower in fear of the past resurrecting itself. So . . . my name is Lance Salyers, I live in Ohio (c'mon: given my profession, that's as specific as I will get), and me email is plain as the name that goes with my face: lancesalyers@hotmail.com.

Well, for one thing, Bill, I play on a mud...and one of the youngsters once told me I was so conservative that if he ever met me in person, he'd be OBLIGATED to kill me. Had I known HIS name, my next action would have been to call the FBI.

There are very few people on the internet to whom I entrust my real name. You happen to be one, as is Misha, but that's only in email.

Just because a person gives a real name and address doesn't guarantee the person isn't a nut-job. Does the name Deb Frisch ring a bell?

Well, see? This is how we learn things.

Is there a compromise position? Do my initial requirements make sense from a moral if not practical point of view?

There's always the Slashdot.org model. Stories are often user-submitted, with editors approving certain ones. Users earn good or bad kharma, which is doled out by random users who get "moderator points" (if I remember all that correctly).

Sounds complex, and I'm not sure exactly what you're thinking of, Bill, but it works well for that site.

They offer the code at http://slashcode.com.

Many fora ask that you use a real name when you register, but it's never displayed anywhere viewable by anyone but the admin.

I agree with Monster... I've been using this same moniker all over the blogosphere since 2002 or so, and although someone else can imitate my nick (just like they could my real name), there's a reputation that attaches to it. Likewise, anyone willing to do a little spadework can find my real name easily enough... I just don't want it easily Googleable.

You'll still get shapeshifting trolls, but some expectation of being responsible for your words goes a long way in a group.

Bill: Yes . . . yes . . . yes. Look, as I've said: I've been there and done that, and yet I STILL think there's something morally worthwhile in being willing to stand up and be named. When the Redcoats were running amok in the Colonies, the patriots of old had to make a choice: stand up and be counted among the member of the Continentals. Covert ops have a place and a time, but at some point, they must yield to an open force of boots who must advance and occupy the territory formerly taken by the other side. Perhaps Bill's thought experiment isn't that time . . . but it's certainly not a notion that is beyond the pale. If all we're willing to do is take our best shots (and judging but the sampling here, they are some good shots indeed) from behind the shield of anonymity, then are we really doing anything more than playing an intellectual-version of a civilization game? Say what you will about Cindy Sheehan, but you gotta give her this much respect: she's put her face, name, and reputation on the line for what she believes. Dismiss everything else about her, but I dare not dismiss that.

My moral obligation, as I see it, is for me to treat people I have never been afraid to speak mas I believe God wants me to treat them. It matters not what my name is in that regard.

If I were a jerk, I would BE a jerk, real name or no.

I understand the part about anonymity emboldening those who would otherwise not say things that might get them injured/killed. I also find it interesting that, so far, only men have spoken up with their real names and locations.

Sorry. That didn't turn out right...it should read: I have a moral obligation to treat people as I believe God wants me to treat them.

I messed up with moving stuff around.

Hmm... My last comment is set for moderation.

The thing about real names is that there's no easy way to verify it's their real name, except perhaps the credit card idea--even if with the public seeing a nickname instead of the real name. Otherwise, odds are pretty good people will just write "Mick E Mouse" instead of a real name.

LabRat, on those forums I don't know, if I register at all, I will simply use Skye Child. 8-)

If I don't know or trust the "operator," I won't be giving my real name out even in registration. 8-)

Bill,
I'm already "all in". I've been DaddyQ for years. My fingerprints are all over the innertubes.
I can understand the reluctance of some. I've had that reluctance myself. But there come's a time to stand up.
As the name implies, I am the father of four. Will something that we say here put their lives in danger? If that is so, then the need is all the more urgent.

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

I don't know if there's a solution. I won't give out a credit card number, either...no ssan, no driver's license number.

It's a dilemma, for sure. I don't mean to be difficult, but I value my privacy...a lot...especially in the global world of the internet.

Man!
Preview didn't show me those weird characters.
Dougman!
Don't you make me pull this car over!

I should be to bed, but Lance desereves an answer. I thank you, sir, for calling me Mr. Paules. I demand the same from my students. To you from now on, participant in this place, I am Mark. Or Mark P will do. Your points, all of them, are valid. A campaign against vulgarity, obscenity, and vernacular speech is something that should be part of the program. Polite speech is a characteristic of civilized society. And here's how you deal with it. When you're met with vulgar speech, you respond as follows: "I beg your pardon?" If you are met with more vulgarity, try again: "I beg your pardon, sir." At this point you have the high ground. The underclass, (or transient liberals) those who use this form of speech, recognize superior moral authority. Follow up with something like, "There are ladies and children present, you need to watch your language, sir." I tell you from experience, it works. Don't let down on the little things, and the bigger things (usually) will follow. You don't need a gun in the culture war (not yet, anyway). You just need to stand firm for what is right, what is civil, and a modicum of polite speech. Make your stand there. It's a good start.

Thank You, sir. Mark it is then.

Think Web 2.0...

Bill, have you considered a wiki for Ejectia.com? If we're teaching each other our best traits... this might let us create a database of knowlege.

Or what about video hosting? A YouTube-style collection of instruction videos?

As far as Rules.... my vote is for a minarchy, with a basic set of ground rules. Don't Tread On Me. And nothing but freedom beyond that.

Just so my previous post doesn't get lost in the aether:

There's always the Slashdot model. Stories are often user-submitted, with editors approving certain ones. Users earn good or bad kharma, which is doled out by random users who get "moderator points" (if I remember all that correctly).

Sounds complex, and I'm not sure exactly what you're thinking of, Bill, but it works well for that site.

They offer the code at http://slashcode.com.

Hmm.. lots of good arguments about the brazenness of anonymity vs. the potential misuse of identifying information. It seems somewhat against the whole concept for the civility level to be maintained through comment moderation, though at some level, that will probably have to be done, no matter what.

Mr. Paules also brings up a point which I have thought about in the past: What kind of rules of address can you have in an online community? While some people let their inner personalities out online, I either have buried any inner personality so deep that it doesn't come out, or I just don't have one. My normal personality is shy and introverted, though susceptible to being drawn into conversation, but I suffer from uncertainty in how to address people. Usually I default to their entire posted nickname, but sometimes this seems overly formal, and other times the person has chosen something overly long which becomes clumsy when trying to identify them in a response to their posting.

Finally, Mr. Paules, in a much earlier comment, shook loose the source of a reaction I had when I first looked at the logo Bill posted. It reminded me, not of a Spartan shield, but of the helmet, and I couldn't quite place it, but now the tugging at the corner of my mind is relieved when I look at it.

"There they are."

I am not quite able to grasp the meaning of this sentence.

The Monster, he was referring to the reasons you gave NOT to give real names.

Couple of points:

1) I think a registration is a fine idea (like over @ the Rott) so only "I" can be "me".

2) I think that giving our real names to the admin (Bill) is also acceptable - Like Skye, I have given this to Misha and (though so long ago he probably doesn't have it anymore) to Bill.

3) Not all of us can just put our stuff out on the intertubes - if it were just me, I might not worry about it, but I have MuscleBaby to think about - and I've thrown enough spanners into the works of enough bad-guys in enough foreign countries for that to be something of a consideration - even with a little time/distance.

4) Credit card verification doesn't bother me - since I'll be buying a few copies of the book as birthday presents, our host will have access anyway.

Doing what I do, I know that our private information isn't nearly as private as we'd like to believe - having it is usually a matter of looking for it. But here's the thing: The hardest step in that is the FIRST step - knowing WHO you're looking FOR.

So, no publicly-posted names for me, please.

Need me personally & we'll find a way...

- MuscleDaddy

BTW, when I was playing with the E! cube, I did something like this but thought Rush Limbaugh might think it looked too much like his EIB logo. Funny that others think like I do (both of the design and the similarity to EIB)

Skye- me, neither. I just happen to trust this particular host, just as I did the few times I've done that.

Like I said, I have at least one raving lunatic in my life, so I understand the urge to at least basically protect privacy.

I do like the idea of some registration system to ensure that (name) is actually (name), to what extent that CAN be done.

And, well, moderation was a given so far as I was concerned... what's being proposed won't and can't operate as an anarchy.

I have no problem with registration. I just don't want to publish my real name. Simple as that.

I think I figured out what's creeping people out about the round E!3 logo. It's got a touch of that National Socialist "Eingekreistes Hakenkreuz" flavor with a dash of Cylon Raider (cross between old- and new-school) thrown in.

Because who is even less human than Nazis? Actual killing machines!

But I do so want to see it on Spartan shields.

Bill, your admiration for James Lileks (hope I spelled it correctly...) is somewhat like my admiration for you and your ability to put things into word form that makes so much damned sense it hurts. And well it should. You chortled way back when I first commented on, I think it was TRIBES, that you were very "succinct" in your writing, that you didn't remember anyone saying that about your writing before. Well, I still think so. I just wish I had that writing ability.

I wish, also, I had your optimism about the future of America. You responded to a comment that 2/3 of Democrats think that GWB probably had something to do with 9/11 and 15% of Repubs think so and that is not a healthy mix for US. My wife and I were talking after the last of our parents passed away about 3 yrs ago. The subject was something about the current culture and we had realized for some time that it wasn't the same America our parents, The Greatest Generation, the "World War II Generation", gave us baby-boomers to take care of and take to the "future". We've really screwed it up, but hopefully, not terminally. I know God has had His hand on America since He planted her generations ago (I reference Peter Marshall's two books on that subject), but as we've seen around the world, He can't stop all the bad stuff and bad people. He won't violate our human will even when it is absolutely horrific in its intentions (i.e. the Holocaust). I think it all started with my generation, the 60's generation. Yeah, Bubba's generation. At least I've got a couple months on him, birthday wise, so at least I'm his "elder" for what that's worth. The "if it feels good, do it" generation. Egad, were we stupid! Still are, in too many respects. Haven't learned a thing, from what I read in some comment sections on some blogs, and letters to the editor of our local newspaper, in a disturbingly blue (southern) county in otherwise red Colorado. And, now, being a "red" state makes no sense since we turned over our state government (both houses and the governorship) to the Democrats and two federal congressional seats in the last election.

Anyway, I thoroughly enjoy your essays, Bill. Looking anxiously forward to the Global Warming installment, whenever it spills forth. Kudos, Bill, a generous round of applause, and God's Speed.

I have to agree with Skyechild and The Monster. No names from me. If that means I have to exist as a lurker or miss out then so be it. I cannot risk the damage to the career, others depend on me to provide. And there are those who have been harmed just because they tend to have non-mainstream opinions even on subjects supposedly protected by the Constitution's 2nd Amendment. If someone who has the power disagrees with your viewpoints they can and do harm you even with passive agressive means - deny the job, deny the raise, deny the promotion. I have seen the supposedly enlightened do harm through sheer blindness.

I know that this society is threatened. A few voices being silenced may make the difference. Why allow the enemy to do that harm more easily? What kind of protector would that be, what kind of sheepdog?

This thing we call civilization is a truly thin veneer. The world really is fang, tooth and claw. Those who would convince us to the contrary while rending flesh from the innocent are the problem and I do not wish to let them make me less effective with what I consider false bravado.

The Hobo

Well, many interesting responses here, and I just received a very compelling email from a woman who, much as she would like to use her own name, is being harrassed by a stalker type. These are exactly the kind of well-reasoned responses that instantly make me realize I have made an error and cause me to change my mind.

My original thought would be people would be concerned about a violent attack by enraged strangers. I find people like Charles Johnson, Michelle Malkin, and so on to be the canary in the coalmine regarding that sort of threat, and me personally certainly at a layer of risk above people in the comment section regarding unhinged leftists or Jihadi wanna-bes.

However, what I did not count on was the much more common and petty sort of actions that could be taken by employers, co-workers and general buttheads who can and do trivial, passive-aggressive things that cause much damage. Since I certainly don't want to leave out anyone, it seems smart to withdraw that as a requirement. There is also the screen nic reputation, which I had also not fully considered. (GHS would probably agree with this, even though by unlucky providence Great Hairy Silverback is his actual given name.)

And I have NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to even think about "verifying" any of this through credit cards or any other means. The very suggestion of such a thing made the hair on my neck stand on end.

How does "recommended but not required" sit? Do you feel it would put an unwanted onus on someone who chooses a nickname for valid personal reasons?

Bill, after much consideration, I'm coming firmly down on both sides.

There are real risks in using real names. I respect the people that would prefer nymity. Some vile things have been written under real names (Mein Kamph, The Communist Manifesto) while The Federalist Papers were written by Publius.

In this forum, I don't care if someone is a dog. I want to be convinced by the power of their ideas.

But I think civility is best preserved when those participating have something at risk. A nom de keyboard must not be a transient thing. The rules of behavior are enforced on EBay through reputation, and a reputation takes time and effort to build.

So I'd propose

1) Allowing registration with either a real name or a nick.

2) Granting citizenship incrementally. The longer one is registered, the more other citizens give plaudits to ones posts, the more bandwidth is earned. A new registrant would be limited to, say, only posting 200 charactors, once every other day. After 2 or 3 months he could post without restriction.

Of course, it would still have to be enforced with rare bannings, for the really patient trolls.

And since I can't spel to saev mi lief, a spell checker on whatever forum software you choose would be deeply appreciated.

Dear Richard,

LOVE the idea of an ebay-type credibility thing. Don't like the idea of limiting postings.

I also have serious reservations about 'degrees' of 'in-ness.' (Not that you're suggesting that.) Citizens and Visitors - that's it. Otherwise there is a kind of MENSA "my IQ is higher than yours" kind of silliness.

I like the idea of everything being open to anyone, but decision-making, main-page submissions, etc. being limited to registered "citizens" simply so that some idiot can't go to Kos or wherever and 'load a vote' with ten million hits from peopple who have not been here before and will never come back again.

The collary to the idea of citizen privileges is, of course, citizen responsibilities. What would those consist of?

Frankly, being reasonable and well-mannered is an enormous start - it may be enough in and of itsself. But my experience has been the harder something is to achieve, the more it is worth. Should it just be given away? Or should there be some requirement for service done in the real world?

By that standard active duty military personnel and veterans would automatically be in, and I am 100% fine with that. It gets to Heinlein now, and that is not a bad place to start.

Or should there be some requirement for service done in the real world?

That could be ONE way to gain citizenship, but it must not be the ONLY way. Otherwise Rachel, SDB, You and I might not qualify.

I'm intrigued by the concept of real-world service. I think it's a good idea, but I'm left wondering what kind of service might qualify? Yes, military service, obviously, and police and firefighters... physicians and nurses... but what else would be acceptable service?

Also I've got to add my voice to those who prefer Nymity to real names. "Getting dooced" is the least of our potential problems, in an era where 7th century thugs willingly slam planes into buildings and saw off the heads of innocents on videotape. I wouldn't have any issue with going through a verification process, but I don't give my name out frequently or lightly. In other words, the casual troll lurking in the waters around Ejectia should not have the same access to one's real name as the trusted friend who lives therein.

Pirate King wrote: Yes, military service, obviously, and police and firefighters... physicians and nurses... but what else would be acceptable service?

How about being PRODUCTIVE by inventing, developing, and making things that work? That is just as life giving and life saving as the professions you suggest. Perhaps even more so because without the necessary tools and methods, the helping and protective professions could not help or protect.

While not as primary, being a merchant, distributor, or even a peddler is life giving and life saving. We all need stuff to live and they make it easier for use to get it.

I would include all who do something to EARN their keep by giving value for value - whatever those values may be. I would exclude all who simply exist as a beggar or parasite living off the productive efforts of others.

Not only should one be willing to take responsibility for one's words, one should also take responsibility for one's life.

A crazy idea maybe this is, but i'll throw it out there anyway.

The 'cell' system works so well for the islamists because there is no one data base for all the operatives.

The smart people can take it from here.

Modifying Richard Riley's suggestion just a bit, how's this for a suggestion:

Turn on registration and require logging in to be able to post comments (viewing posts or comments would be for everyone). Then add a rating system whereby other registered users can give a vote up or down either once per day or once per posting. Once someone reaches some rating level to be determined later, their comments have to be cleared by a moderator before they get posted.

Of course, this has the potential for being abused, but so does everything of this nature. The bonus is that mods would have the ability to see if someone is being hammered out of proportion to the reactions to their posts, and could readjust the rating accordingly. Thus, while a dedicated troll attack (which could also be seen behind the scenes as such if votes are recorded along with user ids) could send someone to moderation purgatory, it would only be a temporary condition.

Though it appears that Bill has decided to discard the notion of self-identification, please allow me one more post on the matter, with the caveat that I certainly understand people's reticence to the idea.

Nevertheless . . .

This is an issue I have thought about often in the course of what I do. Forget getting fired for blogging. So hard as that was to deal with, God saw me and my family (yes, I have both Wife and Child) through that ordeal and I now have a new and better job.

What I'm talking about is the job itself: standing in court, accusing murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and thugs of all sorts of doing the things that make them murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and thugs of all sorts. Of course, this is all done in public, with my name on the record for any and all who care. I'm not the only one, either: the judge who sentences these characters does so from a bench that bears his/her name for all to see. It can become unnerving if thought about, so I try to avoid the thoughts. Yet, I'm certainly no hero for doing this, as the risk of reprisal is exponentially more imaginary than real, and one is not a hero for overcoming unrealistic fears.

That title -- hero -- does apply to a different group, though, who fight evil without the kevlar vest of anonymity. Bill's opening stanza to Sanctuary hit the nail on the head. To a soldier, the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces wear not only the uniform, but also their name proudly upon their chest. Police officers do the same. Understanding that doing so gives evildoers another angle from which to attack, these men and women nevertheless man the wall as named citizens. In the fight of Good vs. Evil, anonymity is usually the tool of the other side, whether in fiction (think the nameless, faceless StormTroopers) or in grim reality (black-hooded Hamas hoodlums; white-hooded Klansmen thugs).

Again, let me restate that I understand the reasons for internet anonymity, and this comment was not written with any other single commenter in mind. And I'm not saying that anonymity is only for the evil and cowardly, so I hope nobody takes this that way. It's just that I think there'something noble about those who fight for the Good doing so at a risk, however small and unrealistic those risks may be in reality.

I love the idea. I'll be a part of it if I can.

I cannot participate in any meaningful way in a forum that will result in my real name showing up on a google search. You will exclude LARGE numbers of people if that is a requirement. I'd be happy to disclose my identity in private, but not in public.

I don't like the rating systems either. They always turn into either a joke, a popularity contest, or both.

What I've found works much better is a strong code of conduct, and a dedicated moderating team willing to stand by their guns and enforce that code. Trolls get identified and smacked down, heated discussions conducted in a polite manner are allowed, and no one is allowed to leave negative feedback for another member for frivolous reasons. Such things, and the complaints that ensue, are a moderator's neverending hell. It is better to have mods wielding a big stick in the background, whacking moles as they pop up.

I'm not sure I like the "vote up or down" idea. That's what happens at Digg, and Kos. It lends itself to all sorts of abuses, in my opinion. Not everyone in a community is well-liked, and often the message gets buried by those who have an axe to grind or simply don't like the person.

In almost every "society" or "community," the weak ones often get picked apart by the stronger ones. I see that in forums, on blogs, on muds, in families, etc., anywhere people are present. It's life, but it doesn't have to be encouraged.

Hey, on a different note, does anyone else have a problem with the "Remember Personal Info" selection in the comments not working? I have set it to allow cookies, so it should work, but it doesn't seem to.

Wayne: yes, I'm having the same problem as well.

I never have "remember personal info" work for me on any site, so I ignore it. I do have cookies turned on.

Lance says:

"That title -- hero -- does apply to a different group, though, who fight evil without the kevlar vest of anonymity."

Even our military, police, and firefighters have protection: Kevlar vests, helmets, guns, fireproof gear. They don't go out unprotected. While they do "heroic" things, they do them by choice.

Contrast that to the Holocaust survivor who barred the door at VT while a gunman fired from the other side. He had no kevlar vest, no flame-retardant suit, no gun. He was an ordinary man making an extraordinary sacrifice. In my mind, THAT is a hero.

Skye:

I couldn't agree with you more regarding the heroism of that professor, but I must confess I understand neither the "contrast" as against soldiers/cops/etc. nor the relevancy of the reference. This issue, at least as far was what I was writing about, isn't about actual armor, but the sense of security that one draws from anonymity. Anonymity was no more an issue for that professor regarding the situation he faced than was the color of his socks.

Lance, you're right. That was pretty much a straw man.

And I have NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to even think about "verifying" any of this through credit cards or any other means. The very suggestion of such a thing made the hair on my neck stand on end.

Well, requiring real names without any sort of verification would have been silly. ;)

Yes, I know that there are very real concerns about stalkers, careers, internet thugs, al Queda, or if Big Bad Government wants a "central depository" list of names.

I'm saddened that so many ~say~ they want to do something, but not willing to put it on the line -- apparently even if the real name is hidden from public view. It appears as though we're letting fear control our lives.

It seems to me either we have something special here and need to make it as much, or all this high-concept talk serves for little and Bill should just throw up a forum and let it become like the millions of others out in the Interaether.

I, for one, am tired of boards full of Guy Fawkes-masked citizens who can throw virtual bombs and rename themselves so long as they have enough email accounts. Creating a real-life verification system could add weight to what someone says, as it shows they're "real" and not simply one-of-ten different nicks owned by some self-fancied teenage anarchist.

Perhaps the answer would be a badge of some sort to show a person has gone through the verification process (even if the real name is hidden). But, as I said, if there's no way to verify (like credit card, a letter with a code mailed to the address, etc), then it's all just silly talk.

-Eric

Hello everyone!
I do not want to change the thread of this discussion, but I wanted to post this before Bill took this page down. I would like to thank everyone for their comments (favorable as well as unfavorable) regarding the E!3 logo. All of them are fascinating. The symbol is of course an illusion. It means only what one takes it to mean. I think Mark P came closest to describing it the way I see it. It is a Mandala. Here is how Jung describes it."... Only gradually did I discover what the mandala really is:
'Formation, Transformation, Eternal Mind's eternal creation'
(Faust, II). And that is the self, the wholeness of the personality,
which if all goes well is harmonious, but which cannot tolerate
self-deceptions." C. G. Jung
Now, pardon me and pray continue!
Svinrod

Actually, I don't think requiring/requesting self-identification without verification is all that silly. I don't think Bill's point was to prove who's who, but rather provide a mechanism whereby people of virtue who advocate virtue can put their money where their mouth is, so to speak.

In a community such as what has been talked about here, I think the honor system shouldn't be so easily dismissed. Without credit card verification (perish the thought!), is it possible for posers to defy the system? Sure. But that deception is one that such a person must live with. Call me naive, but I think that will be increasingly hard for somebody who genuinely wants to meaningfully participate in this experiment, knowing that others in the community -- starting with Bill Whittle himself on down -- are practicing no such deception.

And while it's true that Hamilton, Madison, and Jay penned the Federalist Papers under the psuedonym of "Publius," such anonymity wasn't used as a shield out of fear. Rather, it was a public-relations tool to focus the reader's attention on the message, rather than the messenger. When it came time to cast off anonymity and sign the Constitution advocated by those essays, Hamilton and Madison did just that, while John Jay lent his name to the endeavor as the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

To all those who raised the daddy and career concerns; I resemble that remark.

Although I have been reading Mr. Whittle's essays for a years and usually browse the comments, I don't recall seeing a problem with trolls or lack of civility. I went back and scanned a random sampling of the comments in the archives and I also do not see a significant variance in the content or civility of comments made in what appears to be real names versus nicknames. (It is possible some screening has been done and only those experiencing them in real time saw the worst.)

In fact, what I saw was a community I wanted to join if they would have me. The essays provided the spark and a generous pile of starting wood and then the discussion were well reasoned, far ranging and civil. If anything, when I was trying to follow a thread of discussion, there was sometimes so much positive feedback for Mr. Whittle mixed in it was tough to keep track of an interesting discussion.

The only exception to this rule would be posting by and references to one nickname, Dougman. Dougman's was playing a role I had not seen before. Almost like a court jester, comments by and references to Dougman intermixed into very serious discussions made the whole more enjoyable.

If the archives I so enjoyed are the result of diligent defense from the trolls, then some means of limiting the time required for that defense must be made. With no limit on the number of aliases a troll could assume, some means of restricting registration is required.

(270 Words. Dam you Dougman!)

People live with the self-deception every day. In fact, some people thrive on it, and I don't doubt as more grow up with the anonymity of the Internet it will become more frequent.

