And a good metamorning to y'all, too.

by kadyomalley on Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:38am - 19 Comments

While we wait not so patiently for Ekos to release this week’s tracking poll — oh please, please, please let there be some sort of movement to wildly overanalyse, if only so ITQ doesn’t have to hit the thesaurus to come up with more ways to describe utter stasis — a few notes from the morning newswanderings:

  • The Globe and Mail would seem to agree that the recent race to the very bottom of the political barrel in Barrie was, indeed, just plain awful, which, somewhat counterintuitively, actually makes ITQ  feel the teeniest bit better about the whole appalling interlude,  simply because … hey, everyone! Look! We found The Line! Or a line, at least. Baby steps, right?
  • Now that Stephen Taylor has officially denied any involvement in Republicans For Ignatieff, can we move on to the other, no less intriguing theories behind its origins? I knows, I know: Why expend so much mental energy on an anonymously-created site? Because it’s going to drive ITQ quietly — or not so quietly — crazy until she, or someone else, finally figures it out, that’s why — and yes, to answer the question posed to her by press gallery colleague — and fellow Hot Room Denizen — Deborah Gyapong on her blog, we would be just as freakishly obsessed by “astroturfing on the progressive or liberal side of the spectrum”. In fact, if she had read what we’ve actually written about R4I so far, she’d know that, at the moment, ITQ’s best guess is still that the site is, in fact, a jab from the left, not the right.
  • On the other hand, notwithstanding what certain prime ministers have suggested, ITQ just isn’t buying the claim that Wafergate was a sinister plot to sow dissent between Catholics and Protestants, and finds the evidence assembled to back it up to be somewhat wanting. The prime minister was in the frame for the Communion shot because he’s the prime minister, for heaven’s sake — and the camera didn’t even stay on him for more than a few seconds.

Oh, and coming later today, ITQ reveals deep, dark journalistic secrets in her far-too-long-and-indulgent-to-inflict-on-the-comment-thread response to yesterday’s post on Memetracker. Whee!

Bookmark and Share
  • http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

    Spill McClelland. You've been making that claim for a couple of days now.

    I say Wurstlin Group, who've been tasked with the other Just Visiting campaign stuff. I too have zero evidence.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

      Those anonymous domain registrars don't actually protect your anonymity.

  • Anon

    Well, I'm glad Stephen "Lindsey Naegle" Taylor cleared that up. And gave us a little lesson on "process stories' while he was at it.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_to_the_T M_to_the_T

    and this does not help?

    Whois Record republicansforignatieff.com

    Registration Service Provided By: NEARLYFREESPEECH.NET
    Contact: +1.8887414678
    Website: https://www.NearlyFreeSpeech.NET/

    Domain Name: REPUBLICANSFORIGNATIEFF.COM

    Registrant:
    republicansforignatieff.com Domain Administrator
    c/o RespectMyPrivacy, LLC ()
    PO BOX 484
    COCOA
    FL,32923-0484
    US
    Tel. +1.8664570078
    Fax. +1.8663909061

    Creation Date: 02-Jul-2009
    Expiration Date: 02-Jul-2010

    Domain servers in listed order:
    ns.phx7.nearlyfreespeech.net
    ns.phx8.nearlyfreespeech.net

    WHOIS nearlyfreespeech.net/
    DMOZ Details
    NEARLYFREESPEECH.NET 1 – 1 of 1 Listings
    Directory: http://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/
    Title: NearlyFreeSpeech.net
    Description: Provider of web hosting with no monthly fees. Pay only for resources your site uses.
    URL: http://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/
    -

    NearlyFreeSpeech.NET

    208.94.116.201
    Record Type: IP Address
    CapEquiLog CELL-1-ARIN-1 (NET-208-94-116-0-1)
    208.94.116.0 – 208.94.119.255
    NearlyFreeSpeech.NET NFSNI-1-CELL-1-5 (NET-208-94-116-0-2)
    208.94.116.0 – 208.94.117.255

    Their IP result goes to another company:
    "Capital Equipment Logistics"
    "We provide a variety of network and equipment leasing services for Online Service Providers and Online Intellectual Property Enforcement for content owners."
    http://www.who.is/whois-ip/208.94.116.201/

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

    Harper said the controversy was driven by “people who want to cause embarrassment in religion and drive a wedge between Protestants and Catholics"

    That is *such* a Protestant thing to say.

