The Volokh Conspiracy

Computers and Conspiracies:

Sorry for the trouble with the blog yesterday; everything should be well now, and David Bernstein's post on Iran and Israel is back, too, in its original spot; that was the last item that needed fixing.

As best we can tell, the problem was caused by a random hardware failure, and not -- as commenter Mary at SCOTUSblog suggested -- governmental oppression:

Speaking of the Government's manipulation of Padilla, has anyone here tried to get on Volokhs Conspiracy blog today? Over there, several heated discussions were in progress on Hamdi, Padilla, the domestic surveillance, Supreme Court Dockets No. 05-7287 & 05-7771 (Day-Petrano), and The Vessel Mistress surveillance vessel. Now it appears Volokh may be offline. I tried to access that blog to check in on this important national topic on a number of different computers, including the one at the local Courthouse law library, and all that comes up is the web page cannot be displayed. Is anyone else having this problem? If so, I wonder of the Government has taken down Volokh. Anyone know anything? For those interested in the Government's manipulation of Padilla, please note, my cases have been manipulated also. My cases arise in the civil rights context.

As Orin pointed out in the comments to the same SCOTUSblog post, "No conspiracy other than the Volokh one." (Thanks to Eric Freedman for alerting us to the original SCOTUSblog comment.)

NickM (mail) (www):
That's what they want you to think.

Nick
12.29.2005 3:30pm
Gino:
Just because you aren't paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you.
12.29.2005 3:59pm
dk35 (mail):
I'm curious: Why do David Bernstein's posts usually not allow comments?
12.29.2005 4:05pm
enthymeme (mail) (www):
Good grief, mary again!

"I wonder of the Government has taken down Volokh. Anyone know anything? For those interested in the Government's manipulation of Padilla, please note, my cases have been manipulated also."

". . . Just after my post Volokh went offline."

Jesus wept..
12.29.2005 4:07pm
Tom Holsinger (mail):
I thought it was because you'd been Instapundited over the Iran &Israel post, and the server had melted down. My experience is that this blog crashes a lot.

Gino,

I had a Workers Comp client with a head injury &brain damage once. He complained about a van with a video camera in a dome on top following him around. I forwarded the complaints to the employer's counsel, who denied it. My client said it was still happening so I sent another letter to the employer's counsel. He told in the parking lot at an expert deposition that his client's investigators had learned that the van was operated by pi's for the third party manufacturer of the crane that had bonked my client on the head.

I had a hard time keeping a straight face in replying, "Even paranoids have enemies!"
12.29.2005 4:27pm
Just an Observer:
As of this moment, I believe there still are some missing posts.

I am quite sure this thread had more than 200 comments before the technical failure on the evening of 12/27. It now shows only 141, with the latest timestamped 12/27 5:40 pm.

Perhaps the Guys in the Black Helicopters did suppress them.
12.29.2005 4:55pm
Tom Holsinger (mail):
I'm trying to post in the Federalist thread with consistent crash results, though I was able to post in this thread 5 minutes previously.

Let's see if this gets through.
12.29.2005 4:58pm
mikem (mail):
Naive people. It's the Jooos.
12.29.2005 6:41pm
Kim Scarborough (mail) (www):
"The ACLU, Communists, and the State Action Doctrine" post is missing, although it's still in the RSS feed.
12.29.2005 8:14pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Mr. Volokh, Thank Goodness I was wrong about why Volokh was offline. I was really hoping the WH would not stoop that low. That, however, does not answer many of the other questions raised in my cases, and many other peoples' cases in which the domestic surveillance issue appears to be at the core. See my later comments on SCOTUSblog.
12.29.2005 8:25pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Just An Observer, you are correct. There were appx. 325 posts at the time the Volokh went down.

Numerous of my posts about ECHELON, the voice-recognition problem causing inaccurate labeling of "terrorist threats" of innocent US citizens, bouncing wireless and cellular signals, my father working for IBM on the electronic system involved in ECHELON, his taking me past security points when I was a child (an autistic savant child), and Petranos v. The Vessel Mistress recklessly tied surveillance platform and the admitted, confessed (recognizd by the district judge) perjurer only witness brought forth are all censored and missing. On other NSA domestic surveillance threads even my discrimination debate with Humble Law Student and Josh are deleted, and those were posted days before the missing half of the sensitive Volokh thread. Selective censorship? National security?

It was right after I posted about Vessel Mistress the Volokh crashed, "hardware failure," just like exactly the same time, hardware failure was brought on my disability device, shutting it down for last few days, and simultaneously the Eleventh Circuit issued several rulings related to The Vessel Mistress, and now Volokh has removed comment availablity.

It is enough to make even the most reasonable person think G. Gordon Liddy and his co-patriots are working in the basement of the NSA, and the NSA has ben relocated to the basement of the WH.

The loonies are in charge of the asylum.
12.31.2005 3:39pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

We're trying something new here, perhaps quixotic but I hope useful. We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, and substantial and repeated exaggeration. Sticking with substance will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.

As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")

Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.

And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.

Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.

Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.

And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.