I don't know. Your suggestion may work. Then again, it may go the way it has with the Volokh Conspiracy unsucessfully trying to ban a troll named Revonna Laschatze (I'd post a link, but it would put my message into the moderation queue).

With all due respect to Mr. Whittle, and the intelligent people in this thread who are probably of the sort with whom I'd happily form a real-life community, I simply don't have time or energy for just another internet board.

Do I want to have to verify myself? Not especially. But if from that truly small price comes something really great, it's well worth the cost. Your mileage may vary.

I actually agree that a good solution would be diligent moderation, and had thought of suggesting that originally, but suggested a version of a rating system because it would drastically reduce the moderation overhead, and I am concerned that if the Ejectia community expands the way I think many of us would like to see it do, then there would be a huge workload for moderators.

However, if there are enough moderators available, I would actually prefer a human hand in determining what's acceptable, especially if it is subject to review by the moderator's peers.

Okay, this entire idea is losing altitude FAST. Pull up, pull up!

Some of you (Bill included) need to step back and reconsider what you're proposing...

What started as an interesting idea has turned into something just short of authoritarian.

So now to have citizenship in this "free" community I have to qualify? According to Bill...

"...should there be some requirement for service done in the real world?

By that standard active duty military personnel and veterans would automatically be in, and I am 100% fine with that."

Sorry. Tried wearing the uniform, found it wasn't for me. Am I disqualified? And exactly who makes that decision anyway?

Military personnel automatically in? So now this idea is eerily close to both authoritarianism AND militarism. Forgive me, but putting on a color-coordinated uniform does not "automatically" make you god among men.

Individuals should be judged based on what they DO, how they LIVE. And that is why I will no longer be involved in this virtual concept-- the real world is much more interesting, thank you. There are spaceships to build.

I want to say I'm not going to take all my toys and leave if you don't like the ideas. I just want to emphasize that I think we have a special group here and need to arise to the occasion. That may not involve a real-life link.

The key thing to remember is that no matter what choice is made here by Bill, there will always be someone who doesn't like it and runs off.

I tried posting this idea last night a couple times, but it kept getting sent to moderation (I presume because it had links in it):

The idea is to take the slashcode.com software and make an Ejectia form of Slashdot. That involves kharma, self-moderation and a few editors to approve of stories.

But then, I don't know what Bill had in mind for all this. :)

Sincerely,

-Eric

Forgive me, Mr. DeKraker, but I think you're read into Bill's deference to military service an exclusion against those who haven't served that just isn't there. Saying military service would alone be sufficient for "citizenship" (whatever that means) is not to say that it is also necessary. One doesn't lead to the other, as the rhetoricians might say.

That said, your swipe at military service was unnecessary to make your point. Volunteering to serve involves more than merely "putting on a color-coordinated uniform" on a magnitude so great as to defy measurement. In short, it means a man or woman is willingly stepping to the front of the line to face whatever's "out there," so that those of us in the back can be free to worry instead about the mundane matters of modern life. That willingness to run the risk in my place is nothing to be scoffed at.

I think we may be getting a little bit ahead of ourselves. Our little corner IS going to evolve and change and need new things and turn into unexpected things, given. Right now our real problem is fairly simple: decide on an acceptable means of making trolling difficult and/or more trouble than it's worth to the troller. I think a (not even necessarily huge) moderator team and a basic registration system that requires a login should take care of that, particularly if we can log IPs. SuperTroll may still be able to get through, but we may have to figure out how to kill that demon if and when he shows up rather than getting too draconian with the requirements of entry.

On one forum that I frequent, the subject and aims are much narrower- dog training and generally living happily and successfully with dogs. First, there is the actual, fully empowered moderation team- who are, so far as I'm aware, all people personally known and trusted by the board's owners and mostly if not entirely working animal professionals. Second, there is a group created by the owner designated as "senior" with some sub-designation; senior trainer, senior rescue, senior veterinarian, whatever. They're people who've been contributing knowledge and sound advice from their area of expertise to the board for years. Their status is earned, and advertised for new people looking for help so they have a little easier time recognizing who is speaking with the voice of experience and who might be claiming expertise they haven't got or just haven't demonstrated.

Perhaps we could implement a similar system here. One initial team of moderators of the known-and-trusted-by-Bill variety, and then as time goes on, a system of recognition for people who have reliably knowledgeably contributed that expertise to the community. Isn't that, after all, what the whole idea started out trying to capture? Anyone can claim to be military or a cop or an EMT or whatever, but restricting a system of recognition to people who have a record of contributing to Ejectia would cut down or eliminate both posers-of-opportunity and the debate over exactly what constitutes a productive life of service.

Lance-

I understand that the military example wasn't given as a "requirement"-- but my point was that using military service or any other stand-alone designator as an "all-access pass" is a silly solution.

I did not bring up military service-- Bill did.

I chose to focus on the military service example because so many on this site seem to revere the uniform beyond reason. Respect is one thing, reverence is another. We all know that history remembers many scumbags in uniform-- and yes, many more great individuals both civilian and service. Truth be told, I found Bill's statement that "military personnel are automatically in" to be a little unsettling. One doesn't lead to the other, as you yourself said-- and wearing a uniform doesn't make you morally special. That was my point.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to undermine this Ejectia idea-- I've supported E3 for years. Check the comments on original essays, all under my Real Name. "Silent America" is sitting on my bookshelf, bought and paid for. But the reason paid good money for that paperback was because it held Big Ideas-- "Trinity" is sweeping and grand and inspiring.

What I'm seeing though, is that sweeping broad optimism being replaced by pettiness. Pointless details, like what exact requirements we have to meet to participate here. Bill is at his best when he writes about timeless messages. I feel we're slipping away from that and I don't believe I want to be so involved anymore.

That is my opinion.

Lance,

I've done the cop-thing, and part of what keeps them protected, IN PLACE of anonymity, is actually the public acknowledgement of their status as a member of that...well...Tribe. That fraternal connection means that if you screw with a cop/DA/etc. in his home, you're screwing with the ENTIRE department - the entire SYSTEM.

In short, you refer to a situation in which anoymity is replaced by a state in which NO ONE INDIVIDUAL can be attacked or accosted without answering the consequences of a greater collective.

In contrast - we are desperate folks on the raggedy edge. Like-minded individuals, to be sure - but individuals, and without 'group' protections...and we must see to our own.

Eric,

I don't think anyone's protesting the notion of identifying ourselves privately (ie, to Bill for admin purposes), so long as those names are not available publicly.

Mr. DeKraker,

I must echo Lance - the "color-coordinated uniform" thing was unfair & unnecessary - no, wearing the uniform doesn't automatically make you a 'god among men', but it does mean that this is a person who has CHOSEN to put himself in harm's way so that others don't have to.

I think we can agree that this should be worth something.

LabRat,
I think registration & logging IPs might be the best idea - keeps the 'Multiple Addy' thing down. Beyond that, some standard moderatation and self-policing should do the trick - I think we're capable of identifying & beating-down trolls.

- MuscleDaddy

Benjamin -

Wearing a military uniform doesn't automatically make you anything. But it's as good a proxy as anything else I know of.

If you find that idea so offensive, you'll probably be offended by many of the conversations to come.

Ben (is it? may I?):

Points taken. However, I don't believe Bill's deference to military service had anything to do with a value judgment as to the godlike, moral specialty of the person wearing a uniform. Rather, I understood it to be a recognition that if you're wanting to form a virtual community around the notion of defending civilization from the onslaught of barbarism, then it makes practical sense to categorically welcome those who, by definition, volunteered to fight that fight in real life. That's all.

I agree with you, though, that it seems the trees are starting to hide the forest. I don't understand the need for elaborate plans and systems for moderating discussions, prohibiting trolls, and other minutiae that comes from running an online forum club. I didn't understand Bill's intention to be that . . . but, to be honest, I can't say I understand what it is supposed to be either. Perhaps all the committee talk would be best postponed until Bill actually releases his blueprint?

Richard -

Never claimed to find it "offensive." I did claim that I believe it's a silly way of judging people. One can disagree without being offended.

MuscleDaddy -

The "color-coordinated uniform" phrase I used wasn't to insult... I was merely saying that on the surface that's what a military uniform is. If you're going to make a judgment on an individual you have to go deeper than that first layer. That is all.

One thing I usually keep in the back of my head that helps me keep my sense of perspective:

Samuel Adams was a brewer.

If I envision these sorts of conversations taking place over beer and chips, rather than in a war room... offhand comments seem to matter a lot less and ideas are just early rough drafts.

And I think that's about where we're at, realistically.

Hey, it worked for the Sons of Liberty.

I apologize if I've helped make this more complex than Bill had intended.

Chalk it up as just one of many ideas? This ~is~ just a conversation of possibilities (though I wish it were over beer-n-chips, as LabRat suggests ;) ).

I have high-hopes for this, and am anxious to see what he has in mind.

MuscleDaddy:

True enough, but it's the badge and uniform that identify someone like yourself as a member of the tribe. But that would be true with or without the officer's name plate pinned to his breast. Ditto for U.S. soldiers: their distinctive uniform and Old Glory on their shoulder are all the jihadi needs to identify that soldier as an American target. But why the name plate?

I dare say that bearing one's name on the uniform invites accountability. If a citizen believes an officer to be behaving badly, he need only read the name off the pin to know who to report to a superior, the city council, a lawyer, or the media. With this lack of anonymity, responsibility doesn't evaporate into the ether as the identity of the person remains hidden within the collective group. I venture to say that if we gave our cops and soldiers face-covering helmets and nothing but serial numbers like "TK-421" (reference anyone?), the lack of individual accountability would soon lead to a degradation of the moral and ethical code that governs police and military conduct.

Again, the goons of Hamas or the KKK are prime examples. Their "uniforms" readily identify them as part of a larger tribe, with all the implications you suggest. But, because their sinister hoods hide their identity, they feel emboldened to commit all sorts of lunacy and atrocities, in daylight and full view of the public, no less.

I could go for a Boston Lager right about now.

Summary: My comment below breaks down to: Require Registration, Delay Activation, Monitor, Enable Citizen Reporting. Not too complicated, repressive, and in fact invisible when one is not a troll or temporally behaving like a troll.

Now, I would like to join LabRat and Mr. DeKraker for a Boston Lager.

Details: (If you need them.)
If requiring registration under a real name is off the table, how about adding other procedural constraints to hold back the hordes of trolls. While no single procedure or constraint bars troll entry, collectively they become a barrier which prevents being overrun by trolls. The objective is to set up something simple, with minimal time required to support an see how it goes.

Troll Defense: (please add, elaborate, comment, correct, etc.)
1. Only registered can comment.
2. 48 hour delay in registration.
- Move delay up and down as required
- This would limit a lot of the piling on and coordinated attacks because it would require forethought.
- This could be set very low for the initial registration when long time participants are just getting in, then increased to a much longer delay. Typically, topics here are not spur of the moment issues. To participate requires some investment of time and thought.
3. Moderators
- Selection and Procedures ? (I have no experience with this.)
4. Some means of citizens helping out along the lines of "If you see something, say something." Some location, comment zone, email, outside of the general conversation area, set up for this purpose.
5. ?

Hmm, different folks have different means and concerns.

But nearly all of us agree there must be some moderation and/or registration.

So, I'm thinking that using several available mechanisms gives more flexibility.

Here's one I know Bill wouldn't propose himself, so I will:

How about, when I buy my first copy of the 2nd edition, I request an ID then ? You have a "ship to" address, and some of my gelt. Real name not to be disclosed to anyone but Bill, but all postings under the same ID Bill provides.

I pay taxes as citizen of the USA, so the idea of paying for value received is not painful. Plus I get a really great book out of the deal as well.

But I recognize not everyone has the wherewithal to pay their way. So, additionally, any member in good standing could sponsor one additional member per month, subject, of course to email verification.

And new members might be added in eBay fashion as well. Use limited/reviewed postings at first, with stringent rules. After a few civilized posts, Bill elevates their privileges.

Of course, I write all of this without the slightest clue what the software can or cannot do :)

My $.02, with a discount for long-term members.

Bill, correct me if I read you wrong, but my understanding of your self-identification proposal was 1/3 about discouraging troll-like behavior and 2/3 a symbolic show of "open defiance" and a lack of fear of the barbarian hordes. If I am right about that, then all this talk of moderating and login ID's and multiple layers of protocol and forum board control is unecessary, if not counter-productive. The posting of one's true ID is supposed to be a SYMBOLIC gesture that discourages rude behavior, not a system built to prohibit bad manners.

Bill: am I missing your point?

Even though I'm not sold on the direction here, I couldn't help but play around with the logo. Link is here:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/bdekraker/E3/e3logo.jpg

Kind of has a superhero look to it, maybe?

My feeling as well, Lance... that it's better to punish bad behavior but, aside from a few initial steps (like login/registration), assume good. I do like the idea of being *able* to implement a registration activation waiting period in case of Kos-storms or some similar event, but I don't necessarily think it should be regular policy.

I'll stick around here because I love this place, but I do know that if I were examining an unfamiliar forum a several-day waiting period would severely put me off.

Bill's barely commented except to throw out a few ideas... busy man and all that. Most of this stuff has come from *us*.

Benjamin
Pretty cool! High-speed, low drag, excellent colors. Wont fit on a shield though. Glad to see you are still with us.
Here is another version I made before talking to Bill.
http://bp3.blogger.com/_z3FPhz-LoPc/Rkh71fx4UhI/AAAAAAAAAHk/rDX3p6bYREY/s1600-h/E3STARFINALj.JPG
Sorry if file is too big.
Svinrod

Mr. DeKraker,

Holy Crap!

Can you do that in Gold?

Maybe w/a black background?
(sweet, sweet Batsign stuff)

- MuscleDaddy

Mr. DeKraker,

I'll second MuscleDaddy's response. It does have a superhero feel.

Sure. Blue...

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/bdekraker/E3/e3logo.jpg

Gold...

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/bdekraker/E3/e3logo_gold.jpg

and Silver.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/bdekraker/E3/e3logo_silver.jpg

See, we're all friends here :P

Sure. My links flagged as spam-- remove the COPY from each link for the address....

Blue...

COPYhttp://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/bdekraker/E3/e3logo.jpg

Gold...

COPYhttp://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/bdekraker/E3/e3logo_gold.jpg

and Silver.

COPYhttp://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/bdekraker/E3/e3logo_silver.jpg

See, we're all friends here :P

Errr... I created the new images but the anti-spam software doesn't like my links. Go to the linked image above, try images "e3logo", "e3logo_gold" and "e3logo_silver". That should work.

See we're all friends here :P

Citizens of Ejectia!
I have been thinking about the Virtual aspect of our City State and about how it can be made into reality. I see no reason that a virtual entity cannot have a real treasury at its disposal. My model for this is somewhat along the lines of a tax free corporation such as NRA-ILA. It accomplishes 3 things. Defines the role of citizen's rights, their responsibilities, and discourages trolldom. See the contribution button on Bill's sight? Ejectia! shall have a similar button. I propose a "pay to post system" that will provide the following benefits to citizens.
1)Funds generated by posters can be used to maintain the site and pay the corporation expenses.
2)Voting rights for citizens shall be in proportion to their account activity.
3)It can be made a non-profit entity like Ejectia!PAC so contributions are tax deductible.
4)Disincentive to trolls. They wil gravitate to free sites.
Hypothetical example.
1 dollar buys 100 words or 1 post.2 dollars=101-200 words or two posts.
Purchases will be recorded at the ejectia treasury, and 1 vote shall be granted for every dollar contributed. If a vote is needed to allocate funds, the number of votes you control=the number of contributions you have made.It is like owning shares in a corporation. If you dont like the notion of paying to live in a virtual city state, all I can say is TANSTAAFL.
My $0.02
Svinrod

Svinrod,

Please understand that it is with the utmost respect and consideration that I say:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!1!!11!!!

$1=1Vote

Would that be like the online equivalent to 'Vote Early and Often'?

What say we wait until we find out what this is supposed to be, before we go attaching riders to our Defense spending bills?

- MuscleDaddy

..This commercial break brought to you by Viagra..

http://www.antisubjugator.blogspot.com/

If anyone is up for a boxing match.

Back to the action at hand.

P.S.Bless your heart Unquiet Mind

I have loved this community since I found it, and at that time, I didn't know just what a rare thing it was.
Part of the value was lurking and making a determination of the weight of each contributor for myself. And I was able to do that without ranks or diggs.
While I have no objection to registration per se, I do have a marked problem (that involves others) when I end up under my own name in a Google search - which would prevent any contribution I could make.

But I wonder, why all this effort to pre-qualify? I have the greatest respect for sheepdogs in uniform, but not everyone in uniform is a sheepdog. (Murtha and Kerry come to mind...) This community will self select, and it seems to me that an effort to skew that selection toward uniforms will also, perhaps, choke off some points of view and some skill sets that may be desperately needed by this community. Letting it unfold and seeing who shows up for the party may bring some interesting suprises. Choking down membership or relegating second class status reeks of fear.

And, we already know that GHS is capable of tossing the rude and the trolls out on their keesters. I trust him to do this (not that my opinion matters one iota), it seems Bill has spent some time trusting him to do this.

If a (small l) libertarian-type community is under construction, why burden it with lots of regulation right out of the chute? One can always respond to abuses as they show themselves. You cannot anticipate everything.

I'm liking the "citizen/ registration" idea. Much like the real world. Example: You need to EARN membership into this magnificent club called USA. Some of us were lucky enough to be born in America. But since it is impossible to be born in Ejectia - perhaps a one time registration, applicants will be granted access to the club at the will of an elected official (as if I need to say who he is). Mayor of Ejectia may revoke, deport or reject citezenship for those whom he chooses based on behavior and performance (read as "contribution" to the Tribe).
Let me know what you think.

Well said, Skeeter -

Like I said before - login/registration, IPs to keep the multi-addy trolls down & we'll smack the trolls as they come.

- MuscleDaddy

Mr.DeKraker
Put me down for one in blue. Or, since they killed off Captain America, can we have red, white and blue?

MuscleDaddy,
I'll see your HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!1!!11!!!
and raise you guffawsnortsnort.

Svinrod,

Please forgive the laughter, it was over the top & inappropriate.

It's getting late - I'm getting punchy.

- MuscleDaddy

Sorry, Bill, but the logo scares hell out of me. Jumps right off the page and yells BOO!! Just like a pasty faced Halloween Jack-o-lantern.

I like Mr. DeKraker'sa design much better, but, even then it reminds me of the emblem on the grill of a Pontiac.

RabcherJim

daddyquatro,

guffawsnortsnort is too rich for my blood - I'll fold.

- MuscleDaddy

MuscleDaddy
Thanks for the love, Brother.
Svin

The heat is on.

"Our security situation is dire, and not only in Egypt, but rather all across the middle-east. Bloggers have been intimidated by the authorities in Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Bahrain, just to name a few. It seems like the period of hope and reform that the bloggers of those countries have pushed for and represented in the past 2 years is now coming to an end, with the authorities more and more focused and intent on shutting us up, using everything from intimidation to imprisonment. And we have no defenders, no one to protect us, or champion our causes or lobby for our rights and safety. There used to be the Committee to Protect Bloggers, but that went defunct due to lack of funding, media-pressure-..."

http://www.sandmonkey.org/

This is too good to not cross-post... the judge's remarks as he sentenced the shoe bomber are too choice to not link here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.gene-scott/browse_thread/thread/a9dd4076e2184a7c/ebab71a8b4326ad9#ebab71a8b4326ad9

Svinrod,
Nuthin' but love for you, man. It's like cooking spaghetti; you keep throwing it against the wall and eventually something sticks. As long as we're only throwing spaghetti, all is well.
Trouble is, we really haven't even started cooking yet. Uncooked pasta will never stick so we tend to start throwing it at each other.

FOOD FIGHT!

Logo looks very professional but I have to admit the evil smiley was the first thing I saw.

I wonder if one were to make the ! longer (the top part) so that it intersects the mouth if one could keep the cool logo while removing the evil smiley.

Moving the top if the ! down slightly might also give it something of a gunsight look.

Can't wait for the next essay and new site.

daddyquatro
Well said! No need for a food fight.
Regards~Svin

Citizenship and voting rights are not the same thing. Through much of our history as a nation the voting franchise was restricted to certain citizens. At the time the Constitution was written, voting rights belonged to white, male, aged 21, free men with property. As our political system evolved, the barriers to voting were gradually struck down. We now have universal voting rights for anyone over 18 (and there are some in the Democratic Party who would extend voting rights to non-citizens if they thought they could get away with it). In my opinion a universal franchise is a bad idea. Plato, for example, warned that a democracy of the poor would not work. He reasoned, quite rightly, that the poor would use their political power to legislate wealth away from those who have it into their own pockets. I can't say that Plato foresaw socialist style dependency as the result, but the end is the same. Why should those who contribute nothing have a say in how the nation is run? Why should the ignorant have the right to vote? I think what brother Svin was suggesting has some merit: those who contribute more should have more of a say. But if we base the franchise on how much someone contributes monetarily (by what arcane arithmatic, I cannot imagine), we might create a plutocracy where George Soros and his ilk call all the shots. Nevertheless, giving the vote to large numbers of people dependent on government largess for their needs is no solution either. Such an arrangement becomes a political spoils system whereby the politician who can promise the most in benefits to his dependent constituents is most likely to achieve office. Nothing new here either. James Madison in Federalist #10 stated that property above all other concerns would be the greatest cause of political faction. For me the question is about the duties of a citizen. What is a citizen obliged to do to claim his voting franchise? What sort of duties must he accept and make good on? Can't graduate high school? Forget it, pal. Serve your country through military service? One vote. Two votes if you serve in an active combat zone. But I'm simplifying things because I'm not a bureaucrat at heart. What sort of can of worms do you think a committee might concoct based on the idea that the polical franchise must be earned? I shudder to think.

Speaking in purely pragmatic terms about an internet gathering site rather than a city-state, I'm going to paraphrase Terry Pratchett and say that I think the system should be one man, one vote.

Bill Whittle is the Man, and he has the Vote.

I'm all for democracy, but as the disclaimer above reminds us: this is his dinner party. I've been in a lot of places, and the best-run in terms of lasting quality of discussion and low levels of user dissatisfaction are the ones where the administrator is listening to their userbase, and especially hard to their team of moderators, but still unquestionably in charge.

I've never seen a really democratic forum, but I HAVE seen what happens when the admin leaves it alone for a long time and (if there were any) the moderators disappear or join the general mob... and it is not pretty in the extreme. Think Lord of the Flies, digitized.

I usually wound up playing the role of Piggy.

See here for a rather scholarly version that forms a large part of why I think this tends to work best.

http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

If I wanted to be a part of a "pay-to-play" community, I'd start attending local political party functions.

Where is all this suffrage talk coming from (or going) anyway? What "votes" are going to be hanging in the balance in Ejectia anyway? All this talk of rules and votes and such just seems so much like debating the style of cabinet handles for a kitchen for which the architect has yet to produce the blueprints.

Lance,
Exactly my point.
Until the chef starts cooking we can't judge the meal. In fact, we haven't even seen the menu yet.

Floating. Baby. Head.
Ra-Chel! Ra-Chel! Ra-Chel!

daddyquatro's comment about throwing the spaghetti against the wall really gelled the line of thought I had but couldn't articulate.

There would seem to be no need for anyone to get upset as long as we are only throwing ideas in the air to get feedback and find what may be wrong with our ideas that we don't see when we think of them.

I would think that the best thing to do is to throw anything out to let people hammer away at it, and maybe someone will be prompted to come up with better ideas than they would have if left to their own devices.

LabRat: thanks for the link to that dissertation about online group dynamics. That was one of the most interesting and informative pieces about a subject I had never considered before reading it that I have ever come across before.

There would seem to be no need for anyone to get upset as long as we are only throwing ideas in the air to get feedback and find what may be wrong with our ideas that we don't see when we think of them.

That's the reason I'm troubled by Benjamin's statement that he was leaving over the proposal to approve military personell without further vetting. We're brainstorming here, and we can't go more than a day without someone threatening to take their football and go home? Discouraging.

Bill's proposing a space that is substantially, qualitatively different from a normal forum. If it's NOT different, it has no reason to exist.

I believe this comment thread should discuss what those differences are.

Here's my hairbrained idea for the day. To become a citizen, an applicant must send Bill a very small amount of money - under $1 -via Paypal. If they are banned, the paypal account associated with that nik is banned as well. A serious troll could go to the trouble of gettin a new bank account, setting up a new paypal account, and reapplying for an ejectia account - but I think that would be rare.