  • John D

    Doesn't the existence of Protestants drive a wedge between Protestants and Catholics?

  • Jason

    Domain Name : canadians4democracy.ca
    Domain name: canadians4democracy.ca
    Domain status: EXIST
    Approval date: 2008/11/29
    Renewal date: 2009/11/29
    Updated date: 2008/11/30

    Registrar:
    Name: SIBERNAME INTERNET AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES INC.
    Number: 108

    Name servers:
    ns.phx6.nearlyfreespeech.net

    ns.phx8.nearlyfreespeech.net

    % WHOIS look-up made at 2009-07-16 16:30:28 (GMT)
    %
    % Use of CIRA's WHOIS service is governed by the Terms of Use in its Legal
    % Notice, available at http://www.cira.ca/legal-notice/?lang=en

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

    ahahah yeah….

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

    Yes, that's been posted a number of times. If you'll check the earlier threads, you'll see why it's not actually all that conclusive, as far as establishing a link between the two sites, and consequently, between R4I and Stephen Taylor. He's not the only one who uses NFN as a host, after all.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

    Also, Taylor, to his credit, operates above the board.

  • Jason

    But is Taylor the one who registered Canadians4Democracy.com? or the only one involved? It is quite an extensive national site.

  • John D

    I thought all Canadians who loved democracy were involved…

  • Jason

    No. Only those who think democracy is merely a tool for conservatives and can be ignored when it doesn't serve their purposes.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/gordiecanuk gordiecanuk

    If the person or persons running the site don't have the stones to identify themselves…they should be ignored.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

    I am totally confounded by the obsession to a site that is so trivial. I could understand it, if the site had a huge following or coming up with some significant dialogue. The only attraction I can see to the site is its rather eclectic collection of points.

    I think the fact that it the position of the site is pretty much irreconcilable with any Canadian partisan position makes it likely that it is an American one.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

    I am totally confounded by the obsession to a site that is so trivial. I could understand it, if the site had a huge following or coming up with some significant dialogue. The only attraction I can see to the site is its rather eclectic collection of points.

    I think the fact that it the position of the site is pretty much irreconcilable with any Canadian partisan position makes it likely that it is an American one. That, and my previous point about the whole 'Colonel' incredulity factor.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

    I am totally confounded by the obsession to a site that is so trivial. I could understand it, if the site had a huge following or was coming up with some significant dialogue. The only attraction I can see to the site is its rather eclectic collection of points.

    I think the fact that it the position of the site is pretty much irreconcilable with any Canadian partisan position makes it likely that it is an American one. That, and my previous point about the whole 'Colonel' incredulity factor.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

    I am totally confounded by the obsession to a site that is so trivial. I could understand it, if the site had a huge following or was coming up with some significant dialogue. The only attraction I can see to the site is its rather eclectic collection of points.

    I think the fact that the position of the site is pretty much irreconcilable with any Canadian partisan position makes it likely that it is an American one. That, and my previous point about the whole 'Colonel' incredulity factor.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

    I am totally confounded by the obsession to a site that is so trivial. I could understand it, if the site had a huge following or was coming up with some significant dialogue. The only attraction I can see to the site is its rather eclectic collection of points.

    I think the fact that the political position of the site is pretty much irreconcilable with any Canadian partisan position makes it likely that it is an American one. That, and my previous point about the whole 'Colonel' incredulity factor.

From Macleans