No problem, Lance. It's been simmering in the back of my brain ever since this came up.

On a totally off-topic note justified because any army, be it of minds and ideas or boots and guns, marches on its stomach, I present to you a recipe shamelessly swiped Rod Dreher the Crunchy Con:

Vacas Fritas:

2.5 lbs flank steak
bay leaf
6 limes
3 lemons
3 cloves garlic
1 onion
white rice

The day before dinner, let the steak gently simmer in a pot of salty water with the bay leaf for about 90 minutes. When it's done and cool enough to handle, use your hands to tear the meat into shreddy strips. Put the meat in a bowl that won't react with acid with the juice of the limes and lemons and the garlic cloves. Throw it in the fridge and let it marinate overnight.

At dinnertime the next day, slice up the onion into thin strips. Remove the beef from the bowl and squeeze out as much of the marinade as you can. (Warning: it's strong stuff. Your entire fridge will smell like limes and garlic and nothing else for as long as it's in there.) In a deep, large skillet heat half a cup of olive oil until it starts to smell good, then put the garlicky beef in. Let it sizzle for about eight minutes with occasional stirring, then put in the onions and cook for 10-15 minutes more. It will turn into crispy dark brown shreds, not much to look at but wonderful to taste. Whip up some quick white rice and serve the meat over it. Have a bottle of your favorite beer, too.

We just had this for dinner, and all I can think is everyone should feel this satisfied after a meal. I think this may actually qualify as afterglow.

Hi all,

While I find it quite noble to stand up in a town hall and declare your allegiance to the Republic, as you grip your rifle closer to you, doing so here, on the World Wide Web, is folly! The world, America, is a much scarier place than ever before and not because of the terrorists among us.

Bill has the issue well in hand and part of what we're all grappling with here: Americans. Our very own who no longer believe in America, the nation, the beautiful, the brave. THOSE people live right next door. They would be horrified, yes, horrified to learn that you are not of their kind. They would drop the dime -- ahem, uh, the buck twenty five -- on you so fast, it would leave a crease.

I'm perfectly comfortable with giving Bill my real email address and name and using the registration model. But I think forcing people to announce to the entire world hey, here I am, love me or leave me, is to ask them to risk losing their jobs and peace of mind. That is a very real danger, as Lance has testified. Let's be smart about picking our battles, ok.

If I knew I could ring you all up to help defend the battlements of my humble shack, like I could if I lived in the same town with the aforementioned townhall, then maybe I could be so bold as to say here's the real me. But I can't. I'm all alone out here.

I wanted to comment more about the larger question Bill poses above, way above, but I'm outta' time. I hope I can jump back in (discussibly speaking, I don't mean as in "Guido sent me, lemme' in") tomorrow.

G'night all!

I knew I'd forget something. I like the E!3 symbol.

LabRat,
You lost me at...
The day before dinner.
Daddy
QUATRO!
Anything that begins with less than 30 minutes before dinner ain't gonna fly.
Seriously, the thing I can do, and I can teach; I can cook. Give me a starch, a protein, a liquid and a vegetable and I can make a meal.
Except for tonight.
My wife wanted
LIVER & ONIONS!
I swore to God, when I left home @ 17 I would never eat liver again. But, she's MommaQuatro. I found a recipe and I tried. I really tried. I even had Texas 1015 sweet onions (bite me vadalia!)
Thank God we had a ham in the frig.

I have a can, a shovel and the initiative to pack the worms back in . . . but this could be fun!

And I like the carne seca machaca recipe!!!

Quatro, there is nothing I like to see on a diner menu more than fried chicken livers.

All you're doing is making me feel challenged.

(Thank you Jenifer. My recipe hails from Cuba- do you know a different version?)

Perhaps this would be a good time to take a step back and remind ourselves of the big picture here. Unless I have totally misread Bill's writings to date, I don't think we are being asked to sign our names to the Declaration of Independence v. 2.0. We're not publicly aligning ourselves with a call to armed insurrection. As far as I can tell, all Bill is proposing is an online community of people who hold an idyllic view of America and her role in preserving Civilization, and who cherish the opportunity to employ "good manners" while discussing what that means. Again, this is all without the aid of the official blueprint, but to me, Ejectia falls somewhere north of a book club at the local bookstore, but south of signing a petition to put a referendum on the ballot. Yet nobody here seriously worries about using their real name in registering for the book club or signing the ballot petition for fear of reprisals from employers and neighbors, do they?

Having been through the Dooce Wringer before, I spent some time learning about the other members of the club. I'm fairly certain that nobody has ever lost their job for something as innocuous as what we are doing here. No, people lose their jobs over this kind of thing because they bring the business of their employer into their online conversations, either by what they say or by using their employer as part of their identity. (That, or they do a ton of blogging-related activities on the company dime. I am off today and tomorrow, which is why I've been all over this thread all day long!)

Nothing brings a group together like paranoia, but let's not overstate things. This isn't East Germany circa 1974, much as the "Bushitler / Amerikkka" crowd would like us to believe. Shedding your handle for your real name isn't going to result in a late night phone call leading to a jackbooted knock on your door . . . or cubicle, for that matter.

And, in my opinion, this whole exercise is a joke and we might as well bill it as nothing more than a patriotic role-playing game if we aren't telling our neighbors about the truths of Civilization kicked around here. Somebody dusted off the metaphor of a lever, with the business end pointed at American public opinion. Well, if all we're content to do is secretly discuss the truths that we hold to be self-evident here in this online monastery of patriotism, then the lever is pointless. If the only people willing to publicly stand by their views are Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, and Cindy Sheehan, then we are, indeed, in trouble.

Labrat,

I read the group enemy talk, thank you for the link. Also for the recipe, (although perhaps I should thank Rod when I see him at church on Sunday.)

If I stipulate that groups will have the problems described in the talk, I will concede that wiser heads than mine will need to provide some social constructs. I still think that getting terribly attached to a set of rules and regulations is premature given that we are still guessing (sorry, I am still guessing?) at Bill's grand plan here.

I would contend that a person's value to a community would be a function of that person's contribution to the community. And while uniforms, money, property, may be leading indicators of possible contribution, they are not, in themselves, the contribution. I go back to Bill's question. "What are you good at? Can you teach it?"

I've been thinking a fair amount on that question, in a very free flow way, given I have limited context. Want to learn skeet? I can teach you that, even if you have never picked up a firearm before. I can teach you to swim. I can teach you to teach 2 - 3 year olds to swim. Can I do it on the Internet alone? Not so much.

I can build metrics. I can plug holes in metrics, when folks begin to game, or end run them. Can I teach this? I don't know, but I am thinking some more about it. I can teach you to build a budget. Do you need to learn that? Are these skill sets way too elementary for the sophisticated types that hang here?

I don't know what is useful here (in E3 land) yet. Painting faux finishes on walls and furniture is probably not very useful if the prime objective is getting a fire started. (Maybe if I leave these rags in this wastebasket...)

I wait (with bated breath) for a little more information, so I have a bit better idea of what would be appropriate to bring to the party. And I hope that my place at that party, and value to the community, would be judged on what contribution I actually make to the community, and not on other nice/brave/useful things I do somewhere else.

Otherwise, the pecking order in this thing would be based on potential rather than on contribution.

And (I'm guessing) that part of the motivation for even starting this offshoot community is that this country is destroying some very important core assets and values as a result of falling in love with the potential of ideas, images, people, and ignoring real-world performance.

In illustration, just take a look at the INS. And our government wants this swamped and broken organization and process to take on an additional guest worker/amnesty program? But the ideal is pretty, isn't it?

Skeeter- do thank Rod if/when you see him. I claim no credit other than "ate it, loved it", which in my general foodie view is all one needs to pass the Good Stuff along as long as credit is given where credit is due. (I think of food as one of the few universal pleasures everyone can share with everyone- along with music and dance, one simply does not get more wholesomely elemental.) I only omitted the direct link because it's rather long and I'm paranoid about screwing up scroll.

And I agree with you and Lance both; we aren't even on version 1.0, we're on version beta .005.

Let's have fun, let's kick stuff around. I linked what I did because I think it contains some wisdom of analysis, and of experience- it's by NO means a stone tablet with bonus commandments. More of a guidepost- one of many.

"Perhaps this would be a good time to take a step back and remind ourselves of the big picture here. "

Well said Lance-- this was my reaction as well, that some people are taking this far too seriously. The world is, as far as I can tell, not hanging in the balance waiting to be rescued by an online forum. So yes, Mr. Riley, I suppose I am "taking my football and going home." I may be peeking in to see what happens, but there is far too much drama here and way too many exciting opportunities in the Real World....

LabRat,
Chicken liver I can do. And my children have actually eaten it! Tonight I tried beef liver. Unnnhg!
Skeeter,
We'll talk about the INS or ICE of whatever it's called today... Another time. Bitter? No, not me.

Lance Sez:

"I'm fairly certain that nobody has ever lost their job for something as innocuous as what we are doing here."

Tell that to Kim DuToit, Lance.

- MuscleDaddy

"or"
Preview is your friend.

LabRat, that link about groups is very interesting.

I don't think the perfect social software has yet been written. As odd as we humans are (just look at the wide variety of thoughts in this thread alone), it may ~never~ be perfect. ;)

Ben, with the deepest respect, everything I have presented is a suggestion to start a conversation. The entire point of what I have in mind is to take lessons out ino the real world.

I have not enforced anything on anyone. All I have done is suggest some ideas, and time and again I see "well if that's how it's going to be then good day to you sir!"

I'm sorry, I have a hard time seeing where the offense is. What I do see is a knee-jerk assumption of the worst. I don't appreciate it. I've done nothing to warrant it, and made great efforts to publicly modify a suggestion I tossed out once a good counter-argument arose.

I don't frankly know what else I can do to be more fair and open-minded and accomodating. So if the idea of discussion and debate seems so onerous to anyone of you, please do not threaten to take your football and go home. Just do it. I am trying to reach the greatest good tfor the greatest number. I would very much prefer that anyone with a valid argument stay and try and make this better. But I don't see where all this outrage is coming from. I have done nothing but provide a free forum for debate and self-education. I'm not going to pull the plug on that because someone doesn't like a logo design or a registration idea.

From past experience I see a need to limit access of people who have nothing better to do than piss all over things. I have, and will continue to, listen to any suggestions to do this in the most fair and equitable way possible.

And up until now, I have not laid down a single, unilateral rule (although some people have acted as if I have done nothing but issue decrees). Well, here's the first rule:

I WILL NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, REQUIRE MONEY BE SENT TO ME BY ANY MEANS.

If you want to buy a book, I'm fine with that. I believe you get good value for your hard-earned dollars or I would not be selling them. But I will not take money for this. That is certain death.

Now I would like to continue this debate on the best way to protect against the troll infestation that has put me and Rachel and den Beste and many others out of our collective minds. If anyone is unable to do that without taking personal offense at something, probably best that we all know that now.

Good will is essential to this endeavor. I think our host has displayed more than his fair share.

Here's a thoughtful piece on successful internet communities from Cory Doctorow (via Seth Godin, who calls it the "Flame/Idiot/Troll Phenomenon"):
http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=199600005

MuscleDaddy: I must confess my ignorance as to Kim DuToit. I've found her/his (?) site, and see no reference to being fired that I can find. What happened to her/him?

Hey, who's got my football?!?

Most blogs I get onto, indeed, even some regular web sites, we have a nickname, a real name, and an email address. Then we have to "verify," our email through a link to the site. I don't know if that's standard or would keep the trolls out, but that's one way.

Several blogs have gone so far as to making you type in a code (mostly to stop the spambots). I can't imagine trolls spending their time typing in codes, but I'm not a troll, so I don't really know.

Another possibility, (but this has not always gone well for LGF) is to open registration only at certain times. The trolls seem to go elsewhere if they can't get in right away. Special allowances could be made to let someone in if they have a compelling argument for being allowed in.

Just some ideas. It's too early in the a.m. 8-)

Lance, I don't know how old you are, but if you are old enough, you may remember the "black list" in Hollywood during the McCarthy era. Some actors, writers, directors, etc., were blacklisted as communist, even though they may not have been. Most had their careers ruined.

While I don't know of anyone personally who has lost their job over posting on the internet, the possibility is there. Already, sites like Boortz, LGF and other conservatives have been banned in certain companies. The next logical step is to go after the workers. Overreaction? Of course, but it can happen.

Lance - I was unable to find anything on a quick search, so I'll sum it up as best I can:

The du Toits tried to start a business in support of the Homeschool community. The system they had planned was an online program for doing lesson planning and recording of progress for the hoomeschooler. They had planned to expand this into real-life communities, online communities with forums and tutoring, and a whole plethora of things which would have had the potential to push a radical change in the education landscape, by making it much easier for people who wanted to, but were daunted by the prospect of homeschooling to be able to do it effectively and with the support of many people who were already experienced in it.

They had investors with promised funds to get the development done and the beginnings of the marketing going. Since you have found his site (I'm assuming you found www.theothersideofkim.com), you know that he blogs often about guns. Previously, his blogging was even more about guns and heavily into politics. After the investors found his original blog, they pulled their support like dropping a hot potato.

Fast forward a few months, Kim was looking for work, one of his readers put him in contact with a firm which offered him a very lucrative position, but then THEY found his blog and changed their minds. He then dropped his blog entirely and went looking for work, only to find that "The Internet is Forever", because people still found records of his blogging and decided that he "wouldn't work out for them".

That's when he started The Other Side of Kim, and doesn't really talk about it much on the current site.

If you look back to when Bill first talked about the online community that he is suggesting, you will see that I said it's too bad that the investors backed out from the du Toits, because their system could have been adapted quite readily to this project.

Damn you again, Dougman!

You warm my heart, Bless yours, Wayne.

Wayne: thanks for the info. I was not aware of that. It sounds like his story is the exception that proves the rule, but nevertheless, who wants to be the next installment? An understandable worry, to be sure.

And yet, does this understandable worry require that we shrink from any public expressions of our views for fear of reprisal? Do we limit our discussion of the issues facing our civiliation to the disembodied anonymity of internet comment threads like this? Does our voice stop appearing in newspapers because we're afraid to sign our name to a letter to the editor? Do we go from simply being a silent majority (whose voice is unheard because we're largely too busy doing the work of American civilization to waste time talking about it) to being an underground majority, whose very existence is known only by the other insiders?

Why waste time worrying that our 1st Amendment rights will be taken from us (as connotated by Skye's McCarthy reference) if we are going to just give them away through abdication? If speech has to be anonymous to be made comfortably, then it isn't free, for it apparently costs the author the price of getting the credit (or the blame) for their speech.

Oh, I understand your point. It's just that it's easier to find information on people using the Internet than is has ever been in any other medium in history, and the someone doesn't even have to see you in person to have a deep effect on your life.

I would, however, like to see some pushback on this kind of thing happening. You can't fire someone because you find out they are homosexual; you certainly shouldn't be able to do it for them expressing their views online, unless they are making credible threats or publishing corporate information (or badmouthing the company they work for while still working there, of course).

The biggest worry comes from the real loons, though. While commenters usually don't have as much to worry about as the bloggers themselves, some of the more prominent ones have received very credible death threats, some including threats against their families. It's one thing to stand up to that sort of thing yourself, but when it starts affecting your family, you sometimes need to work in another fashion. Of course, I also know that backing down in the face of a threat just boldens the ones doing the threatening.

I wish I knew the answer. I don't like backing down from potential bad consequences, either, but then again, I'm living in an area where people don't care much about what you say as long as you leave them alone. I don't know what I would do if it came down to choosing between this and being able to put food on the table for my family.

I would love to see an LGF-type "Lizard Lounge," blatant ripoff though it may be.

Wayne,

Thanks for covering that - last thing I typed last night & just got back. ;-)

Lance,

How about we wait and see what form this all takes before we decide whether using our nics will make the whole thing moot?
Aside from the real-world concerns , I will also admit to liking the fact that my nic-rep, while not about to set the world on fire, is solid - from that standpoint, I'd rather not have to completely rebuild it because nobody would recognize my real name. (Me! It's all about meee!!)

Bill,

Here's my best troll-fighting suggestion - sort of a cut&paste; from other places:

1) Registration & sign-in (like @ the Rott)

2) Log IPs to limit multi-addy trolls - limit each user to only 2 or 3 permissible IPs (home&work;, for example), with those IPs only gaining access when combined with their originally-registered name and any exceptions (travelling, my brother visiting & needing to post from my house, etc.) dealt with on an at-need basis.

3) Real names given to the Admin, who will keep them confidential because he's a good man who cares about our concerns.

4) One of those plug-in-the-visual-code things(like @ Frank's) to keep the spambots at bay.

5) Vigilance & troll-smacking on our part.

Anything else I can think of starts to tip the scales toward being onerous and unnecessarily restrictive.

- MuscleDaddy

Wayne:

Your concerns are valid, of course. However, people deal with those same concerns all the time. Ferinstance, people who serve on juries (or witnesses, for that matter) must confront the dilemma of doing their righteous duty in the face of the fear of reprisal. Best jury question ever to a judge: after deliberating on a serious criminal matter, the jury sent out the following question -- "Can the defendant get our addresses?" (This isn't just a rhetorical story, as I know personally one of the attorneys involved in that case, which was in a place far different from where I am.)

This fear, though legitmate in that it is grounded in the factual occurrences of reprisals, is nevertheless overblown because the odds of such a thing happening are so infintisimally small, much like the online loon whose anonymous threats lead to real world acts. Do these things happen? Sure, they have. But are the odds of it happening so great that we should modify our otherwise reasonable and rightful behaviors to avoid the possibility?

Now, people may say that no odds are worth risking when it comes to one's life and family, but that's not really how we operate. We play the odds every day in life. There are few things more statistically hazardous than driving a car, yet we do so all the time . . . without a handwringing session beforehand, no less.

All of this talk of hiding ... in America, no less!

I'm liking the Svinrod/Whittle logo at about 5" diameter for the rear window of my car. I'm liking it airbrushed on the back of my leather jacket too. I'm liking DeKraker Blue for my motorcycle as a decal at about 3 to 4" wide.

Since I don't know how to do that myself, I wouldn't mind paying someone else to produce them. My motive is not to mass produce for sale to others. I am still unclear however to whom I might request permission to develop the ideation of others into other expressions.

So: Svinrod, Bill, Ben: do you have any objections to my persuing other applications for the images you originated? I just like them and want to use them. Since it's hard for me to tell where the balance lies between casual and formal here at the moment, I thought that at the very least I should let you know what I want to do and ask that you clarify what claims you might wish to reserve. T-shirts, coffee mugs, mouse pads - Bill, all this could be yours if you say so.

By the way, all you smart people posting comments here: thanks for keeping the kettle simmering.

How 'bout this idea? Again, this is based upon my assumption (as yet neither confirmed nor denied) that the real world self-identification was more of a symbolic gesture than a practical, troll-bridge mechanism.

What if Ejectia featured a roll call of sorts, wherein the self-identification info was listed in graphical format, without any ALT tag info? Each "citizen's" name and state would be it's own graphic listed on the roll -- and doesn't Bill's parchment background for the main header graphic really beg this? Here's an example: http://www.wlfl.org/Ragged-Edges/Image2.gif

I envision this table also featuring a column for that "citizen's" commenting nick, for it's in that association of thoughts to person that true group connection is made. Doing it this way would enable longtime commenters to preserve their nic-reputations: one wouldn't sign each comment with their real name. The connection would be in the roll for anyone who cared. But by doing this, everyone would be immune to the simple and random Googling that is the most realistic of fears, while still fostering Bill's line in sand, "step forward if you're with me" call to symbolic defiance and courage.

Bill: if this idea has any merit, I would gladly offer my humble graphic capabilities to the cause, especially since it wouldn't require super high end capabilities (as exhibited in the offers of a logo), but factory-like efficiency.

Thoughts?

Bill, you may count me among those who appreciate your rethinking the "real names only" approach (assuming that wasn't already obvious from my choice of a pseudonym). I also fully appreciate the reasoning behind your earlier proposal as a means to help encourage a civil tone in discussions here. For my part, the choice is not a matter of fearing violent reprisals of any sort, but merely attempting to protect my and my wife's livelihood from subtle passive-aggressive career-affecting actions of the sort already noted above by others, given the rather politically homogeneous circles in which I work (as I noted when starting my own pseudonymous blog), and that my wife should not be indirectly punished in that way for my own expression of views that she may not share. I'm happy to use my real name in correspondence with you, and in registering an account on the site. That said, I fully allow for the possibility that all of this is merely a cowardly rationalization on my part. You clearly have the courage to stand up and make your ideas known, despite the clear potential for similar backlash in the very left-leaning industry in which you work daily, and that fact certainly humbles me. If you did go ahead with a "real names only" policy, perhaps that would merely force me to make a decision that I would otherwise be enabled to postpone. Honestly I don't think I could pass up the opportunity to be in such good company.

Lance, I like the look of your graphic poster heading. Don't know how Moveable Type software handles this kind of thing. Bill's a great writer but I don't think he has the web-fu of a Charles Johnson.

LGF gets huge traffic spikes that would knock out many lesser sites, but Charles has managed over time to keep managing the stresses and built a site full of rich features. With his designing and coding skills much of the security and spam/troll management is automated, yet there is still the need for vigilance.

I would like to see a cloud of support around Bill to keep him free to write as he writes, which is the first thing that brings us here, rather than getting distracted by the minutiae and getting fed up with nitpickers ala SDB. GHS, loyal and effective as he is/was, will not be enough to stand the gate when the reach is to millions.

Not sure how Moveable Type would incorporate it (I was a Blogger simpleton myself), but it would sure be easy enough to post as a free-standing html page . . . and THAT I know plenty enough about.

On using email and IP addresses as registration requirements.

I have been "on line" since 1994 and have lost count of the email and IP addresses I have had. I change email addresses and ISP's every few years for various reasons.

More importantly, I would suggest that not all of us have a fixed IP address. For example, I currently use two dynamically assigned IP address DSL connections. The actual IP addresses change on a schedule that is unknown to me.

On using real names as a registration requirement.

A google on my name returns almost 22,000 hits. Add to that the fact I am retired from the land of Dilbertopia and I don't have anything (more?) to lose by being openly me. Anyone who wishes can mine that vast field of words and find out-of-context evidence for whatever they want. In any event, the political correctness police will find you guilty of something no matter what you say or how you say it.

I have long ago decided that one must forget about a completely private life. One must live as if the full details of what you do publicly is posted on billboards hanging over the 405 freeway in Los Angeles. If you can't live with that, you have a problem that I don't know how to solve.

An interesting observation:

On another blog were the general style is to use a pseudonym, I use one that reflects the message I wish to emphasize. When I google it, 22,500,000 hits are returned. I have yet to find one that refers to my posts.

This suggest that hiding on the internet is possible by selecting the right pseudonym.

Hey, Lance, does your level of Graphic Arts extend to relatively simple sketches?

I'm looking for a small logo of my own that is mostly line drawing, but I spent a half hour proving that I can't do it, or rather, it's just not worth the time I would have to invest to do a decent job. If you think you might be interested, drop me a line at eukonidor@gmail.com

Otto Gass -

You have absolute permission to use my stylized logo design, unless of course Bill objects. Don't believe "E!3" is a trademark however so you should be good to go.

Bill -

Where in any of my posts did I find something "offensive?" I disagreed with some of the ideas presented, and gave logical reasons why. My previous post stated that I would peek in from time to time, but really wasn't interested in the Ejectia idea as it stood. Hardly "pissing on everything" as you say, just thought some of you would want to know my reasons for not being interested. And I gave them.

That certain people have gotten all flustered and sounded the war drums simply because I posted a contrarian opinion is really what worries me, and part of the reason I'm not very confident about this experiment.

Benjamin:

I think Bill's response was more on point than you give it credit for. It wasn't the mere vetting of "contrarian opinion" that elicited Bill's urine-based analogy, but rather your immediate decision to depart; your initial expression of disagreement concluded with this: "Individuals should be judged based on what they DO, how they LIVE. And that is why I will no longer be involved in this virtual concept-- the real world is much more interesting, thank you. There are spaceships to build."

To be frank, that statement seemed to embody that which you complain of: the refusal to tolerate difference of opinions in your presence. It's like saying "Well, if you're going to talk like THAT, then I want no part of this exercise" in the middle of a preparatory brainstorming session, when the whole purpose is merely to flush out any and all ideas for group consideration. Of course, that you're still here means that it was less an actual decision to leave and more of a rhetorical flourish, but even so . . .

It's like you decided that you wanted no part of this grand voyage on the basis of objecting that Lt. So-and-So gets to have a bunk to himself while you have to hot-bunk it with the rest of the plebes lacking sufficient rank . . . all before the blueprints for the Good Ship Ejectia have even been produced, let alone the ship being built, the crew being selected, ranks assigned, and quartering arrangements determined. In a word, your stance was just so strikingly premature, that I think it evinced an unwillingness to participate in the process of developing this idea. And I venture to guess that it was THAT which drew the ire of the only person around here whose rank is already known and unquestioned: Admiral Whittle.

I have received (privately) a number of e-mails expressing (with great anguish, it seems) why the correspondent needs to maintain anonymity despite a strong desire not to have to do so.

I found their arguments extremely compelling. In my own case, I am unmarried and have no children -- all the risk I assume is on myself. And even though I work in an EXTREMELY liberal field, I am an independent contractor with a smallish production company -- and, I might add, reasonably close to indespensible to them, so I do not have the concerns that many of you working for large corporations have.

There is a lot of meanness and pettiness out there on the web. Muscle Daddy saved my bacon a few years ago by pointing out that my domain registration was about to expire. He had found out that a KOS Kid was about to buy it out from me, presumably to set up a mock site denouncing everything I have written about. What class, huh? What a celebration of diversity!

This is the paradox: the anonymity of the web produces behavior in dishonorable people that forces the honorable people into anonymity themselves. It seems to be a classic case of The Prisoner's Dilemma. If you haven't heard of that, you will shortly. You're about to get seven essay pages on it, although for somewhat different reasons.

New paragraph.

I love the idea of the logo, but the one posted puts me off because it too closely resembles Rush Limbaugh's, and then the evil pumpkin is seen.

What would happen if you move the "3" up to superscript position? This would eliminate both the above objections.

Further, it would draw the eye upward, calling to mind "Ad astra volemus....." Ah, never mind, I'm reaching.

But I am happy it is Wednesday, 'cause a new essay is promised! I can hardly wait!

Norman Podhoretz article appearing in commentarymagazine.com with some useful thoughts about our common future and opportunity to relive the past.

The Case for Bombing Iran
Norman Podhoretz

Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what September 11, 2001 did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the cold war was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II. Like the cold war, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of Communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.
What follows from this way of looking at the last five years is that the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be understood if they are regarded as self-contained wars in their own right. Instead we have to see them as fronts or theaters that have been opened up in the early stages of a protracted global struggle. The same thing is true of Iran. As the currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11, and as (according to the State Department�s latest annual report on the subject) the main sponsor of the terrorism that is Islamofascism�s weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in World War IV. Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially most dangerous one of all.
The Iranians, of course, never cease denying that they intend to build a nuclear arsenal, and yet in the same breath they openly tell us what they intend to do with it. Their first priority, as repeatedly and unequivocally announced by their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is to �wipe Israel off the map��a feat that could not be accomplished by conventional weapons alone.
But Ahmadinejad�s ambitions are not confined to the destruction of Israel. He also wishes to dominate the greater Middle East, and thereby to control the oilfields of the region and the flow of oil out of it through the Persian Gulf. If he acquired a nuclear capability, he would not even have to use it in order to put all this within his reach. Intimidation and blackmail by themselves would do the trick.
Nor are Ahmadinejad�s ambitions merely regional in scope. He has a larger dream of extending the power and influence of Islam throughout Europe, and this too he hopes to accomplish by playing on the fear that resistance to Iran would lead to a nuclear war. And then, finally, comes the largest dream of all: what Ahmadinejad does not shrink from describing as �a world without America.� Demented though he may be, I doubt that Ahmadinejad is so crazy as to imagine that he could wipe America off the map even if he had nuclear weapons. But what he probably does envisage is a diminution of the American will to oppose him: that is, if not a world without America, he will settle, at least in the short run, for a world without much American influence.
Not surprisingly, the old American foreign-policy establishment and many others say that these dreams are nothing more than the fantasies of a madman. They also dismiss those who think otherwise as neoconservative alarmists trying to drag this country into another senseless war that is in the interest not of the United States but only of Israel. But the irony is that Ahmadinejad�s dreams are more realistic than the dismissal of those dreams as merely insane delusions. To understand why, an analogy with World War III may help.
_____________

At certain points in that earlier war, some of us feared that the Soviets might seize control of the oil fields of the Middle East, and that the West, faced with a choice between surrendering to their dominance or trying to stop them at the risk of a nuclear exchange, would choose surrender. In that case, we thought, the result would be what in those days went by the name of Finlandization.
In Europe, where there were large Communist parties, Finlandization would take the form of bringing these parties to power so that they could establish �Red Vichy� regimes like the one already in place in Finland�regimes whose subservience to the Soviet will in all things, domestic and foreign alike, would make military occupation unnecessary and would therefore preserve a minimal degree of national independence.
In the United States, where there was no Communist party to speak of, we speculated that Finlandization would take a subtler form. In the realm of foreign affairs, politicians and pundits would arise to celebrate the arrival of a new era of peace and friendship in which the cold-war policy of containment would be scrapped, thus giving the Soviets complete freedom to expand without encountering any significant obstacles. And in the realm of domestic affairs, Finlandization would mean that the only candidates running for office with a prayer of being elected would be those who promised to work toward a sociopolitical system more in harmony with the Soviet model than the unjust capitalist plutocracy under which we had been living.
Of course, by the grace of God, the dissidents behind the Iron Curtain, and Ronald Reagan, we won World War III and were therefore spared the depredations that Finlandization would have brought. Alas, we are far from knowing what the outcome of World War IV will be. But in the meantime, looking at Europe today, we already see the unfolding of a process analogous to Finlandization: it has been called, rightly, Islamization. Consider, for example, what happened when, only a few weeks ago, the Iranians captured fifteen British sailors and marines and held them hostage. Did the Royal Navy, which once boasted that it ruled the waves, immediately retaliate against this blatant act of aggression, or even threaten to do so unless the captives were immediately released? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, using force was the last thing in the world the British contemplated doing, as they made sure to announce. Instead they relied on the �soft power� so beloved of �sophisticated� Europeans and their American fellow travelers.
But then, as if this show of impotence were not humiliating enough, the British were unable even to mobilize any of that soft power. The European Union, of which they are a member, turned down their request to threaten Iran with a freeze of imports. As for the UN, under whose very auspices they were patrolling the international waters in which the sailors were kidnapped, it once again showed its true colors by refusing even to condemn the Iranians. The most the Security Council could bring itself to do was to express �grave concern.� Meanwhile, a member of the British cabinet was going the Security Council one better. While registering no objection to propaganda pictures of the one woman hostage, who had been forced to shed her uniform and dress for the cameras in Muslim clothing, Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt pronounced it �deplorable� that she should have permitted herself to be photographed with a cigarette in her mouth. �This,� said Hewitt, �sends completely the wrong message to our young people.�
According to John Bolton, our former ambassador to the UN, the Iranians were testing the British to see if there would be any price to pay for committing what would once have been considered an act of war. Having received his answer, Ahmadinejad could now reap the additional benefit of, as the British commentator Daniel Johnson puts it, �posing as a benefactor� by releasing the hostages, even while ordering more attacks in Iraq and even while continuing to arm terrorist organizations, whether Shiite (Hizballah) or Sunni (Hamas). For fanatical Shiites though Ahmadinejad and his ilk assuredly are, they are obviously willing to set sectarian differences aside when it comes to forging jihadist alliances against the infidels.
If, then, under present circumstances Ahmadinejad could bring about the extraordinary degree of kowtowing that resulted from the kidnapping of the British sailors, what might he not accomplish with a nuclear arsenal behind him�nuclear bombs that could be fitted on missiles capable of reaching Europe? As to such a capability, Robert G. Joseph, the U.S. Special Envoy for Nuclear Non-Proliferation, tells us that Iran is �expanding what is already the largest offensive missile force in the region. Moreover, it is reported to be working closely with North Korea, the world�s number-one missile proliferator, to develop even more capable ballistic missiles.� This, Joseph goes on, is why �analysts agree that in the foreseeable future Iran will be armed with medium- and long-range ballistic missiles,� and it is also why �we could wake up one morning to find that Iran is holding Berlin, Paris or London hostage to whatever its demands are then.�
_____________

As with Finlandization, Islamization extends to the domestic realm, too. In one recent illustration of this process, as reported in the British press, �schools in England are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils . . . whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.� But this is an equal-opportunity capitulation, since the schools are also eliminating lessons about the Crusades because �such lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.�
But why single out England? If anything, much more, and worse, has been going on in other European countries, including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark, and the Netherlands. All of these countries have large and growing Muslim populations demanding that their religious values and sensibilities be accommodated at the expense of the traditional values of the West, and even in some instances of the law. Yet rather than insisting that, like all immigrant groups before them, they assimilate to Western norms, almost all European politicians have been cravenly giving in to the Muslims� outrageous demands.
As in the realm of foreign affairs, if this much can be accomplished under present circumstances, what might not be done if the process were being backed by Iranian nuclear blackmail? Already some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia. Whatever chance there may still be of heading off this eventuality would surely be lessened by the menacing shadow of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, and only too ready to put them into the hands of the terrorist groups to whom it is even now supplying rockets and other explosive devices.
And the United States? As would have been the case with Finlandization, we would experience a milder form of Islamization here at home. But not in the area of foreign policy. Like the Europeans, confronted by Islamofascists armed by Iran with nuclear weapons, we would become more and more hesitant to risk resisting the emergence of a world shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes. For even if Ahmadinejad did not yet have missiles with a long enough range to hit the United States, he would certainly be able to unleash a wave of nuclear terror against us. If he did, he would in all likelihood act through proxies, for whom he would with characteristic brazenness disclaim any responsibility even if the weapons used by the terrorists were to bear telltale markings identifying them as of Iranian origin. At the same time, the opponents of retaliation and other antiwar forces would rush to point out that there was good reason to accept this disclaimer and, markings or no markings (could they not have been forged?), no really solid evidence to refute it.
In any event, in these same centers of opinion, such a scenario is regarded as utter nonsense. In their view, none of the things it envisages would follow even if Ahmadinejad should get the bomb, because the fear of retaliation would deter him from attacking us just as it deterred the Soviets in World War III. For our part, moreover, the knowledge that we were safe from attack would preclude any danger of our falling into anything like Islamization.
_____________

But listen to what Bernard Lewis, the greatest authority of our time on the Islamic world, has to say in this context on the subject of deterrence:
MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the cold war. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that [Iran�s leaders] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again. In the final scenario, and this applies all the more strongly if they kill large numbers of their own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights.
Nor are they inhibited by a love of country:
We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.
These were the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who ruled Iran from 1979 to 1989, and there is no reason to suppose that his disciple Ahmadinejad feels any differently.
Still less would deterrence work where Israel was concerned. For as the Ayatollah Rafsanjani (who is supposedly a �pragmatic conservative�) has declared:
If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession. . . application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.
In other words, Israel would be destroyed in a nuclear exchange, but Iran would survive.
In spite of all this, we keep hearing that all would be well if only we agreed�in the currently fashionable lingo�to �engage� with Iran, and that even if the worst came to the worst we could�to revert to the same lingo��live� with a nuclear Iran. It is when such things are being said that, alongside the resemblance between now and World War III, a parallel also becomes evident between now and the eve of World War II.
_____________

By 1938, Germany under Adolf Hitler had for some years been rearming in defiance of its obligations under the Versailles treaty and other international agreements. Yet even though Hitler in Mein Kampf had explicitly spelled out the goals he was now preparing to pursue, scarcely anyone took him seriously. To the imminent victims of the war he was soon to start, Hitler�s book and his inflammatory speeches were nothing more than braggadocio or, to use the more colorful word Hannah Arendt once applied to Adolf Eichmann, rodomontade: the kind of red meat any politician might throw to his constituents at home. Hitler might sound at times like a madman, but in reality he was a shrewd operator with whom one could�in the notorious term coined by the London Times��do business.� The business that was done under this assumption was the Munich Agreement of 1938, which the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declared had brought �peace in our time.�
It was thanks to Munich that �appeasement� became one of the dirtiest words in the whole of our political vocabulary. Yet appeasement had always been an important and entirely respectable tool of diplomacy, signifying the avoidance of war through the alleviation of the other side�s grievances. If Hitler had been what his eventual victims imagined he was�that is, a conventional statesman pursuing limited aims and using the threat of war only as a way of strengthening his bargaining position�it would indeed have been possible to appease him and thereby to head off the outbreak of another war.
But Hitler was not a conventional statesman and, although for tactical reasons he would sometimes pretend otherwise, he did not have limited aims. He was a revolutionary seeking to overturn the going international system and to replace it with a new order dominated by Germany, which also meant the political culture of Nazism. As such, he offered only two choices: resistance or submission. Finding this reality unbearable, the world persuaded itself that there was a way out, a third alternative, in negotiations. But given Hitler�s objectives, and his barely concealed lust for war, negotiating with him could not conceivably have led to peace. It could have had only one outcome, which was to buy him more time to start a war under more favorable conditions. As most historians now agree, if he had been taken at his own word about his true intentions, he could have been stopped earlier and defeated at an infinitely lower cost.
Which brings us back to Ahmadinejad. Like Hitler, he is a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism. Like Hitler, too, he is entirely open about his intentions, although�again like Hitler�he sometimes pretends that he wants nothing more than his country�s just due. In the case of Hitler in 1938, this pretense took the form of claiming that no further demands would be made if sovereignty over the Sudetenland were transferred from Czechoslovakia to Germany. In the case of Ahmadinejad, the pretense takes the form of claiming that Iran is building nuclear facilities only for peaceful purposes and not for the production of bombs.
But here we come upon an interesting difference between then and now. Whereas in the late 1930�s almost everyone believed, or talked himself into believing, that Hitler was telling the truth when he said he had no further demands to make after Munich, no one believes that Ahmadinejad is telling the truth when he says that Iran has no wish to develop a nuclear arsenal. In addition, virtually everyone agrees that it would be best if he were stopped, only not, God forbid, with military force�not now, and not ever.
_____________

But if military force is ruled out, what is supposed to do the job?
Well, to begin with, there is that good old standby, diplomacy. And so, for three-and-a-half years, even pre-dating the accession of Ahmadinejad to the presidency, the diplomatic gavotte has been danced with Iran, in negotiations whose carrot-and-stick details no one can remember�not even, I suspect, the parties involved. But since, to say it again, Ahmadinejad is a revolutionary with unlimited aims and not a statesman with whom we can �do business,� all this negotiating has had the same result as Munich had with Hitler. That is, it has bought the Iranians more time in which they have moved closer and closer to developing nuclear weapons.
Then there are sanctions. As it happens, sanctions have very rarely worked in the past. Worse yet, they have usually ended up hurting the hapless people of the targeted country while leaving the leadership unscathed. Nevertheless, much hope has been invested in them as a way of bringing Ahmadinejad to heel. Yet thanks to the resistance of Russia and China, both of which have reasons of their own to go easy on Iran, it has proved enormously difficult for the Security Council to impose sanctions that could even conceivably be effective. At first, the only measures to which Russia and China would agree were much too limited even to bite. Then, as Iran continued to defy Security Council resolutions and to block inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it was bound by treaty to permit, not even the Russians and the Chinese were able to hold out against stronger sanctions. Once more, however, these have had little or no effect on the progress Iran is making toward the development of a nuclear arsenal. On the contrary: they, too, have bought the Iranians additional time in which to move ahead.
Since hope springs eternal, some now believe that the answer lies in more punishing sanctions. This time, however, their purpose would be not to force Iran into compliance, but to provoke an internal uprising against Ahmadinejad and the regime as a whole. Those who advocate this course tell us that the �mullocracy� is very unpopular, especially with young people, who make up a majority of Iran�s population. They tell us that these young people would like nothing better than to get rid of the oppressive and repressive and corrupt regime under which they now live and to replace it with a democratic system. And they tell us, finally, that if Iran were so transformed, we would have nothing to fear from it even if it were to acquire nuclear weapons.
Once upon a time, under the influence of Bernard Lewis and others I respect, I too subscribed to this school of thought. But after three years and more of waiting for the insurrection they assured us back then was on the verge of erupting, I have lost confidence in their prediction. Some of them blame the Bush administration for not doing enough to encourage an uprising, which is why they have now transferred their hopes to sanctions that would inflict so much damage on the Iranian economy that the entire populace would rise up against the rulers. Yet whether or not this might happen under such circumstances, there is simply no chance of getting Russia and China, or the Europeans for that matter, to agree to the kind of sanctions that are the necessary precondition.
_____________

At the outset I stipulated that the weapons with which we are fighting World War IV are not all military�that they also include economic, diplomatic, and other nonmilitary instruments of power. In exerting pressure for reform on countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, these nonmilitary instruments are the right ones to use. But it should be clear by now to any observer not in denial that Iran is not such a country. As we know from Iran�s defiance of the Security Council and the IAEA even while the United States has been warning Ahmadinejad that �all options� remain on the table, ultimatums and threats of force can no more stop him than negotiations and sanctions have managed to do. Like them, all they accomplish is to buy him more time.
In short, the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force�any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938.
Since a ground invasion of Iran must be ruled out for many different reasons, the job would have to be done, if it is to be done at all, by a campaign of air strikes. Furthermore, because Iran�s nuclear facilities are dispersed, and because some of them are underground, many sorties and bunker-busting munitions would be required. And because such a campaign is beyond the capabilities of Israel, and the will, let alone the courage, of any of our other allies, it could be carried out only by the United States.* Even then, we would probably be unable to get at all the underground facilities, which means that, if Iran were still intent on going nuclear, it would not have to start over again from scratch. But a bombing campaign would without question set back its nuclear program for years to come, and might even lead to the overthrow of the mullahs.
The opponents of bombing�not just the usual suspects but many both here and in Israel who have no illusions about the nature and intentions and potential capabilities of the Iranian regime�disagree that it might end in the overthrow of the mullocracy. On the contrary, they are certain that all Iranians, even the democratic dissidents, would be impelled to rally around the flag. And this is only one of the worst-case scenarios they envisage. To wit: Iran would retaliate by increasing the trouble it is already making for us in Iraq. It would attack Israel with missiles armed with non-nuclear warheads but possibly containing biological and/or chemical weapons. There would be a vast increase in the price of oil, with catastrophic consequences for every economy in the world, very much including our own. The worldwide outcry against the inevitable civilian casualties would make the anti-Americanism of today look like a love-fest.
I readily admit that it would be foolish to discount any or all of these scenarios. Each of them is, alas, only too plausible. Nevertheless, there is a good response to them, and it is the one given by John McCain. The only thing worse than bombing Iran, McCain has declared, is allowing Iran to get the bomb.
And yet those of us who agree with McCain are left with the question of whether there is still time. If we believe the Iranians, the answer is no. In early April, at Iran�s Nuclear Day festivities, Ahmadinejad announced that the point of no return in the nuclearization process had been reached. If this is true, it means that Iran is only a small step away from producing nuclear weapons. But even supposing that Ahmadinejad is bluffing, in order to convince the world that it is already too late to stop him, how long will it take before he actually turns out to have a winning hand?
If we believe the CIA, perhaps as much as ten years. But CIA estimates have so often been wrong that they are hardly more credible than the boasts of Ahmadinejad. Other estimates by other experts fall within the range of a few months to six years. Which is to say that no one really knows. And because no one really knows, the only prudent�indeed, the only responsible�course is to assume that Ahmadinejad may not be bluffing, or may only be exaggerating a bit, and to strike at him as soon as it is logistically possible.
_____________

In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush made a promise:
We�ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world�s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world�s most destructive weapons.
In that speech, the President was referring to Iraq, but he has made it clear on a number of subsequent occasions that the same principle applies to Iran. Indeed, he has gone so far as to say that if we permit Iran to build a nuclear arsenal, people 50 years from now will look back and wonder how we of this generation could have allowed such a thing to happen, and they will rightly judge us as harshly as we today judge the British and the French for what they did and what they failed to do at Munich in 1938. I find it hard to understand why George W. Bush would have put himself so squarely in the dock of history on this issue if he were resigned to leaving office with Iran in possession of nuclear weapons, or with the ability to build them. Accordingly, my guess is that he intends, within the next 21 months, to order air strikes against the Iranian nuclear facilities from the three U.S. aircraft carriers already sitting nearby.
But if that is what he has in mind, why is he spending all this time doing the diplomatic dance and wasting so much energy on getting the Russians and the Chinese to sign on to sanctions? The reason, I suspect, is that�to borrow a phrase from Robert Kagan�he has been �giving futility its chance.� Not that this is necessarily a cynical ploy. For it may well be that he has entertained the remote possibility of a diplomatic solution under which Iran would follow the example of Libya in voluntarily giving up its nuclear program. Besides, once having played out the diplomatic string, and thereby having demonstrated that to him force is truly a last resort, Bush would be in a stronger political position to endorse John McCain�s formula that the only thing worse than bombing Iran would be allowing Iran to build a nuclear bomb�and not just to endorse that assessment, but to act on it.
_____________

If this is what Bush intends to do, it goes, or should go, without saying that his overriding purpose is to ensure the security of this country in accordance with the vow he took upon becoming President, and in line with his pledge not to stand by while one of the world�s most dangerous regimes threatens us with one of the world�s most dangerous weapons.
But there is, it has been reported, another consideration that is driving Bush. According to a recent news story in the New York Times, for example, Bush has taken to heart what �[o]fficials from 21 governments in and around the Middle East warned at a meeting of Arab leaders in March��namely, �that Iran�s drive for atomic technology could result in the beginning of �a grave and destructive nuclear arms race in the region.�� Which is to say that he fears that local resistance to Iran�s bid for hegemony in the greater Middle East through the acquisition of nuclear weapons could have even more dangerous consequences than a passive capitulation to that bid by the Arab countries. For resistance would spell the doom of all efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and it would vastly increase the chances of their use.
I have no doubt that this ominous prospect figures prominently in the President�s calculations. But it seems evident to me that the survival of Israel, a country to which George W. Bush has been friendlier than any President before him, is also of major concern to him�a concern fully coincident with his worries over a Middle Eastern arms race.
Much of the world has greeted Ahmadinejad�s promise to wipe Israel off the map with something close to insouciance. In fact, it could almost be said of the Europeans that they have been more upset by Ahmadinejad�s denial that a Holocaust took place 60 years ago than by his determination to set off one of his own as soon as he acquires the means to do so. In a number of European countries, Holocaust denial is a crime, and the European Union only recently endorsed that position. Yet for all their retrospective remorse over the wholesale slaughter of Jews back then, the Europeans seem no readier to lift a finger to prevent a second Holocaust than they were the first time around.
Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification and contumely in setting his face against it. It now remains to be seen whether this President, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel. As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.

Lance -

The reason I am still here is because Bill went out of his way to send me a personal email. (Thank you for taking the time, Bill.)

I have no personal problem with anybody here. What worried me early on was the tone of so many comments-- pessimistic and dare I say, paranoid. We're not forming an armed militia here. (Wait, are we??) As you said, the ship hasn't even been built yet-- but the first two reactions were, "who can and cannot be onboard, and might we be targeted for even talking about it?!?"

That is what worried me-- I apologize if my opinions ruffled anybodies feathers.

Benjamin

It's all my fault anyway so why are you apologizing? (did i spell that right?)
Which reminds me, all typo's are because of me.

Not sure where you're going with that one Dougman, where did anybody say everything was your fault?

He's joking, Benjamin. The function of Dougman is to be responsible for every ill in the universe up to and including bones in your boneless fish fillet.

Look, what we've got here is a bunch of extremely intelligent and opinionated people with nothing very much to do aside from picking at this one issue that can very easily be overthought. We've already more or less agreed on the minimum that needs to be done, we're just picking at specifics and sometimes throwing out radically different ideas, some of which are unpalatable to many. Some tensions are unfortunate- but practically inevitable.

Which is why my general attitude has been to try and lighten the mood and/or inject some perspective.

I have clown puppets, people. Don't make me bring out the clown puppets.

Oh, and Daddyquatro- don't eat beef liver. It's huge and it's been marinating in internal cow waste for years. Eat calf liver, it's got less mileage on it. There's a couple of other tricks to make the thing delicious instead of nasty, but my reference for that isn't sitting close to hand at the moment.

Everything is always Dougman's fault. It's in the bylaws.

I once found a chicken head in my McNuggets. Dougman?

Benjamin:

On your last point, I couldn't agree with you more. Paranoia makes for bad decisions; paranoia in groups makes for unthinkable ones.

I'm not paranoid, everyone's just out to get me. :-P

Dougman, thanks for covering my previous typos, grammatical errors, useless repetition, lack of originality, off topic irrelevancies, and anything else.

And please look forward to absorbing content of little substance. My needs are simple. ~grin~

Until Mr. Griffith made mention of Google, it had never occured to me to look at my nic there. I was unaware that there may be other associations than my silly one, or that there was even a real person with that name. I'd just as soon use something else so all this chatter about the ID of commenters is still roiling about between my ears.

Processing continues offline.

LabRat,
It was calf liver but I couldn't find fresh. I bought frozen. When it thawed out, the cryovac had ruptured and smelled NASTY. Even after slicing onions and washing my hands in lemon juice I couldn't get the smell off. Oh well. Maybe I'll try again in another 14 years.
Disgusting mental image courtesy of Dougman.

Have we really become a society of victims?

Eric,

Please explain your question?

- MuscleDaddy

er, acenovelty,

Great read but a quote and a link would suffice. Dougman, how did this happen?

Howdy Otto Gass,
Duly noted and here you are:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10882

Hi Ben, what I found, shall we say, startling, was the "Well!-I-Never"-ness of your original comment.

The harder Lance argues for real name disclosure in order to participate here, the happier I am that Bill is a reasonable guy. After all, citizens cast ballots secretly for a reason. Getting witnesses to come forward often requires promising them anonimity. Juries are not shown on televised court proceedings for excellent, excellent reasons. Odds are cold comfort when it's your house that burns down.

I'm all for troll-control and I think many websites have found their own balance for dealing with such infestations. I think it will take time and actual travel for that to happen here. So, I say, let's see how it goes.

Floating Baby Head!
Floating Baby Head!

YA---HOOOO!

The Floating Baby Head button works!

Odds are cold comfort when it's your house that burns down.

Mmm...tasty fear-mongering.

After reading this thread, I'm thinking that magic dragons aren't only for people on the left side of the political spectrum.

I suppose I'm suffering from Futureshock, even though I've embraced either BBS or Internet since around 1992. Still, it amazes me to see how people cling to anonymity even when what is likely best for our society is just the opposite.

I've never seen so much fear of ~everything~ as I have in the last few years. It's crazy!

We don't even know what Bill has in mind! It may be a revolution of thought, but hardly one against a government.

The Founding Fathers wrote their names on a little document called the "Declaration of Independence" because it MEANT SOMETHING. John Hancock wrote his in huge format because it MEANT something. They knew it was potentially a death list. Their lives were actually on the line!

And people here are considered "unreasonable" because they ask a simple thing like a name and perhaps city?

If we can't even do that for what we feel is right, then maybe we do need to bring home our troops-- because if I'm not brave enough to even put my real name on a freakin internet forum for what I feel is right, I sure as hell am not qualified to ask for more from those far better than I.

... Just so sick of all the fear in this thread.

I haven't really read through the whole novel of comments - I've been rather busy of late. But from what I gather, I have but one question:
Why can't we have a Congress or a Council or something, rather than putting initial restrictions on citizen voting? That is, after all, how Madison, Jefferson, and all those guys got consentual government despite the horrid memories of classical democracy.

Just a thought.
Jon

You touch on somthing deep there Eric.

In the beginning, There was Fear.

The origin of Evil.

My fault.
Sorry 'bout that people!
Can you forgive me?

Holy Crap!

Hey folks - anyone who's thinking to themselves "this talk of troll-defense is getting tiresome."

Really needs to check out this comment stream:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=just_how_crazy_are_the_dems&ns;=JonahGoldberg&dt;=05/16/2007&page;=full&comments;=true

On TownHall - Following a Jonah Goldberg column - about...(wait for it) ...
...the number of people who believe GW was responsible for 9-11.

If this doesn't qualify as 'case in point' - I can't imagine anything else that would.

- MuscleDaddy

Oops,
forgot to sign.

Doug Saxum

There's a difference between fear and prudence.

A lot of anti-gunners accuse gun owners who want a carry permit of "paranoia". It's not paranoia to 99% of people who want to carry, it's a simple matter of preparedness, just like buckling your seatbelt every time you get in your car is.

Eric, you said that if no one has the guts to stand tall under their real, Googleable name on an internet forum where no one even knows quite what form it's going to take, then obviously we don't have the guts to do it when the chips are really down. I disagree. I'd be a lot more willing to do it when the chips are down, but an internet forum where no one knows what form it's going to take yet isn't actually worth the various risks- or even worth discarding a pseudonym with time invested in building an attached online reputation.

I'm one of those who doesn't want my real name Googleable. Why? Because there is a real person who actually wants to ruin my life if at all possible, not a hypothetical one. I'm not actually terrified of the consequences if she were to (gasp and horror!) find me here, but I just plain don't need to give her any more ways to hassle me. I'm dealing with her as I have to- in court, and yes that was a last resort- I don't want to deal with her here.

I just don't think it's chicken-hearted to be prudent when prudence is due. As YOU said, it's not like we're planning to take up arms against the government here- all the "courage" we'd be displaying would be "courage" to take a risk whose potential consequences may be much larger than the satisfaction of using the name the world at large knows you by.

Dougman,

I sent my boss an email with something that will hurt his feelings. It's your fault. Thanks a lot.

Alexa Kim said: "Getting witnesses to come forward often requires promising them anonimity."

Where in the world did this notion come from? To use the response syntax of others: That. Is simply. Not True. In courtrooms all over this country EVERY DAY, witnesses must walk into a public courtroom, in front of the person they are there to testify against, and invariably among the first questions they are asked are "Ma'am, please state your name for the record." This is often followed by "Could you please spell that last name for the court reporter?" The concept of "Anonymous witnesses" is not only an oxymoron, it is antithetical to a little collection of rights known as the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Everyone -- the guilty and the innocent alike -- have the right to confront their accusers and the witnesses brought against them. And this is a very good thing. Would you want to be on the business end of an indictment knowing that the person(s) accusing you get to remain shrouded in the mystery of anonymity?

Eric is absolutely right. So was FDR in his first inaugural address: "So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

Bill's essays are a leader's call to the rest of us to step up, look the fear itself in the eye, and convert its advance into retreat. Bill does this publicly, and has put his own identity out there for all to see. Rather than hide behind a pseudonym, he has from the outset chosen to lead from the front, as all good leaders do. Now, as he prepares to formally invite us to come along and join him, are we really going to content ourselves with merely paddling along behind him in his wake? Are we really going to forego standing shoulder to shoulder with him, as a fellow citizen, choosing instead to stand behind him, shouting "Yeah, what he said!" over his shoulder?

As Eric rightly reminds us, the Declaration of Independence was a bit more of a risk for the Founders who signed their names to it . . . and yet, they ended the "death warrant" they signed with this timeless pledge: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Bill asks for small act of courage: to stand with him in name only, not in armed insurrection, but in a well-mannered coffee talk about the meaning of what John Hancock and the Boys did. I, for one, am "all in" in this extremely low-stakes game . . . and I do so not blithely, but with full recognition of what it feels like to lose the hand.

We hide our names because of fear or novelty. Anything else is pretty much spin.

Respectfully, "reputations" from other boards are about as meaningful as they are in moving from one town to another town.

I was hoping for something special here. It may still be, but it also could be one of the unwashed masses of boards out there.

LabRat:

What if one's name was displayed in a graphical format without any ALT tag info, so that a mere Googling would yield nothing? I proposed this a ways up, but it quickly got lost. Here's an example: http://www.wlfl.org/Ragged-Edges/Image2.gif

Lance, I would be just fine with that.

What I'm *not* fine with is the accusation of cowardice. I've said my piece on the subject; if you consider that "just spin" for spinelessness, then we will have to disagree.

I'd also add that Bill isn't asking for that anymore- he's said several times he's dropped the idea after being very thoroughly convinced.

I still like Lance's idea above. An untagged image file isn't googleable. I saw the wisdom of signing my name as soon as Bill suggested it. I went "All in" 2 days ago. LabRat, I can understand your reservations, especially at this early stage. The signers didn't sign a blank piece of paper before the constitution was written. Read "Miracle in Philadelphia" to learn the story of what they went through that summer to produce that document.
For the reluctant, I'm all for letting the environment evolve before they are willing to sign on the dotted line.
For myself:
"I'm Here! I'm Free! Get Used to IT!"

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Doing something out of fear is not the same as being a coward. Please don't twist my words.

You can find it above, but just for effect.

Stan Ely

PS
Don't call me Stanley
That ain't my name!

Eric,

What you would call fear I would call rational precaution in a situational context. We can argue till the cows come home about how fear is the real root of that behavior, but...

Since you brought this up you've been decrying the tragedy of our society's living in fear of imaginary or toothless "threats". I won't twist your words if you'll own their full implications.

You're also not quite correct about "handle" reputation not carrying between blogs- many blogs have common readerships. You can play "Six Degrees From Little Green Footballs" a lot more easily than you can "Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon".

Daddyquatro- I'm pretty sure Bill knows my name and I'm surer that GHS does. If not, he will for sure when I buy another copy of the book for my mother. It's not hard to find if you really want to look for it- anybody I've e-mailed in the last two years has it.

And you're right, I AM waiting and seeing whether it would be a real stand to take (worth it) rather than what I see as a purely symbolic one (not worth it).

Could somebody give a realistic example of what they might post that would be so incriminating they want it secret?

For discussion sake only. Seems to me if you are so worried about people knowing it's you.... you shouldn't say it in the first place. Any solid examples?

LabRat: It certainly wasn't my intention to be contrued as ascribing cowardice to anybody, even though it was my intention to make a strong case for a symbolic show of force. I do think even symbolic shows are worth something. Not all of them, of course, but this one, IMHO, is one of them.

That said, I have a tendency to overtalk things, and perhaps this is one of those times. If I have taken my point to the point that you, or anyone else, feels that I was just spinning a fancy way of calling others "cowards," then I have said too much.

And, in a wonderful bit of irony, I realized that I was doing all of this preaching without my full name associated with it. Consider that oversight corrected.

May I put a marker down on the subject of anonymity, since I brought it up in the first place?

I have received many personal e-mails froom people I respect explaining -- not without some apparent anguish -- why they simply cannot in clear conscience post their real names.

I found their arguments extremely compelling. I for one would like to stop questioning another persons courage on this issue. I'd like to stop that right now.

Let me elaborate if I may: what I am learning here -- and I am learning a lot, and all of it is good -- is that the internet does strange things to people. It's not just the fact that we lack face-to-face comments. And that is why emoticons -- which seem childish -- are actually very useful: You ought to know that, you jerks =).

I have come to believe that we have lost the art of good manners simply because we are not talking to people but rather to the keyboard. I'll bet dimes to dollars that if we were in a big room having this conversation, the points could be discussed a vigorously, but the addition of silent smiles or nods would go a LONG way to smoothing ruffled feathers.

One of the things I am finding most useful, even in these early stages, is that I have to MAKE A CHOICE to either be conciliatory -- that is, to be an adult, to be a leader and make an effort to understand what people are reacting to and try and diffuse it.

This is not my first inclination. Like everyone else these days, my first impulse is to not look at this as a collection of people but as a collection of comments, and who cares if a comment is never seen again? Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, you butthole!

That is infantile. It's one of the things I would like to work on right away. Civility. Respect. These are the oil that keeps the machine of civilization running.

Well, looking at it this way, seeing past the screen so to speak, I am able to realize that many people who may say things that annoy me are actually teaching me something valuable. I am not afraid to say when I am mistaken, or to credit people with changing my mind, as they have on the personal identity issue, or the comment 'ownership/license' issue. I was wrong on both counts, and I am wiser now because of people who disagreed with me.

What I would like to call for is that each of you remember that we are dealing with not only potentially valuable allies, but friends as well.

Treat peole like your friend and all will be well. Disagree to the heavens, but do not lose a tone of respect.

Because if you do not I will have your collective asses on a platter LOL LOL =) ROFLMAO

Mr. DeKraker,
I think LabRat's (and probably other's point) is not that something they write will be incriminating, but that the use of their real name in a post will leave an internet fingerprint for the crazies that are already stalking them. For others I think it's just general squeamishness about putting their real name in the googleverse. That' why I like Lance's idea.
Stan Ely

Don't call me Stanley!
That ain't my name.

Hereafter abbreviated as
DCMS.TAMN!

Labrat,
Sorry if I have spoken out of turn. You are more than capable of stating your own case. Just my POV.

Eric I hardly know you and I am worthy of only your contempt. Apparently, you're afraid of ... me. Because I won't fall in line, because I offer valid examples of why I disagree with you?

The moment you decided to label my input as fear-mongering, you stopped being special. If the only way you can relate to me is by slapping a label on me, then you don't belong here, you're right.

Lance, as for witnesses, I speak about people who give tips anonymously to the police. There are several forms of witnesses. Another is the kind that shows up on the stand. Sometimes, even those witnesses, such as those who are in the spy business, testify under a pseudonym.

Lance, you sound like a law student. Have you ever been in a courtroom during a trial? Have you ever served as a juror? Have you ever been a trial witness? Have you ever been deposed? How long have you been practicing law? Do you practice law in this country, primarily?

Those are all honest questions. I've been in the law field for a little while.

I'm here because I believe in what Bill Whittle believes in. When it comes time for me to display my courage, I'll know it. My "name" will be immaterial.

I don't want anyone (got that?), not anyone to feel my words are an assault on their character, person or ideas. Nevertheless, "fear" should be recognized as primarily an emotional response, with secondary reactions that can include psychological and physical manifestations. When you recoginize yourself in a state of fear, step back (if you can) and analyse the situation. Is the fear warranted? Can I take logical counter-measures to reduce or render the threat null and void? It's a mental discipline, but emotion should not overwhelm mind.

There is a another personality type that reacts out of fear-less-ness. By nature, we are what Bill refers to as sheepdogs. The response, and it's almost automatic, is to confront a threat with a fast, aggressive, and sometimes violent counter-response. And we'll do it by word or deed depending on the situation. Example One: "I'm sorry, sir, but you just went over the line with that comment. No, I'm not willing to listen to your justifications, you need to apologize immediately. Take the comment back now, or leave the room." Example Two: "Drop the knife! Drop it NOW!" Threats to life and health require a vigorous and overwhelming counter-response. I'll admit, I would never make a good police officer. I have neither the training nor patience to be a good cop (nor the compassion). But as an armed citizen, I will give no quarter. If the bark doesn't work, then the bite will.

Thanks, Bill.
For the record, I'm all for voluntarily signing on to Ejectia. Personally, I much prefer to be DaddyQuatro than Stan. It says so much more about me. With that nic, you know right away what's the most important thing in my life.
If I sign as Stan, you might speak the name that is not mine.
DCMS.TAMN!

Alexa:

I will answer your questions, as I believe that they were proffered in the spirit stated: honesty.

Yes, I'm a practicing lawyer, and yes, it's here in the States (Ohio, specifically). I've been licensed for several years (though I'm still considered "young" as lawyers go), and have been a prosecutor the whole time . . . from even before I graduated law school, actually. (It's a long story.)

No, I have never been 1) a juror, or 2) a witness, either in trial or deposition. I have, however, been in court a bit. I'm in court every week. I've had nearly as many jury trials as I have years alive. All of my experience in trial is as a criminal prosecutor, and that experience has ranged from petty thefts, DUI, and drug possession to rapes (multiple times), gun crimes (ditto), robberies (ditto), and murders (ditto as well).

Googling my name will as likely lead you to the leftovers of my getting Dooced as it will to news stories about some recent cases.

Thanks, Quatro, you actually did make my reason quite clear. The person I'm referring to is extremely obsessive and has managed to significantly complicate my life by twisting incredibly picayune matters in the past; I'd really like to restrict what she can easily find out about my life/activities for that reason. It's always good to know exactly what your enemy has in their armory.

I actually did manage to put my finger on why I was getting irritated and why I was using the word "cowardice".

If you don't make a semantic distinction between irrational fearfulness of threats that aren't real (or are real but so small as to not be worth worrying about) and caution in response to one that is, then you aren't making a distinction between cowardice and prudence either.

Bill: you'd be surprised how well one can adapt to a text-based environment. I have friends that can judge my emotional state from my syntax, punctuation, and word choice even if we're just talking about the weather. Of course, this group doesn't have near that level of familiarity with each other, but it's a fascinating phenomenon.

Mark: As a purely unemotional and reasoned quibble ;), I actually don't think "sheepdogs"- or the courageous in general- act out of fearlessness. I think courage is doing that emotional override you were talking about earlier and doing what needs to be done in spite of fear; true fearlessness is also foolhardiness, in my opinion.

Since I've never been in a life-or-death situation, the only analogy I can use is dog-related. We frequent a dog park. Endemic to dog parks are the thoughtless, the irresponsible, or the just plain clueless who bring an aggressive dog. I've broken up half a dozen dog fights that were escalating to the big hurt (funny how these idiot owners never seem able to step up themselves); I was always extremely conscious- I suppose you could say afraid- of the very significant chance that one of the dogs would redirect its aggression and bite me as I pried it off its victim. (This is an extremely common way to get bit.) It hasn't happened yet, but I always do it anyway because to me stopping the fight before one dog gets seriously hurt or killed is more important than that chance.

Is that courage? Or is that just plain bloody-mindedness? Something in between? Not sure I could say, but I've always suspected it's just doing what needs to be done no matter how you feel about it.

Forgot to say- Lance, I wasn't annoyed with you. It's all good, bro. ;)

"If the only way you can relate to me is by slapping a label on me, then you don't belong here, you're right."

You absolutely were fear mongering. You're also absolutely correct on the latter.

I also admit my passion for my beliefs got in the way of reality. I had no right to expect something special of complete strangers, bound only by the common thread of one man's insightful writings.

I also hope whatever this grand experiment is turns out to ~be~ special -- Sincerely.

LabRat said: "true fearlessness is also foolhardiness, in my opinion"

Spoken like Aristotle himself. And I couldn't agree more.

"I've always suspected it's just doing what needs to be done no matter how you feel about it."

True again. Or, as a favorite preacher of mine often says: "Courage is simply doing it afraid."

Finally, I forgot to mention (or warn, perhaps) that Googling my name will also, as likely, lead you to my fantasy football league website . . . no small hobby of mine. If that gives ya'll the willies, so be it. Ya'll have been forewarned. :-)

I always did like that old Greek bastard.

Lance: no one whose dog has his own hiking boots has any room to criticize someone else's fantasy football league. Which is not even getting into the truly geeky of my hobbies... my house is made of 100% glass.

You've slipped up, Lance. Should have kept the pseudonym -- a lawyer is bad enough, but fantasy football? Such nerve! :P

LabRat, you only reinforce my point. To act, by necessity without hesitation, is by definition fearless. You ARE fearless, dear sister. And if you're talking about the dog park next to Santa Fe's old landfill, I know of what you speak. A rational person would take the following measures: heavy leather gloves in anticipation of a dog fight. Followed by the following confrontation with the dog owner: "Do you own this animal? Are you unaware that male dogs will fight when they smell another unneutered male? Get your pet fixed, pal, or don't come back." Small world, eh? But I'm glad to have you on my side. Quibble away, dear. Or should I say, kibble away?

Imagine if you will, a collection of minds, inspired by sporadic sparks of creative reason, logic and general mind candy in a desert of mindlessness; but only fed once every few months.

Then, one day, promised a regular supply of fresh, delicious new sparks of the delicious mind candy, the great questions of mankind, who knows what, their mouths water, they fuel up their tanks, their minds race in anticipation. And then they wait.

They hate waiting. They are good at many things. But right now, waiting is not one of them.

Ah, is that a morsel of a question? Just a little question. But all they have. They consider, question, propose, respond, respond to responses? (ad nausea).

Civility breaks down. Reason gets lost. Reason returns! Civility returns! Reason takes Viagra. Civility departs.

You have entered... The Comment Zone!

Bill, Please help, we are REALLY thirsty.

My last comment was being composed and posted as Mr. Whittle was posting his update.

Dougman, your timing sucks again.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T!
Find out what it means to me.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T!
Take care of...
Whatever it is you take care of.
Bravo to my fellow citizens.

Otto, beat you by 5 minutes.

If I have learned one thing while living on this mudball, it is that CHOICES HAVE PRICES. (That phrase alone could identify me to many folks....)

Eric, like LabRat, I am waiting to see if
a) my name is needed
b) if I can pay the possible price of putting it out there in the forever Internet.
I am also unwilling to have that price paid by my loved ones rather than by me.

Examples? I think the Kim DuToit one is very appropriate and more common than one may think. I have been a corporate cog for long enough, to know that part of the screening of applicants includes Google searches, review of blog content, and such. And, nothing need ever be said, should some HR peon not like the politics they find. The job goes elsewhere.

Ever been a government contractor? Know what the predominent political leanings of government bureaucrats (who handle bids, even in the military)are? And nothing need ever be said, the bid goes elsewhere, should said bureaucrats run onto your comments, and not like them.

I won't even get into the truly unhinged. Unlike Kim, I am not particularly interested in advertising to the world my discussion of firearms, or my ownership thereof. Benjamin, that would be a specific example of a discussion that I would not want attributed. They call it concealed carry for a reason, ya know.

And this may go out the window, if the stakes are important enough. But I have no idea of the stakes yet. Nor do you.

And moreover, anonymity can be an advantage, one that it might not be wise to throw away in the first trick of this (or some other)card game. And certainly not because someone wants to call me names over my unwillingness.

The original contention was that anonymity bred rudeness and unseemly behaviour. That's just not inherently true. But in Washington state those who burned soldiers in effigy covered their faces - and were anonymous. So the linkage exists to some extent, among the baser parts of the population.

But I do not accept the idea that the garment you display is cut to fit me. (with apologies to DUNE...)

Mark- I suppose our difference boils down to semantics, then. (And thank you.)

I'm not talking about that park- we normally use the one in White Rock- but I know the one of which you speak. If you're there and you see a half-grown Akita puppy named Kong tell his owner Kodos's people says hi. ;)

Unquiet Mind: your timing may have been bad, but this line:

"Civility breaks down. Reason gets lost. Reason returns! Civility returns! Reason takes Viagra. Civility departs."

If I'd been drinking anything, it would have been all over my monitor... too perfect.

And Dougman - if that's your real name - this is all your doing, and we know that, ok. You don't fool anyone, a'ight.

Now, where were we... oh yeah, the city-state that promises Ejectia.

When I offered my humble talents, and I do mean humble, I was, am, deeply interested in joining with like-minded others in turning back the withering tide of dangerous denial of reality. In doing what we know to be what is right, from our corpuscles up.

I don't think any of us here are paranoid, least of all Bill. We are all rightly terrified of the loss of love for the truth, the facts, the solid and provable.

The enlarging group of Americans who are utterly oblivious to their inability to figure out what is wrong, and to care, is a force that has to be pushed back.

I like Bill's approach and that is why I'm here. Until he kicks me out anyway.

One of the downsides of this keyboard method of communication is often that the flow of thoughts passes you by before you get done previewing, just 'cause you didn't refresh in the last 10 minutes. Oh well....

Unquiet mind, LOL on the twilight zone sendup. (Let's see, emoticons....)
;-) I enjoyed it very much!

I, too, am grateful I wasn't drinking when reading UM's comment. It brought to mind the visual from Toy Story of the regiment of little green alien dolls all looking skyward, breathlessly waiting for the Magic Claw to descend from on high and select one lucky soul for ascension and enlightenment.

daddyquatro, I'm so tired it took twenty minutes for me to realize what you meant. You can have it. I'm just glad to see the evidence. It's like sunrise.

zzzzzz....

Under another name, I had run a small blog for short while several years ago. Even got a few links via Frank in my hayday. (thanks!) Anyway, I laughed at the death-threats until I got a nasty letter in my mailbox. Not a virtual mailbox, but my HOME mailbox - with no postage on it, no return address. The State Police were polite and considerate, but there really wasn't a whole lot they could do. Anyway, that's when I killed my short lived blog (RIP). My point is I fully understand the need to feel annonymous - but at the same time, these Comments are nothing but that, until you have some real skin in the game. And this has nothing to do with revealing your real name (I lost all feeling of safety, and almost my sanity-all without ever even giving out my Christian name). What we all seem to have in common, besides a devotion to E!3, is a need to do SOMETHING. To carry these beliefs into one's real life, outside the safty of the virtual world and into the real one. Take these beliefs and morals with you, share them with friends and family. And the next time some smelly dreadlocked moonbat calls Your President a warlord, don't just shrug it off. Hold your nose, hide your daughters, and hit 'em upside the head with a clue-bat!

Man!
This thread moves fast!
I want my free ice-cream!
Have I used enough exclamation points yet?!

On the subject of fearlessness, but with absolutely no intent to suck up to our host, I can recall the following (mostly paraphrased) dialogue from "The Lost Battalion".

General Alexander: Major, you will take your battalion into the woods and secure the position at Charleveux Mill."

The major: "Sir, we lost a platoon this morning just probing that area."

The general: "Major, why do I have no objections from any other officers on my staff?"

The major: "Sir, I will lead my men to Charleveux Mill, but you will not see me nor my battalion ever again."

Major Charles Whittlesey (see?) lead his men in a frontal assault against German lines to the stated objective at Charleveux Mill. He was unaware that French and American units on his flanks had already retreated and were safely ensconced in the allied line. Whittlesey, isolated and unaware of his predicament, sent a message back to HQ by carrier pigeon: "Will hold until relieved." His battalion repulsed repeated German attacks to dislodge them. Commanders on both sides recognized the strategic fulcrum provided by a single American battalion lodged in the German line "like a thorn in the side." Out of food and water, cut off from supply and reinforcement, almost out of ammunition, the "lost battalion" held its position as ordered for five days. Whittlsey's men suffered 60% casualties, but the unit remained intact. Reinforcement came as the final push that cracked the German line for good. The war ended six weeks later with a German surrender. Whittlesey (see?)was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his leadership.

If you haven't seen "The Lost Battalion" then buy it. You could do worse.

Chase,
Where have you been, dude?
Not that I know you, or of you, but with that one post you are a kindred spirit.
Welcome to the fray.

Chase, Just one question: What does the hairstyle of your "smelly � moonbat" who insults your President, have to do with your point?

When coupled together with your "hide your daughters, and hit 'em upside the head..." choice of wording, I think you should consider adding additional time during the Preview phase of your posting process.

Unquiet,
R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Granted that the wording may have been un-PC.
I think that's the point here. It's the dude's first post. Chill. And a Cluebat doesn't leave scars. Unless you don't have one.
DCMS.TAMN.

Got trolls? Just send 'em over to the Rott. Folks there are itchin' to chomp into something. 8-) Misha's got everyone riled up, again. 8-)

Well, B.C, actually, but it's basically the same thing.

Floating Baby Head!
Rachel,
since I can't comment over there yet?
Let me tell you here how much it means to me to see your disembodied head at the top of a blog again! I don't remember when or how I found you but I do remember that you gave us Bill. We're all here today because of you. And, speaking for myself, we have missed you.
XOXO
DCMSlyTAMN!

Speaking for myself. "I" have missed you.
Sorry, the quality of my posts are in inverse proportion to my beer consumption.

Daddyquatro,
Thank you for the kind words. I�m a longtime reader, fairly new to posting here.

Unquiet Mind,
I was just describing a few folks I have run into in the NYC / North Jersey area - and sometimes find myself engaged (and enraged) while conversing with them. If �dreadlocked� offends you, then I apologize.

According to Urban Dictionary: Cluebat. A metaphorical bat used to 'beat some sense into' someone who is blatantly stupid.

I am not condoning actual physical violence against people with beliefs other than mine. Though I’ve seen and felt the blind hatred in some, while being pelted by their Peace Sign buttons. There has never been a more Ironic moment in my life than that.

Chase,
You do need to use preview because Word puts those funky characters in the place of punctuation marks. At least it does in IE:
cringing ..
I have to;
It's the company standard and the kids never let me get on to my home PC.

Anyone who doesn't know what a cluebat is by now needs to be smacked by one.

daddyquatro,
Point taken. Thank you:)

** SPOILER ALERT!! **

Hi guys. It's Bill.

Okay, here's a total recap for all the people I disappointed by delaying the essay. (Hopefully, you will judge it worth the wait. I think I am onto something important, completely non-Ejectia! related that nevertheless makes a great case for what I am proposing. Time will tell!)

Anyway, here's the thing: I heave already avoided so many mistakes by leaking parts of this out...well, you have no idea. I know it's been a tease and unfair and somewhat frustrating.

I think I make a good case for Ejectia! in the upcoming essay, but most of those here in the comments section are already interested, so I'll skip that and get down to the actual structure of what I see as a preliminary sketch. I call it preliminary since I have as little idea where this is going to end up as you do. But here, basically, is what I have in mind:

Most people here understand that Western Civilization (which I will define as cooperative, reasonable, scientific, capitalistic, and centered around the idea of personal rights and freedoms) is under assault.

On one hand, there is the assault from Islamicists. On the other, there is an assault from Transnational Progressives, in the form of lack of objective standards, Politically Incorrect speech, unqualified pacifism, and a general disgust with Western History which they see as colonial and repressive, and all the rest.

Radicals have places to congregate and assemble, and to make giant papier-mache heads. The Jihadis have numerous web sites dedicated to their mission of destruction. But the quiet, hardworking people that actually produce most of what is of value in the West are starting to feel quite alone, and I have seen time and time again stout-hearted people flirting with outright despair.

My thought process was as follows: Society is too large and too complicated to give such an individual the sense that they alone can change course of the ship of state. Even online communities designed for political leverage -- like the Netroots -- only accomplished removing a (D) from the Senator from Connecticut and replacing it with an (I). We'd all like to live in a community of decent, hard-working rational people, but physically moving to a common location is out of the question. It's undesirable for many reasons, not the least of which is the 'compound mentality' which I mean to avoid like the plague.

I believe the best way to improve society -- the ONLY surefire way that you have any control over -- is to improve yourself.

So the major objective I hope to achieve with Ejectia! is to establish a sort of wiki-university, where members can contribute their wisdom and passion in fields ranging from Civil Defense and Unarmed Combat to Single-Malt Scotch Appreciation and Quilting.

This is different from a comment section or chat room in that I specifically intend to present a forum where real people can aquire real knowledge for use in the real world. The amount of skill and information available to 50,000 readers of your caliber is mind-boggling, and not using it is a mind-boggling waste.

I want to instantly quash any suggestion that I am trying to create a Rapid-Response Secret Adventure Club to kick in the teeth of terrorists. What I do want is a place where every single individual can spend an hour an emerge a better person. Better people make better societies. They influence other people out of all proportion to their numbers (Google "Isaiah's Job" by Albert J. Nock to get a preview of the Remnant, which is a concept that I have great interest in and which you will see in YOU ARE NOT ALONE.)

At the scene of an accident there may be a hundred people standing around, wondering what do. When one person steps forward, forty will follow instantly. I want to nuture, support and grow that kind of behavior.

Realize that could be something as simple as making sandwiches or distributing blankets. Of course, you may have no interest in any of that. Perhaps you want to learn Greek. That may not be possible on the internet, but with a large enough community that mutually chips in their best skill for the good of all, you can arrange to do this in person all across the world.

Again, I have one objective here (and argue with it if you can, ha-ha!)

I want to make a place where people can go to be refreshed, encouraged, educated, entertained and improved. This will invariably produce BETTER CITIZENS and better citizens make a BETTER SOCIETY

I see things like real-time chat rooms, employment boards, a place to post specific requests for legal, mechanical, computer problems, etc. I see no limit to the good it could do if enough people can pull together to make it happen. Think of it as AMERICAN EXTREME MAKEOVER. (And see, I did it again. it doesn't have to be just America. We have great allies all over the world, and some of the biggest threats to civilization are home-grown.)

And I have a charming idea that the first thing you see at the ejectia main page is a photo-realistic, computer-rendered, empty valley. Then, when the chat room module is ready, a forum building appears in the valley. You click the forum to get to the chat rooms.

As each new module is added, the city grows before your eyes. The seasons change with the real world, too. Over time, an endlessly growing movie is posted, showing through dissolves the slow growth and increasing complexity of the virtual city.

I think that would be just damn cool.

I'll close with a quote from Steven Pressfield's excellent Gates of Fire. A Spartan slave is lecturing a young orphan boy who wants to strike off on his own and live in the woods.

This was the only time I saw Bruxieus truly, physically angry. He siezed me by both shoulders and shook me violently, commanding me to face him. "Listen to me boy. Only gods and heroes can be brave in isolation. A man may call upon courage only one way, in the ranks with his brothers-in-arms, the line of his tribe and his city. Most piteous of all states under heaven is that of a man alone, bereft of the gods of his home and his polis. A man without a city is not a man. He is a shadow, a shell, a joke and a mockery. That is what you have become now, my poor Xeo. No one may expect valor from one cast out alone, cut off from the gods of his home."

If I did not believe there were things bigger than myself I would not be doing any of this. Trying to organize a group as individualistic as we are is like trying to herd cats.

But consider this: I don't want your money, and I'm not here to sell you a religion, political party, insurance or anything else.

All I want is a place to make myself a better person. Anyone who feels the same way is welcome. All the rest is simple engineering.

That's the plan.

Bill,
Very ambitious! Very much looking forward to it! (herding cats...hahaha!)
There's a will - and there is a way!

Bill (and others), in case you haven't already heard it: You're likely to find the first 12-minute segment of the 5/15/2007 Sanity Squad podcast interesting, as it deals with the very same survey you cited (in which 1/3 of Democrats were found to believe GWB had advance knowledge of if not outright involvement in/responsibility for the 9/11 attacks). There's some very relevant discussion therein of the psychology that may motivate belief in conspiracy theories, the misdirection of blame and accompanying civilizational danger that result from unwillingness to squarely face and acknowledge real and frightening threats in the outside world, and so on. I listened to it this morning on my way in to work and immediatly thought of your comment. No doubt your mind is already lit up with keen angles of attack on the matter, but I supposed the Sanity Squad's discussion might nonetheless help to prompt a few new thoughts or insights.

As always with the essays: We know we'll hear from you when you're good and ready. Take whatever time you need until the feeling is right. Best wishes.

"All In"
Stan Ely
DCMSly.TAMN!

I really shouldn't have read that just before drifting off to dread unconsciousness, it'll make for fitfull sleep. From excitement!

You take your time Bill, we'll amuse and annoy each other whilst we wait.

Bill,

I can't wait to read the essay. And I can't wait to post my thoughts on the appreciation of GOOD single malt Scotch. I think Ejectia could be a worthwhile endeavor - and for those who have been denigrating it be comparing it to the "real world" I ask this: Are you SO important in this "real world" of which you post that you can potentially influence, in a positive way, the lives of 50,000 people? I know I'm not - but at Ejectia, that possibility exists. And your downside is what, exactly? You spend an hour or two providing Bill with some useful content on a subject you are TRULY knowledgeable about, that others of us might be interested in, and what is the WORST that could happen? (i) People don't read your magnum opus - so you wasted an hour - or, (ii) people DO read it, and disagree with you, and tell you you're wrong. Which means YOU learn something. I'll take that deal all day.

One comment, however. Given the amount of sheer, unadulterated CRAP that shows up in Wikipedia, I do think that we need SOME sort of "credibility" gauge, and I think an eBay-type "reliability indicator" is not a bad idea. I post my thoughts on enjoying single malt Scotch, and you try it and don't like it, then you were NEVER going to enjoy Scotch, no matter what. My ideas on politics, on the other hand, might reasonably give many sane, well-meaning people hives. So, whatever system we use, it needs to be somewhat subject sensitive - i.e., "This guy knows his stuff about Scotch, but steer clear of his politics." Perhaps a "credibility rating" on each individual post, that gets translated to a cumulative credibility rating for the poster?

Anyway, I suspect we'll be working out the fine points over a period of time -Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will Ejectia be.

New commenter here.

If there should be any requirement about posting volume, the group becomes exclusive and will deny itself ideas from those excluded.

Larry, I ASSURE you that is the one thing I would most like to avoid.

Welcome! Every voice counts.

(PS - Flagwaver knows his single malt Scotch. You're just going to have to take my word for this.)

Bill, you can't "centre around" something.

Sorry, pedant alert.

Mr. Whittle, et al...
Truly an exciting, but frankly, scary project. I have loved the essays, and will be ordering a copy of the book soon.
My own expertise is 25+ years' experience implementating ERP manufacturing systems in mid-size companies, with much emphasis on the hands-on experience vs. formal education/methodology. Not too sure what I might be able to contribute, but more than willing to climb aboard if/when allowed.
Will leave discussion of the best ways to block trolls to those who know more and have more experience in that. I simply offer my meager talents and support in any way possible, because the mission is critical. We must find a way to end the continuous attacks on the greatest gift to mankind ever, that being Western Civilization, and the best that it encompasses.
Please continue the good fight, and be of good cheer. We truly are not alone, with your efforts.

I'm excited.
I also use my real name and will happily post a photo. I will not live in fear. Let the forces of darkness do their worst. If you need advice on trussed roofs, light gauge steel house framing, dirt bike repair and riding or maintaining your equilibrium with a belly full of bourbon, I'm your man.

Who wouldn't want to be a better person? I like that. "We don't know what we don't know," as Mr. Rumsfeld said. So where is this valley...?

Sadly, there are a large collection of people who believe that either -

1) they are already the best people around, or

2) they are already good enough.

Good points Mr. Salyers. One has "to wanna be" better to improve oneself, and that takes work. Much easier to slack. And not use odd pronouns.

Count me in! I'm no rocket scientist or brain surgeon, but perhaps I can contribute something. Regardless, I'm eager to see, learn, and participate!

I am really sorry if this was covered in previous posts. I have missed a day or two and have little hope of catching up right now.

What if we fashion the system after our Republic in anyway possible. Perhaps, as a side bar, we can "test and experiment" what our real world system should look like and what changes might help.
The real world ID problem can be handled with adding true value to our online ID. It's yours and you must protect it by adhering to the laws of the land. Gaining respect and admiration through intelligent contribution, self control, and hard work are always good avenues for advancement within any community. It becomes like a game at some point, but real names can be dangerous. I have been a covert hitman for some conservative causes on a few sites. Not a troll, but a "you might need to be put in your place" kind of specialist. I am hated by many not-so-nice leftists.

Elected officials of the site and term limits. Law enforcement and Judicial. Success and failure. As simple or as complicated as we want.
Irresponsible behavior will not be in anyone's best interest. Some will rise as leaders, others followers, some will be removed. Rule of law. Success and failure. Free society.
Just a thought.

The first step to self-improvement is to know oneself. Easier said than done because we all have defense mechanisms to protect the ego. Everyone one of us will, at least on occaision, rationalize an act that we know is immoral or unethical. It's very tough to be truly honest with oneself. What is a moral man? We could go all the way back to Confucious and the Pre-Socratics to answer the question, but then comes the truly hard part. We'd have to apply what we know to OURSELVES. To attempt such would put a person on par with Marcus Aurelius and other great men from the past. And everyone of them, far greater than I will ever be, struggled with the process. I think about George Washington. He struggled to control his temper in an age, oddly enough, that was known for its hot-tempered gentlemen as well as its rational men of letters. Temper got Alexander Hamilton killed and Aaron Burr banned from polite society. Anger is but one of the deadly sins, and there are far more than seven. To know oneself and practice a deliberate program of self-improvement is a monumental task. I suppose for most of us, we'll just have to take it one step at a time.

Ok, I'll jump in and point out the biggest difficulties, as I see them. Not, mind you, to detract from what I think is a wonderful idea, but to give people something to think about solutions for.

First: If the volume of information being offered here is as large as I think it will be, there will be a significant need for some method of organizing (categorizing) it in a logical fashion, so that people can find things as easily as possible. I was part of the group responsible for the knowledge base at my former employer's helpdesk operations, and organization was a nightmare. I think the potential here is going to be a couple of orders of magnitude larger. One help will be that search software is a relatively mature technology, and will alleviate the need for manual organization at the low level.

Second: As we can all see from the comments just in this thread, people have differing opinions on the "correct" definitions or interpretations of things are. I would venture to suggest that a lot of us would not like to have things that we post edited by others, as it can be on Wikipedia. So we will have a DIFFERENT organizational problem in how to manage posts and their credibility, as flagwaver points out. While I don't believe that this community would be particularly subject to negativity attacks on other people's postings, when 'ratings' were suggested earlier, they were fairly strenuously opposed. Therefore, let me throw this piece of pasta at the wall: Allow multiple posts on any subject, with each post open to either comments or some sort of scoring, or both, but let the person looking for information use those as a criteria if they want, rather than the system using them by default. Alongside this as a credibility indicator, allow (not require) persons who post to place a bio page on the site, to show others what kind of background they have, so they can use that to help decide if the person is likely to be a reliable source of information on a subject. The poster would own his or her own particular posting, and would be able to make updates if they wished.

I know that the suggestion above sounds cumbersome, but I think the implementation would not be. Many people would bother to go to someon's bio page to check out their experience, but it would be available for those who just have to go that extra step to verify that their source is reliable. Most wouldn't contribute to the 'reliability index', and just read the information and take what they will from it, while others will be motivated enough to respond. Some people will go to entries with low ratings deliberately, to see if they are being piled on unreasonably. As long as the capability is there to make our own choices in the matter, I don't think it will be too bad.

Of course, if each person is able to post separately on a topic, then it leads to the possibility that there will be some topics where the number of top-level posts will be too large for someone to navigate reasonably. I don't have a ready solution for that, but I don't think it would happen TOO often.

Let the shooting (at my suggestions) commence!

There's a "knowledge database" site called a "lens" at http://www.squidoo.com/
Note the self-promotion aspect but this is not all bad. Anyway, it's a good way to communicate and organize, especially if specialized categories are needed.

I should have taken the time to read all of the messages anyway. I am now late for work, but...
It's great. Engineering is the only thing left to figure out. Great ideas begin with a few scribbled lines.
Let's go Bill! Better people with free information is what the Internet was supposed to be in the first place. You will get offers from sponsors to help pay for it all. Many hits.

"If I did not believe there were things bigger than myself I would not be doing any of this."--Bill

My work is done.

The Dougman is now retired.
It's been agonizing and wonderful!

"You say Good-Bye, And Eye say Hello..." 8;^}

(Honey! i'm h-O-ome!)

Hello everyone, I'm late to this game but count me in on this project! Bill, your writing has brought me to tears more than once. I blundered onto your site several months ago and haven't been the same since. I'm not sure how much useful stuff I can bring to the table but I'm excited to be a part of this "thing" and can't wait to see how it evolves. I'm a former Marine and a geologist so I'm pretty good with problem-solving and Big-Picture stuff. Nice to meet you all!

Deb

daddyquatro--thank you!!! It's a work in progress and I can't figure out how to make comments work. What is this Typekey crap? My, how blogs have changed since I left. Bill made me a new banner, too. Baby head no more floats, but I think the tiny fist is even funnier.

About the anonymity thing - you people have me scared now. I can't get around having my full name known - it's OUT there - and I do have trepidation about that, being a woman and all. But, so, are most of you saying that the vast majority of the reason you don't want your names known is because of employment issues for yourselves and your families? Rather than physical security? Basically, do I need to get more guns and more dogs? Because I will, dammit, I will!

Damn you, Dougman!! Now you've made Dougman retire!!!

DOUGAMNNNNNN!!!!!!

Damn you, Dougman!! Now you've made Dougman retire!!!

DOUGMANNNNNN!!!!!!

And now you've made me double post!!!

Rachel, while I think physical security is a real issue, it's small compared to employment.

Rachel,
Love the new banner! All hail the queen of Emphatic. Puncuation! As for the tag line, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. Especially in the summertime.

Hi Deb - glad to have you!

I'm reading through this - all of this - and a couple of things have coalesced:

- Bill's idea about the open field with the forum building.

- Wayne's observation about organization structure.

- Charles' suggestion about societal structure.

Add a couple of other things:

- My work requires that I be able to "see" & organize things/events in a more global, 3D, real-time & non-linear way than alot of(perhaps most) people. Being able to do it well has historically given me an 'edge'.

- My brother designs whole-world training simulations for DefCons (think 'EverQuest' for NorK battle sims).

Is there any reason that our "field that turns into a city" couldn't actually BE the vehicle through which all of this develops/runs/is organized?

A city with different 'districts' (industrial, finacial, agricultural, political etc) - one would call up & use a 'map' to find the different 'districts' - different buildings would house different ...guilds, and the buildings would grow with contribution - one would move visually through different parts of the 'city', having to 'walk' through the different districts to get to the one they want, necessitating that they at least SEE the others.

Organization would become intuitive, inherently lending to ease of real-world application of concepts and information to the real world.

Resources for this would be large - Charles' idea of sponsors returns.

I can see it - can any of you, or am I just going too far into my own head?

- MuscleDaddy

Muscle Daddy, your vision sounds like the idea I had upon reading about the valley, starting with the single forum structure. I would think (hope!) that a whole city would have to sprout up - and I can't wait to see it.

Thanks for the link to "Isaiah's Job," Bill. Reading it, and seeing what you are starting, truly made the hair on my neck stand up (in the best possible way)! What does it mean, when we are in a time when the Remnant can meet and share ideas from anywhere in the world, instantaneously - and it's happening right now, and the pace is quickening?

You were right, Bill - something is happening. We live in an age of everyday miracles.

I can't wait to see what's next!

Does anyone know how to work the 3D graphics involved with such a plan? Imagine walking through the towns or cities (with some modern tech tweeks of course) of our Founding fathers? All the while, seeing what you might expect in a real city. Ads, banners, election signs. The jail could be a place to see the names of those "locked out" for crimes. Go to the college and learn whatever. See the machinist down the street for mechanical advice. I think it would be best for individuals to request "places" designated for this or that. Perhaps even store owners. Limitless.
As long as our ability to house and maintain the world and even create it remains.
Forgive me if I seem excited. This could become the envy of the cyber world. Patents anyone? Or at least a copywrite?

Sounds like a great idea...but "Ejectia"?
Why not "Ejectopolis"???
I'm in...if I actually have any wisdom to share, that is. Sources and opinions differ!

I hate to double post, but has anyone actually noticed the amount of raw data involved with this single discussion? This page?

MuscleDaddy: That's a fascinating parallel to what was going through my head last night, though you probably expressed it in a better way than I would.

I was thinking, "Wow, sounds like a "grown-up" version of the online community that World of Warcraft has become." Put that way, though, I figured that not many people would appreciate the comparison.

Charles, what you're proposing is already done with some of the massive multiplayer games (think Second Life or World of Warcraft). It would be a fun - and perhaps useful - way of indexing the data we generate, but there doesn't have to be a single way to index it. As a Pre Digital Human I'd prefer to get to the same data through a tree and branch file structure interface.

It's the beginning of a grand experiment the likes of which I'm used to only finding in Science Fiction novels (where they always seem to be at the end of the 'grand experiment').

Bill, my compliments, as always, to the chef! Anything you need, count me in!

I'll do you one better.

The very fact that I have a CHP almost cost me my job, and DID result in a rather intrusive investigation into my life -- all becuase the Facility Security Officer (not a guard -- the executive in charge of phsical and information security at a DoD contractor with classified facilities) at my work is a rabid liberal who knows nothing about guns and has an inordinate fear of them. She even has incorrect ideas as to what the law and DoD security regulations have to say about firearms in relationship to our non-governmental facility that is located off-base. (Remember, this is supposedly her JOB to know, enforce, AND TEACH these rules.)

She went so far as to privately ask my wife (they are friends, and my wife works at the same facility) if she could check my car out to "make sure he's not bringing a gun to work". I know for a fact my offcie was physically searched immediately afterwards -- while wholly permissable, I do find it interesting that in the entire facility, only MY office was searched, and it was a search that couldn't have revealed unauthorized classified materials (you can't tell if a closed file folder has classified docs unless you actually OPEN the folder).

How did she find out? The local paper prints the names and streets of people granted CHPs. . .

Out of the entire office, I am the ONLY one who has (within the last three years) received or renewed a carry permit within the area that the local paper prints info on. I am also the ONLY one who has been singled out for special attention in regards to firearms.

The correlation is quite strong; she believes carry permit = dangerous gun nut who will shoot up the office one day. People with carry permits, therefor, are a threat to safety.

With Google searches being a commonplace HR procedure these days -- and with recent reports in the press of how many people have lost their jobs (or have been denied employment) SOLELY due to Google results, it IS a valid concern for some.

The sorts of things that are liekly to be said here, although perfectly legal, harmless, and nonviolent, are nonetheless considered "evil" speech by many of teh people who have a great influence on our lives. I cannot risk bankrupting my family (nor eliminating my - IMNSHO - not-inconsequential work supporting the warfighter) for the sake of commenting online.

On the other hand, my nom de guerre IS rather unique, and has a consistant history. And it CAN be related back to me IF you know to start with it. So, you CAN "verify" me as uniquely as if I posted with my legal name, it just takes a few steps.

This is very different from my legal name, which relates back to me very easily by Googling with one or two pieces of personal info readily available to current or prospective employers. Googling my legal name and county brings me up as a unique individual, complete to street address.

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

Benjamin DeKraker said (May 16, 2007 5:02 PM):

Could somebody give a realistic example of what they might post that would be so incriminating they want it secret?

For discussion sake only. Seems to me if you are so worried about people knowing it's you.... you shouldn't say it in the first place. Any solid examples?

Geodkyt -

I work in a similar facility (and praise be to Zeus have never had such a security officer to deal with)

For that reason, once Ejectia moves beyond a simple comment thread, I will probably assume a nom de keyboard. Like you, I have too much at stake.

Bit I think there we should have something at stake. I'm not sure what, exactly, or how to arrange it, but Ejectia should demand more than verifying a gmail address. Participants should be able to assume, with some level of surity, that the people they deal with are serious

"The way I play ANY game is, to a greater or lesser extent, the way I play EVERY game."

If we're serious about what & how we build this dream, the non-serious will shake out like so much dust.

By the way - glad to see it wasn't just me in my own head again.

- MuscleDaddy

Its been my experience that the population of posters on any list is bi-modal.

The majority are serious about the topic of the day either pro or con. They attack or support ideas with evidence and reasoned discussion. Only after accumulating significant evidence do they attack the person. Even then its usually identification and exclusion rather than attack for the sake of attack.

A vocal and significant minority are not serious and attack or support the person rather than the ideas. Evidence and reasoned argument are glaringly absent.

The in between muddle generally oscillate between the two modes. Often in the same post. If the muddle is due to ignorance in action, the muddle soon passes and one or the other mode is joined.

The remainder are in the noise and represent the cost of doing business. Their usual method is argument for the sake of argument. The quality of their arguments usually does not rise to the level of a troll.

It does not take all that many posts to sort the population. What to do about it is another matter.

Realize that Rosie O'Donnel will get hold of this idea and call it R-Ejectia.
Just so we can say we have already heard that one...

Lionel,

I agree with your assessment, but believe your application of the idea may be faulty.

The dynamic you identify most certainly applies here at E3, but it looks like Ejectia will be moving beyond the reality of a standard list in (hopefully) fairly short order.

Different game, different rules.

- MuscleDaddy

Fairly ambitious, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results.

A suggestion: blog sites are inherently bad for creating communities like what you are envisioning.

A better solution might be an open source CMS option such as JOOMLA. Joomla is what powers places like the Rand Corporation or Victory Caucus.

Hmm, for the 3-d rendering, you would want the homepage to be a flat, rasterized version of the real thing. That's very simple to do; just have the renderer produce an image and overwrite the old one every 5-10 minutes or so.

That way, the homepage itself would be open to all (a graphic just takes a little time to load)

But you could still have the 3-d in the BG.

Maybe I call my brother and let him know, he programs well-good.

Btw, for those who don't know, 'rasterize' just means render, in the sense that a three-dimensional or other layered/vectored structure is turned into a bit map, that is, a grid of pixels of different colors and/or transparencies.

Just so I'm not being confusing.

Rachel, if there ever comes a day where I need to provide some serious rationale for getting another gun or another dog, then the brightness will have gone entirely out of life.

This discussion has been wild, especially for the comments section on a blog. What it sounds like to me from all this is that you're looking to set up a sort of hybrid BBS/wiki. I've been on many BBSs over the years, and the group dynamics always seem to work about the same way no matter the initial organizing principle. On the anonymity front, most people will want to use a psuedonym of some kind, also called a "handle" or "username". For instance, I can be found all over the web under the name "Lanzman", which is also an actual real-life nickname I acquired back in my Navy days. I've been using my real name here because it seemed appropriate to the venue, but in "Ejectia" I would certainly use the "Lanzman" handle just to be consistant.
I understand the desire to be anonymous, dodging stalkers and crazies and whatnot. Perfectly reasonable. So why not have, as suggested by others, real names known only to the administrators of your web space? Presumably not *stored* anywhere on that web space, but held somewhere else, secure and confidential.
I know that when I stumbled across EjectEjectEject for the first time, I was instantly captivated. I'm willing to trust Bill's judgement with his new venture. Let's rock!

Awesome!

Regarding the city:

I had my own computer graphics shop for many years. As I was drifting off to sleep last night, I had a thought similar to some of yours.

Here's how it works: a computer-generated image (CGI) is produced by simulating the effects of light on geometry. The most complex T-Rex from the movies is actually nothing more than a vast collection of little triangles. They are 'texture-mapped' (meaning colors or patterns are applied to the triangles) and then the computer analyzes the effect of a hypothetical light source or sources on that flat surface of the miniature triangle and shades and colors that triangle (polygon) accordingly.

Most decent computer models have hundreds of thousands of polys per object. The really good ones have millions. ALL of them have to be calculated to produce a flat image. This calculation and drawing process is called 'rendering.'

The more polygons in the scene, and the more complex the lighting, reflection, atmospheric, particle (such as water or fire) and shading effects in the scene, the longer it takes a given computer to draw the image.

Just about all the CGI you see in movies has a single frame time of many hours, sometimes days. You need 24 of these still pictures to make 1 second of motion picture film. So major films like Lord of the Rings are produced on "render farms," literally hundreds of "pizza box" computers networked together (no monitors or anything else -- hence the term "pizza box.") The master computer assigns a frame to each box, the box draws the frame over minutes, hours or days, depending on complexity, and then sends that rendered image back to the host. The host then assigns the next available frame to the next open render farm slot, and off you go.

Now, to the point.

If we want the image to be a still image, all we have to do is render one frame. You then move your mouse over the still image and click to go to another still image, or to the module (eg -- chat room) itself.

For the end user -- you guys -- this still frame is like any other picture or photo. You just download it like you do the E3 banner, automatically loading with the page.

The advantage to this approach is you can get very, VERY high quality images, because you only have to make one of them and it can take hours or days to render -- who cares? The webmaster updates the still image weekly or monthly and you never worry about it.

HOWEVER!

If, on the other hand, you want to have the ability to interactively "fly" through the valley of Ejectia! and see the buildings from all angles, you have an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT set of problems.

First, you now limit the ability to do this by the speed and graphics capability of EACH USER'S COMPUTER.

Why? because under this approach the USER'S computer -- your computer -- is being required to draw those images IN REAL TIME. "Real time" means, ideally, 30 times a second. Anything less than 10 times a second is so clunky as to be essentially too frustrating for use.

Now, how to you go from one frame taking an hour or so, to doing the same scene thirty times a second? You MASSIVELY reduce the complexity of the scene. The buildings become less detailed. The trees and flowers become fewer and more generalized.

There are some VERY clever ways to do this, and the effects today can be very pleasing, even exciting, as any first person shooter fan will tell you. But these images will not and cannot ever get to the level of photrealism that a four-hour still can.

This is why, if you look at at World of Warcraft frame, it looks A WHOLE LOT LESS realistic than a still from Lord of the Rings. (Making real-time rendering look as good as the top-end movie stuff is the Holy Grail of gamers. They will never achieve it. They HAVE, however, LONG surpassed the ability to do in real time what it took TRON days and weeks to do, frame-wise.)

The good news is even the most basic box for sale in the last few years has a pretty decent video card and processor speed, because porn drives the internet bandwidth speeds and gaming drives processor speeds and video card development. You may be surprised to know that, but there's no question about it.

Here's the final analysis: You can have a stunningly photo-realistic series of STILL pictures to navigate through Ejectia!, and all computers are equal in this approach. OR, you can interactively fly through a greatly less complex version,and the guy with the fastest computer and video card gets the best performance.

There are two compromise positions: First, you can have alternative 'portals:' a high-speed one and a low-speed one. The high-speed folks can, if they so desire, enter a version of the site that allows real-time rendering, while slower machines or people who like the extra detail can stay with a series of pre-rendered (by the webmaster) stills.

A second compromise is to have the webmaster pre-produce any number of fly-by films. These could be done at full resolution, and downloaded like any other video clip. They could be a general tour, or could be made specifically for the walk from the forum to the market, let's say. The problem here is bandwidth -- the cost the host pays to send data to you, the user. Video is horribly expensive (which is why so many of us post or link to videos on places like YouTube and let them eat the bandwidth cost, which they are happy to do in exchange for their ad revenue.)

I'm not sure that would work here, because for that to be effective it needs to be transparent -- no going somewhere else and seeing horribly compressed vids at some other site.

My initial vote is for highly-detailed still images, with a "beauty tour" movie available and updated as the thing grows.

I purposely went into insane detail here simply because it may be of interest to some of you from an educational point of view, and that's exactly the point of sharing inside knowledge that I believe powers the whole enterprise.

A final thought:

As Wayne pointed out, the greatest challenge will be organization. That's the bad news. The good news is there is so much raw talent here already, and I have purposely not yet started to go "wide" with the idea.

Right now, the thing to be thinking about is not how it will be organized, but how to ORGANIZE how it will be organized.

I think we need to very soon start setting up working groups of specialties: web people, database people, graphics people, and especially information management people.

I'm not an expert in this, but my 2 cents is to start self-identifying our areas of expertise, and include an email address. If you want to e-mail me with what (Ejectia-building, for the time being) stuff you are good at, I can group them into catagories and REPLY TO ALL. Then you guys can contact each other in the group, knock around ideas, and send the best ones back to me. I can post those for comment or criticism from the group at large, and off we go.

There may be a better way. Dying to hear it.

Oh, I forgot:

Dougman CANNOT die. He just cannot. Dougman is the most essential piece of the entire puzzle.

Doug, if you can't find a way to keep Dougman alive, then someone else will have to don the Dougman Cape and Tights and become Dougman.

NEVER have I seen a more useful or morale-building concept. The first statue erected in Ejectia! needs to be of Dougman in a mask and cape.

For 3D rendering, I use POVRay. Its a quite powerful free for non-commercial use package. It does take a bit of programming skill but with a little effort the results can be very photo realistic.

It comes in MAC, Windows, and Linux versions.

See: http://www.povray.org/

In order to organize, we need a base.
I have often wondered why, with any new or forming nation of people on Earth, do so many nations miss the opportunity to have a representative republic like the US. What made it work was the willingness of the Founding Fathers to establish the base and then give over the power to the next guy.
Bill? You are George Washington here. What we do now will forever drive the spirit of this community. It's success or it's setbacks will be determined by how well we can look into the future and how well we learn lessons from other communities. The hard work of figuring out what works has already been done. A balance of power is necessary and voting will ensure sanity concerning policy issues. Bill, you seem to use that anyway, to your credit.
Wouldn't it be interesting to be able to start out as The US did? I think we can all agree that we should be able to ID any pitfalls along the way.
Imagine being able to solve illegal immigration before it begins?
Call me Poor Richard.

Bill,

What about (slipping into my ex-gaming-geek persona) building the 'world' of Ejectia using something already available, like (preparing to flinch)... the Unreal engine.

My thought here is that the original map, building-use textures etc. would be stored on a CD (which I for one would be MORE than happy to shell out a few bucks for!)and installed on the individual machine, and additions/changes (growth, new 'guild-buildings', etc) would be downloaded & installed as updates or new map-additions.

High-end graphics INSIDE the guild-buildings (somebody please give me something else to call them), rougher, more standard game-quality graphics outside.

The people who made Tribes (....yeah, I know) did some very nice things using those indoor/outdoor differences.

The INFORMATION is still held centrally, but the graphics/info-interface TO the information is stored locally, drastically cutting down on bandwidth usage (which would then be used for info and telling your machine 'where you are in Ejectia'). As you've pointed out with WoW, it's largely already being done - the difference would be that in Ejectia, the important stuff is the information, rather than impact physics and blood-spatter-patterns.

The matter of varying machine capabilities would come down to the usual solutions of increasing or decreasing video performance in the setup (resolution, lighting/shadows, etc.)

OMG ... can you imagine copies of Silent America going out with a CD on the inside of the back cover?

I have to stop now - I'm geeking out.

- MuscleDaddy

No, MuscleDaddy, don't stop!

You must hear that all the time.

I LOVE the idea. But I think that is a little down the line, effort-wise.

However, in time, what I think would be a BLAST would be to enable the Unreal weapons and have the ability to have virtual FPS shootout with other citizens among the Ejectia! buildings!

That would be a module too...not something everyone would have to experience or even see. Damn, that's a great idea...You'd just build Ejectia! into an existing First Person Shooter engine, just like any other level. God! That is brilliant!

It'd be like an office day of Laser Tag or paintball! Competing theories of government could be settled in the arena! Two ideas enter, one idea leaves!

That would be TOO MUCH FUN.

"Your theory of Neo-marxist economic models? PWNED!"

You know, a lot of the really inventive companies have 'playgrounds' to keep their people sharp and build team morale. I'd always thought of Ejectia! as a university, or a forum. The idea of adding amusement park is something I had not considered. I don't want to spend a lot of effort on that just yet, since there are more important things to do first, but boy that sounds like too much fun.

I see Richard sneezed, and got a little on me, Bless you. Or ga-zoon-tite? Damn, i'm dumb.

Bill,
What'cho takn'in 'bout Willis?

Rez-erect dougman?
You'd have to talk to the old lady 'bout that.

Maybe if she & Rachel could talk that girlie stuff, it might work.

I do art for a company which uses the Torque Game engine (formally the TribesII engine). garagegames.com is the site.

What you guys are asking is doable, but could take a lot of work (depending on how far you go). There are even plugins to run a program in the browser. It's also fairly inexpensive.

For anyone who wants to see it in action in a social-lounge type setting:
www.themusiclounge.com/faces/pages/index.xhtml

I didn't work on that, but they did a very nice job. Also, it's a modified game engine, so it would take a lot of work to get to that point.

I think you should be wary with the 3d interfaces, though. It's a lot of fun to do the first time, but eventually a person just wants to get to point B without having to walk down the street, take a left, go into a building, etc. So definitely, having an alternative menu system is the way to go.

As for FPS as a sort of team-building tool, I think that's a really neat idea -- but also requires new levels on a regular basis.

Of all things though, just remember KISS. As I'm sure many of you will know, it's so very simple to have "feature creep" and suddenly a cute little ball of jelly grows into an uncontrollable, theater-eating blob.

-Eric

BTW, I really don't bite -- well, unless someone steals my beer, then all bets are off.

Correction: garagegames.com is the game engine's site, not the company with which I work.

p.s.
It's gotta have some Kick-ass Tunes in the music store too.

Google "SecondLife."

That is all.

MuscleDaddy,

Seeing that most newer PC's come with a CD burner couldn't some one post a image file of the Ejectia landscape to be downloaded and burned to CD locally? That would cut distribution costs down to a minimum.

I'll leave the construction of a virtual city to the technicians capable of building such. But I would dearly like to see a temple dedicated to psyche, goddess of mind (intellect or rationality if you prefer). In Classical Greece, men like Socrates met their students on the steps of a temple in front of a colonnade made of stoa (pillars). The word comes down to us as stoic, though the term is generally misunderstood. There were many stoic schools. I'd rather not enter an arena of ideas where mortal combat, kill or be killed, is the point. Bad ideas serve a purpose. When you knock out the pillars of untruth through dialectic, what remains unassailable by logical argument is revealed as TRUTH.

As for Marxists, I can only apply a line from one of Clint Eastwood's spaghetti westerns: "If you have to shoot . . . shoot. Don't talk about it."

And I would like just one other thing. I find myself limited by my inability to provide italics, bold face, and underlines for emphasis. Please, sir, may I have control buttons suitable for a clod technician?

To quote Jim Lovell:

"There's a thousand things that have to happen in order. We are on number eight. You're talking about number six hundred and ninety-two."

Ejectia is a huge, ambitious project. Why are we trying to figure out how to create walk-through POVs using distributed rendering ... when we don't even know what categories we want?

Form follows function, let's get the core basics in place and built out from there.

Aw, c'mon Mark. We're gonna have debate and dialectic just because of who's here.

But I also get a HUGE kick out of the idea of Capture the Flag with Cynics playing blue and Epicureans playing red.

Benjamin: for fun.

If I've learned anything up here, it's that letting geeks play with their toys when they've got lots of energy to burn and a limited number of real goals is usually the best thing. ;)

I find myself limited by my inability to provide italics, bold face, and underlines for emphasis. Please, sir, may I have control buttons suitable for a clod technician?

It's this simple:

<i>italic text </i>
<b>bold text </b>

You don't need a button.

Now if I can just get Bill to add the alt text to the images....

LabRat, I accept. Now, if I am Epicurius, does that mean I get the scotch and bourbon drinkers on my side? Oh yeah, I want the cigar smokers, too.

Monster, my thanks, sir (or is it madame?).

Boy, this comment stream just ERUPTED when I wasn't looking.

MY votes?

(1) Register participants: yes. But, to me, this would be primarily a symbolic gesture, saying that you take the process seriously enough to enroll, and plan to contribute as a "voting citizen"... so to speak. And names, shmames. No real links to real lives required. But registering would have little to do with "troll control," because that would be left to...

(2) A moderator, or panel of moderators: YES. Of course, as a former "moderator" for E3! myself, it's a role I enjoyed and found purpose in. I can slam a door, whack-a-mole, or stomp a roach just as easily as I can argue till they're numb between the ears, and I've never gotten belligerent with anyone who didn't get belligerent with me first.

Unfortunately, not only is that just about the only thing I have to bring to the proverbial table here (how useful can 15-years-out-of-date air traffic control experience be?), but clearly this "commentarium" already comes with its own legion of stalwart and erudite defenders, who are perfectly capable of defending themselves and the walls of this city with both style and overwhelming force without me.

So... what to do with a dusty old silverback gorilla? What to do?

Well, I'll start by helping to mount that statue of Dougman that Bill suggested. Then I guess I'll have to build my own watchtower on the wall. And then? Hmmm. Time to start proposing new "laws," I guess... like...

"In Ejectica (I favor two Cs), there shall be no STOP signs. Only YIELD signs. No function is served by a STOP sign that is not served by a YIELD sign, save one -- that being the obligation to stop even when there's no REASON to stop. So ixnay on the opsignstay."

There. I feel like a participating citizen already.

And dang, it's good to hear from LabRat again.

Keep up the good work, all.

GHS

As I indicated above, there is a Bride of Monster and two Monsterettes, which would make it 'sir'.

I guess that's something I know and can teach: HTML and CSS (as well as *nix shell scripting and general computer stuff). I'm one of those guys who writes his web pages with Notepad or vi.

What a wonderfully elegant and applicable quote, Benjamin.

Or, to put it another way: How 'bout we get the gift first, before we worry about wrapping it?

And yet, since the cash register's open on the idea, here's my $.02: given my nerdling tendencies, the 3-D environments envisioned sound very cool. And there certainly is something to be said for making the valuable cool as well. Nevertheless, walking through virtual worlds as a means to simply access information feels more like an escapist's alternate reality than a collection of knowledge. Maybe I just lack imagination, which I readily admit is possible.

Of course, this is Bill's ship, so he can steer her where he will. I just hope he chooses the best beachhead for the discussed frontal assault on lunacy, rather than the inviting port full of entertainment and leisure. At the risk of sounding dour and boring, the internet has plenty of entertaining sites I could frequent if I want to play. No offense, Bill, but I've never thought of either your site or your talents as being a candy store, but rather a relaxed, fun, but nevertheless high-end steakhouse.

It's good to see you oh Great Hairy One.

The Family is calling me away now.

See ya soon.

I'm not on top of things like most of the rest of you, just a tradesman. But too many rules at the start will just complicate things. I am a FIRM believer in the KISS theory. Keep it simple. Enough people sharper than I have said it before in earlier posts...but this will evolve, and the rules will make themselves if we keep things civil. This site has been like a battery charger for me... has been for a few years. We all live in the real world, and we deal with ALL kinds of people every day, and anyone who knows me at work, knows EXACTLY where I stand, and what I believe in. For me, coming here is not running away... but recharging. And that is something I really do not want to lose.

Don't underestimate yourself, GHS.

Like I said, I've been in a lot of places on Der Interweb and seen a lot of successes and a lot of failures.

Successful group moderation is something that takes more than just some verbal kung-fu and bouncer skills; most of a moderator's problems (and therefore his/her skillset) don't come from obvious trolls, they come from intra-group conflicts. A good mod will know how to calm down a brewing stink without eliciting much resentment from the involved parties. A bad one will make it much, much worse- or resolve the issue in such a way as to set the stage for a much bigger problem later on. (This applies to teams and to admins as much as it does to lone mods.)

Patience, good humor, and an ability to look at a problem on a forum as having a wide variety of potential solutions as opposed to just one or two (like banning or telling everyone to shut up) from a moderation staff are what will keep this place together and running.

Hey, Mike, cut yourself some slack. If you do your work well with honorable intent, then you're not "just" a tradesman, you're an honorable craftsman. Plenty of room for you here, brother. May I extend to you greetings and a hearty welcome on behalf of the citizens of this place. Glad to have you on the team.

Conservapedia has an index of topics like World History, Economics, Physical Science, Mathematics, etc.

No Rapid-Response Secret Adventure Club? Dang! I was qualified for that! On the other hand, they probably wouldn't have paid overtime.

***Expanding the franchise***

An expansion of this would be to also have an open forum where problems could be posed, either hypothetical or real. The expertise of the community, in an open forum, could then be used. Implementing it will probably be a challenge, but I certainly could use this sort of resource when I'm consulting in Iraqi Kurdistan. When I'm home or have time I would be happy to return the favor.

If possible, feedback on how the solutions worked or had to be implemented would increase and improve the knowledge base.

Certain proprietary problems would probably need to be taken offline or have the names changed for security concerns. I'm going to be really dodgy about exactly where I am in Iraq. (Knowledge base datum: Never take pictures of your hotel or residence in Iraq. It irritates security and if somebody swipes your camera, they will know where to find you.)

Since I'm one person advocating building the core first...

Here it is.

http://www.mediawiki.org/

Bill, I'm sure you've already looked into this. MediaWiki is the core software used to power wikipedia and also the Conservapedia.

It's free, which is great.... because the Ejectia Air Force needs all the funding it can get.

We can mount lasers on the Long-EZ, right Bill?

Bill??

Just kicking around ideas for organization... very very rough-drafty.

1)The Good Life- topics like food and cooking, fitness, sports, pets, other forms of recreation and/or vice.

2)The Life of the Mind- politics, religion, economics philosophy. All those meta-concepts. History may or may not belong in here as well.

3)The Tool-Using Life- Computers, carpentry, cars, anything technical, mechanical, or other form of craft.

4)The Scientific Life- physics, biology, chemistry, etcetera

5)The Life of the Social Animal- psychology, teaching, writing, other things that involve or depend on social interactions and/or communication. Any "off-topic" section for pure socializing among the regulars should go here.

What else? Like this? Hate it?

People! Can I get some frickin' lasers on some frickin' Long-Ezes fer Chrissakes?

Once that happens everything else will follow.

With regard to the rest of it, I still consider this pre-reveal beta testing. So I love hearing big, long-term ideas at this point -- builds my enthusiasm! However, once we open we will take things one step at a time. Until then, my inclination is to speculate!

Some random thoughts.

I'm a First Principles/Requirements driven guy. While I would love to play in the 3d world - and there's no reason not to think about it - the content is king.

With the arrest of the Ft. Dix Six media has been giving some play to the "virtual Uuma" - the online Jihadist community that serves to radicalize people otherwise not in communication with radicals. I envision Ejectica as a space to provide the same kind of support, education and encouragement to those dedicated to honor, freedom, reason, compassion and truth.

In the broadest terms, it does that by dealing with data. It provides a space for storage, and bandwidth for communication. It allows us to talk to one another, and tuck stuff away for other people to read.

So, we need libraries full of writings, and spaces for conversations that will take place at different speeds.

(This comment thread is a conversation taking place at medium speed. A chat room is faster and less permanent, an online audio/video virtual chat space would be conversation at high speed. An email list is a conversation at low speed.)

I'd stick around and play tonight, but I'm writing my RINO senator a nasty email about this amnesty bill, and I'm too ticked off.

I'd have to do some checking, but the beta MMOKit for Torque may work for much of what's been said.

It might also be fun to have some sort of outside NPC attackers -- bugs or spiders or bears, oh my.

Maybe a WIKI slot devoted to the design doc? ;)

I think I see what you are getting at. My job sent me to a class once that was all on PC. You would work your way through a virtual city, visit one building after the next, earning your way through by taking brief cources and passing tests. Graphics weren't THAT great but they didn't need to be - the content was interesting enough. The graphics just kept you more involved. Speaking of which, I can't program my way out of a paperbag - but I'd love to be involved and help any way that I can.

Let's step into the Way Back Machine. MuscleDaddy @ 9:20 this morning.
"A city with different 'districts' (industrial, financial, agricultural, political etc) - one would call up & use a 'map' to find the different 'districts' - different buildings would house different ...guilds, and the buildings would grow with contribution - one would move visually through different parts of the 'city', having to 'walk' through the different districts to get to the one they want, necessitating that they at least SEE the others."

What I envisioned here was something like the computer scene from Jurassic Park.
I come here for the content. If it looks pretty, that's a plus. Down the road, snappy graphics might stay the hand of a click happy x'er long enough to capture him/her with the ideas, but for now, the ideas are paramount.
The collected wisdom here amazes me. Every time I post, I wonder if I am worthy, if I really have something valuable to say; but then I read LabRat fantasizing about a game of tag between ancient Greek sects, (That raawks! by the way) and I understand that I am in a place where even my small voice has some value.
The IDEAS matter.
Purty Pichers are just packaging.

Unquiet, I nominate you to head up the Dang! Department, Apply Liberally As Needed or As Directed, You Decide.

LabRat, I can see you fronting the Sound Logic Band. What kind of music do you prefer? Please, don't say circus.

Dougman, I nominate you to command the Omega Club, the Get Over Yourself and Stop Crying Amendments Generator and Movie Critic.

Me? I don't know nuthin' 'bout no fritos, kitten heels, almond frise lip gloss, diversity dingies, multi-culturalismosity or accounting. But I speak Spanish, pocho, spanglich, English and legalese.

GHS, may I call you Great?

Organization... organization. There are soooo many ways to divvy up the spoils and whatnot. I think LabRat has a good starter set there...

I think having an excellent search engine would help considerably in basically by-passing a lot of organization up-front. Tags are good. I have no idea if that is worse than organizing first. My brain works random access all the time because I naturally cross-reference in ways that don't occur to others.

Bill, you are so right, without Dougman, and a suitable monument to him, we are merely babble-ON.

Oh, even though I have lousy vision, I'm a good proofer. Most of the time.

Muscledaddy and daddyquatro, you remind me of a subject I think deserves lots more attention: the father imperative. Our society has suffered mightily from the degradation of the father figure in raising our spawn. But that's for another thread some other time. Or better, it's own boulevard.

Chase,
Here you are again, saying what I was thinking before I could post it.
"Graphics weren't THAT great but they didn't need to be - the content was interesting enough."
And I used the same phrase in my email to Bill, but I can program myself out of a paperbag.
Are you sure you're not me?

Uh, can you tell I'm lousy at sleeping? Sorry, I'll shut up after I say to SkyeChild:

Ditto, I'm doing the same with my Congresscreeps. Taxation with representation sucks as well.

Thanks, Alexa.
Daddies need love too.
I try, everyday, to show my son how a woman should be treated, and more importantly, to show my daughters how a man should treat a woman.

Oh, I like everything. Except circus.

But if you tied me down and made me listen to one kind for the rest of my life, give me a pair of shades and the blues.

Sorry,
Was that a little sexually biased... women should be honored... they ain't the same as men... coming out there?
My bad.

I try, everyday, to show my son how a woman should be treated, and more importantly, to show my daughters how a man should treat a woman.

And they're having three generations for every two that the stable families have. (Now I have to put in the disclaimer that there are widows out there busting their butts trying to be both father and mother to their kids, and it isn't their fault; and there's women who divorced abusive husbands that are worse than none at all... I know about those, and I'm not talking about them.)

Which is what children in single-family homes lack. When we made the policy decision that fathers are optional, we started cranking out consecutive generations of boys who don't know how to treat a woman, and girls who don't realize they should do better. With each generation, it's gotten worse.

I agree, Monster. I also think it's because men and women have been taught equal means "same"; Like Herrison Bergeron has hopped right out of the story pages. We can actually be asymmetrically balanced.

That, and it seems like boys just can't be boys any more. Or am I mistaken?

daddyquatro,
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

I'm a separated Dad. My ex and I get along pretty well (better now than before - and much better than some). We try to raise our daughter together to respect herself and stick up for herself. But I am lucky. I still get to see my daughter all the time. Can't imagine life without her. I mention this only to point out that divorced parents can get along if they focus on what is REALLY important. And if you have a decent lawyer.

It sounds like different people are getting different parts of what I'm (intermittently - have to keep moving away from the machine)thinking:

Charles Sez -
Imagine walking through the towns or cities (with some modern tech tweeks of course) of our Founding fathers? All the while, seeing what you might expect in a real city. Ads, banners, election signs. The jail could be a place to see the names of those "locked out" for crimes. Go to the college and learn whatever. See the machinist down the street for mechanical advice. I think it would be best for individuals to request "places" designated for this or that. Perhaps even store owners. Limitless.

Yes.

Richard Riley Sez -
...what you're proposing is already done with some of the massive multiplayer games (think Second Life or World of Warcraft). It would be a fun - and perhaps useful - way of indexing the data we generate...

Yes.

Bill Sez -
You'd just build Ejectia! into an existing First Person Shooter engine, just like any other level.

Yes.

Benjamin DeKraker Sez -
"There's a thousand things that have to happen in order. We are on number eight. You're talking about number six hundred and ninety-two."

Yes also, but if you don't start off building something with the future in mind, it means a lot of dismantling later on to get what you want.

LabRat Sez -
1)The Good Life- topics like food and cooking, fitness, sports, pets, other forms of recreation and/or vice.

2)The Life of the Mind- politics, religion, economics philosophy. All those meta-concepts. History may or may not belong in here as well.

3)The Tool-Using Life- Computers, carpentry, cars, anything technical, mechanical, or other form of craft.

4)The Scientific Life- physics, biology, chemistry, etcetera

5)The Life of the Social Animal- psychology, teaching, writing,...

Perfect. Each number representing a 'District' of the City.

Lance Salyers Sez -
And there certainly is something to be said for making the valuable cool as well.

And there's the thing of it.

This place may be a vast repository of knowledge and wisdom just by virtue of its inhabitants, but none of that knowledge or wisdom is, in and of itself unique - it all already resides somewhere on the internet, and people with the interest, with the drive, to find it will work out the right questions to ask and THEY will find it.

But look around - that "they" is "us".

Improving ourselves through knowledge, learning, education etc. is good - it's noble - it's worthwhile.

But it's not the bigger picture, and it would not be our best effort.

The real goal is reaching THEM.

I know something about training (and MuscleMommy was a Spec.Ed. teacher for over a decade & I daresay some of that rubbed off, too) - and make no mistake, you CANNOT overstate the importance of presentation in teaching.

I firmly believe that, for this to work to it's greatest potential - and OMG, my mind is reeling as the potential unfolds behind my eyes - it will have to be different - so different and so infectious that THEY will be drawn to its light like moths.

WE are the ones who can be captivated by file-trees and endless lines of black type on white backgrounds.

For this to work - for this to become the powerful tool against the societal drain-circling that it can be - that we NEED it to be...

...it has to reach and captivate THEM.

And we have to start with that in mind.

- MuscleDaddy

Alexa, daddyquatro -

Sorry - I was forming & emoting while the rest of your conversation was going on.

You're both spot-on & I try to keep that in mind every day w/MuscleBaby.

"Fathers, be good to your daughters - daughters will love like you do."

- MuscleDaddy

I was busy tonight and I come back and WOW the whole world has changed.

All this stuff about 3-D game like virtual city state rendering of e!3 is great but...

Dougman's retiring? Can't be.

Breathe in. Breathe out.

OK, Stars are up? Check.
Water is Wet? Check.
Earth is still rotating? Ah, that takes too long.

I have an idea. We need the cooperative to all work together on this. Everybody with me? Now, all at once?

PANIC.

For 3D rendering, I use POVRay.

To demonstrate POV-Ray, here's a rendering of the E!3 logo on some Spartan-ish shields with a solid background. If you think they look a lot like a certain brand of candy, well, so do I.

Creating an array of 300 of these, with protruding pikes, isn't that much more work

Chase, daddyquatro,

Can I invite you guys out of the Ejectica Forum and buy you a beer? (or the drink of your choice) There has to be a good pub around here somewhere. Is that one materializing out of my imagination just down there at the corner Forum St. and 1st? Ah, Forum Street Pub, just what I was looking for. And, what do you know? They have my favorite beer, Samuel Smiths Nut Brown Ale, on tap. I've never found it on tap. Who'ed of thunk it? I love this town.

First, I apologize for jumping before I thought last night. I should have followed my own advice and previewed. In my mind, there was a "Please" and a "Sir" in there somewhere.

Second, I was composing the story below to follow up and soften my comment. But daddy duties called and by the time I got back it was getting late here on the East coast. When I checked in there was talk of clue-bat ignorant trolls roaming the forum. I was very afraid. Then I realized it was me. Damm, I hate it when I do that.

Damm again. With Dougman retired, this one is actually my fault.

I have told this story many times, so there are a few versions, but I'll try to stick to the short one.

Over a bunch of beers one time, 25 year ago, I promised a black guy with dreadlocks I had never met before and have never met since, I would not sit quietly and let anybody make irrational insults about blacks in front of me. He promised to do the same on his end. I have no idea if he kept up his side of the bargain, I have.

This single decision has turned out to be a very positive thing in my life and has led me to take time and help people in situations I don't think I would have otherwise.

Not once, in 25 years, have I had a single really bad experience. It has led to some awkward moments as I clearly stated my position on the n-word in some crowds (and even with my 96 year old grandmother). I always try to do it with respect, reason and humor. I failed at that last night.

Chase, My objection was to the "dreadlocks" coupled with the "hide your daughters". The " and hit 'em upside the head with a clue-bat!" part had nothing to do with it. In fact as I go back and read your post I find your emphasis on " a need to do SOMETHING" drives you to apply your clue-bat in the same spirit I am acting on.

This single decision has led me to do some thing that have made me feel very good, even noble. As time has gone by, my original narrow focus has expanded.

On 9\11 as I drove up North Capital Street away from the Capitol Building, I stopped and picked up a young black guy cussing at his cell phone as he ran north. He was panicked because he and his family had come in on the train and Union Station was overwhelmed. I ended picking up his grandmother and his and his sister's kids, packing them all in my car and dropping them off up at their car at a train station near Baltimore. I went to a ball game with him and his grandfather a few summers ago. WWII vet who has lived in Baltimore his whole life. That old man has lived it.

All of this would never would have happened if not for a few beers 25 years ago. ;-)

MuscleDaddy, your comment,

'This place may be a vast repository of knowledge and wisdom just by virtue of its inhabitants, but none of that knowledge or wisdom is, in and of itself unique - it all already resides somewhere on the internet, and people with the interest, with the drive, to find it will work out the right questions to ask and THEY will find it."

I really can't agree with that. The internet is a wonderful resource for researching the current flow of information of topical events. The 'thrash' of modern communication, but it can woefully dissapointing if you're trying to find the intricate details of some aspect of science or technology, or even political events. So much of contempory knowledge is 'protected' by copyright, patent, proprietary, or government secret classifications that it can't be published on the internet.

In my profession and my interests, I've often used the internet to communicate with an 'expert' on some subject who directed me to a volume which I subsequently acquired through the library exchange program.

The value of the reader and contributors to this site are not limited to the wisdom they retain between their ears, but is primarily in there memory of the sources and references which they can recall using in their quest to obtain their knowledge.

Bill seems to be trying to tap into the value of both of these resources. Commendable. Not just the aggregate and organization of information, but the coordination and accessibility of 'expertise'.

Expertise is not only valuable for its ability to increase production, but also for its ability to expand development of assets (that sounds too cryptic even for me). Sorry I can't explain that better.

On the subjects of marriage and child rearing I wrote an essay for QTR. Let's see if I can bring up my name hot for anyone wishing to read it.

Unquiet,
Second round's on me. As a Texan, I recommend Shiner Blonde. Also damn near impossible to find on tap.

aLurker,

"The value of the reader and contributors to this site are not limited to the wisdom they retain between their ears, but is primarily in there memory of the sources and references which they can recall using in their quest to obtain their knowledge."

Of course, you're right - but disagreeing with me, which means that I didn't spend quite enough time forming that sentence before putting it down.

When I said: "...none of that knowledge or wisdom is, in and of itself unique - it all already resides somewhere on the internet...", I was including the expert points of reference to bound-tome information.

And when you said: ..."I've often used the internet to communicate with an 'expert' on some subject who directed me to a volume which I subsequently acquired through the library exchange program."

...You proved my point of "...people with the interest, with the drive, to find it will work out the right questions to ask and THEY will find it."

See - you're one of THEY, as opposed to one of THEM...

- MuscleDaddy

"Dear Douglas,
Here is your horoscope
for Thursday, May 17:

Words are more important than deeds right now, especially when you're discussing the future. Go ahead and build castles in the air. After all, that type of real estate is easy on the wallet -- and easy to redecorate".

Well, if it's written in the stars, the Wife is just going to have to deal with it like she has been for the last few years.
So Be it.
erect! erect! erect!

That was from dailyhoroscope@astrology.com.

Must give credit where it's due.

Dougman Sez:

erect! erect! erect!

I am going to need some mental clorox, now.

- MuscleDaddy

How frakin' awesome is that!

erect! erect! erect!

Posted by: Dougman | May 18, 2007 7:16 AM

Oh, look. Dougman is ready for his statue. :)

So, whatcha look like, there, Dougman?

Six foot/ 150 lbs. Butt ugly :o

Just chiming in on MuscleDaddy and aLurker's conversation to annoyingly point out that finding good information and readily sorting it by quality is an important learned skill in and of itself...

Also, Mark Paules- read the hotlinked essay. Sadly true in many places. Does Muninn = you?

Halleluja, the Dougman lives! I can stop panicking now, whew. Unquiet, we're saved!

daddyquatro, I didn't misunderstand you at all, no worries. I agree with you!

Muscledaddy, "mental clorox" - LOL! I'll be using that. The John Myers song always makes me pensive. That you know it is no surprise.

...it has to reach and captivate THEM. And we have to start with that in mind. - MuscleDaddy - Posted by: MuscleDaddy | May 17, 2007 9:58 PM

Absolutely, utterly, exactly RIGHT!

alexa kim,
Is groovy. I was being facetious. Sometimes my snark can be a little too veiled.

Labrat, Muninn is an old school chum aka Svinrod on this channel. I sometimes write under my nom de plume: Basil Riverdale.

daddyquatro, woops, my snark sniffer is really new and I haven't fiddled with the adjustments yet.

daddyquatro, woops, my snark sniffer is really new and I haven't fiddled with the adjustments yet.

I haven't double-posted in forever. I always feel like an interpreter for the hard of hearing when I do that.

My bad.

Unquiet and daddyquatro,
3rd round is on me! My "dreadlock" comment had NOTHING to do with black/white. (Actually, it was a smelly white dude throwing the Peace buttons). Now that I look back at my post, I see where I went wrong. CHEERS!

alexa,
Haven't you heard? Dougman is back on the case. Therefore, it wasn't you fault.
A statue and a street. Maybe even the town square.
On second thought, maybe not. A town square named after Dougman might tempt the gods of chaos.

Chase, daddyquatro, I have put down many Shiner Boks in my time. I have two skiing buddies from Texas (originally) who won't go back to Utah because they could not find Shiner. I'll have to try the Blond.

alexa, "And now back by popular demand...".

WayneB, I could have done without the image of Dougman's Statue you put in my mind. But, because this site is all about sharing... I work right on the D.C. Mall, and right there, prominently displayed is the tallest building in the city...The Washington Monument.

Dougman, I have only been doing this for a short time and my wife is already wondering what I am sitting at my computer so absorbed an grinning about. She is used to me getting on my laptop at all hours, I have always done that with work. But now I seem to be enjoying it more and she is giving me that look.

New Look II: I liked the parchment because it reminded me of the old documents this country is founded on. I like the blue and clouds better because the galaxy becomes so much more prominent and become a destination for the those pulling the eject cord and headed to the stars in that very loud chair. Overall the focus changed from the past into the future. Good move Bill.

alexa kim,

"...That you know it is no surprise."

Thank you for saying so.

- MuscleDaddy

A town square...
The Gods of chaos are right here with me, three little munchkins and the wife that always has to know What'cha thinkin' about?.

Aghr-r!
Not to mention my own thoughts that i try to comprehend.

I mean, a High School drop-out like me cavorting around with the likes of you all.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

Dougman, if it helps, the chaos at home still resolves to life. It's the chaos of the mad mullahs that is truly a threat. The chaos of this site, with people cross posting on three old threads, is entertaining me still. Like having several radios on at the same time all playing different pieces. I can't always hang with it but even at a distance I like the bubbling stew.

I'm glad you reconsidered your early retirement.

the mad mullahs

Thanks for the re-focus Otto.
Them's the ones that need to be taken out before i can truly/fully enjoy life.

The heads of the snakes.

Can't rest 'til they Submit or Die. The A$$holes

Allrighty then, i got children that need my attention now.
See ya!

Dang, Dougman.
I understand, with three little ones how you have cultivated the skill of taking blame. I, on the other hand, always blame the kids. It worked better when they couldn't talk. Right there with you on the High School drop-out thing. If it were really true that life is like HS I would have given up long ago.

Otto,
Must.. give... up... old... thread... Must... move... on... to... new... thread.
But I've had such fun here!

daddyquatro, I expect that this will pass all too soon - that is, the acceleration with more ideas and more people will make for a vast spread in my ability to keep track. This one is what, four, five days old? Hell, over at LGF they'll chew up 10 a day with hundreds of comments before I blink. Tough going, to catch Einstein's train.

Well, I hope to see you in orbit once in a while anyway.

Know what you mean - I keep coming back here too.

- MuscleDaddy

Otto, daddyquatro, LOL. Then a chuckle. Now I have to go check the other threads...

One last comment here: Often I have thought it was an absolutely necessity to have some form of tree structure for comments just to categorize and compartmentalize. But this flat thread has been one of the best I have ever seen. Content over structure. This group of people Bill has drawn to the light just blows my mind. Amazing.

Dang, Otto.
(I have just said dang twice in one night.)
You've already got me feeling nostalgic. I just had an image of you and I, Unquiet, Chase and Dougman meeting up at some virtual taproom six months from now. For good or ill, these past few weeks have been a blast. And I need a new F5 button.

All this talk of sipping brew is making me thirsty! Is there any property in Ejectia up for sale yet? Perhaps I could build a Bar/Pub? I would call it...... "The Chase Lounge" - but that would just be my id getting in the way again. Beer and Spirits reasonably priced. And for my Mormon friends; 7-up is free on Sunday, but you'll have to pour it yourself:)
Everyone remember to tip your waitress! I pay them peanuts, you know.
Unsalted.

The Chase Lounge.
Cool! I could kick there for a while. So, Unquiet has Samuel Smiths Nut Brown Ale, I've got Shiner Blonde, what's your drink of choice?

By the way, Mormans can't pour on Sunday. They pour on Saturday so it's already done.
(Former LDS here, before I p**s anybody off)
Nuthin' but love for the Mormans, but sometimes I like to take the kids to McDonald's on Sunday.

daddyquatro,
Oh, I see. We'll keep it cool for them, though.

btw - I'm a nice guy. I drink Lite beer from Miller.

Guinness.

..assuming I'm invited.

- MuscleDaddy

MuscleDaddy,
It would be an honor.

MuscleDaddy,
Pull up a chair.
Truth be told, I usually drink the champange of beers myself. Just not the lite version.
Damn, it's gettin' crowded in here.
Chase, can we get a party room?

This joint got a jukebox?

Been a hell of a day - I'm gonna throw down the first pint quick & nurse the next one.

Some Nora Jones would go good right now...

Sure!
Billiard tables are on back-order, though.
Sorry:(

One of you order me a Pacifico? Ok if I join if I rack up the first juke plays? Nora Jones, got it, I want some Etta, what else would anyone like? BTW, what's a Guiness like, is it supposed to be warm or what is the whole ale attraction thing-y?

Dinna blaspheme, Lass!

Guinness is to be served ice cold - the brits drink warm as an expedient way of maintainin' their dour expressions!

- MuscleDaddy

You can share the Pacifico- I'll be first in line.

My usual drink of choice is a whiskey sour, but I'll take that happily instead.

Nora Jones is just fine.

How 'bout Koko Taylor?

Damn,
Went to the john and missed the party!

Nice crowd you have here at The Chase Lounge, Sir.

(or should I say had last night while I was sleeping.)

BTW, Mil lite is my regular beer, but one nice thing about Electia is the everything, even the really good stuff, is calorie free. And, time doesn't really seem to matter so much either. Or at least it appears to s t r e a c h as required to accommodate our communication media, time zones, daddy\mommy duties, etc.

If you all would like to take a look: I built out the pool room last night and got some nice 9 foot, single piece 1 inch slate, drop pockets tables from Chesapeake Bay Pool Supplies. No hulky delivery men required; I carried them in myself, two at a time. Somebody else will have to finish off the decor.

I don't need no stinking 3-D graphics. I have my imagination. ;-)

I'll have a Guinness now, if you don't mind Sir Chase.

Paul R. Holcomb
Raising my family in a small town (or it used to be) as far from where I work in downtown D.C. as I can stand to commute.
"All In"

I just KNEW this one would go over 400 while I slept.

Paul R.
Good on ya, mate!
Now, rack 'em up.

Wow! This Lounge thing has really taken on a life of it's own! So much in fact, I now realize what STUPID name it has! Needs a new one! Something more...Ejectia-like.

Chase Lounge is perfection.

Wouldn't change a thing... Well,
The party hat on the stuffed deer head...
It's been done.

Done for the day and it is definitely beer o' clock. My body has sent me a very curt note about the day's activities and it's time to apply liquid muscle relaxant.

While somewhat extemporaneous, Chase Lounge does have the advantage of being a pun...

I like puns.

LabRat,
Two beers,
Or not Two beers.

What was the question?

Just popping my head into Bill's Chase Lounge, (The Logo is perfect for this) on my way to marriage counseling with DR. Change-scriptureto-whatever makes-me-$.

Patience Doug, Patience.

daddyquatro,
How about a stuffed Jackalope? Anyone got a stuffed Jackalope?

Labrat,
exta-tempa-whatever right back at you! You calling me sporadic?

Ooh, shiny object! Gotta go now! Bye!

You, sir, are bicrural.

Nothing more and nothing less.

Dudes & Dudettes!
I watching Peter frakin' Frampton on PBS right now!
Who knew this guy was still alive? He's doing "Do You Feel" right now. That voicebox sound was so cool in '72.
I thinks it's Austin City Limits. That's Austin, TEXAS. How many other municipal boundaries have a TV show named after them, huh?

Daddyquattro, right on. Austin City Limits set the standard. Frampton?! Merde, I missed it.

LabRat, and YOU are diurnal. Ha! (Or not.)

I am not. Which in Tejas means I suffer a lot.

Well, I have to say that the spoiler makes me very excited. This is even more than a great essay - though I am sure it will be that. Very kewl, Bill - no worries on the time. Waiting is.

days passed. . . not here ..
lots of beer commercials think I'll have one..

Hi. Are your books available in E-book format? I'd really love to support you by buying one of your books, but, sadly, my vision has deteriorated to the point that I have to have E-books that I can copy to Word and then enlarge to super-size print - which I have to do with an awful lot of stuff on the Internet these days, anyway.

Any other Myst players out there think the logo looks like something out of one of the games in the series? ;D
/
All teasing aside, after a few minutes, it grew on me, and I've decided I like it.

As for the Myst reference, I've pinned it down even further: It reminds me of the rebels' symbol in Riven. Now, what was that remark about this becoming the standard of a super-secret society of sheepdogs? Considering what I've read of various prophecies in the past, that comment may be somewhat prophetic in itself! ;D

Nice site. Thank you!!!
http://www.angel-owners.de/functions/hydrocodone.htm hydrocodone effects

Cool site. Thanks.
http://www.computermail.nl/forum/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/functions/dinnerware.htm antique dinnerware

Nice site. Thanks!
http://www.computermail.nl/forum/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/functions/xanax_alprazolam.htm alprazolam tablets