The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part X: Philanthropy > Douchebaggery

You may also like...

753 Responses

  1. Chris R. says:

    I think it's easy to stand up for free speech you agree with, it's even easy to be an advocate for someone's free speech if you don't agree with them on principle alone. The gritty part of free speech is when someone you don't agree with is using it to call you out. That's what separates the 1st Amendment purist from the Carreons of this world.

  2. VPJ says:

    People I respect — people I trust — say that Mr. Carreon was in the past a decent man who defended free speech.

    May be so, though it would be hard to see that from the past few weeks of this. It has been lovely popcorn munching material, tho.

    Still, Mr. Carreon strikes me as the type who appeared to do the right thing until his character was directly tested. At that point, he failed. To borrow a phrase, succumbed to the saucy wink.

  3. Brett says:

    First of all Mr Carreon, it's time for you to learn a new word – money is fungible. $200,000 is $200,000 – the money from the Oatmeal's own bank account is exactly the same as the money from donations. And I really wish the ghastly rapeutation website was open to comments.

  4. Ann says:

    I have a hard time imagining a Charles Carreon that is decent or a champion of actual free speech, to which Chris R. referred. There is almost the certainty of mental illness, brought on by drug use or just a tremendous nervous breakdown resulting from personal tragedy (he's written about a few and I think his marriage would certainly qualify).

    This is the worst part of watching a douchebag implode. The part where I start feeling sorry for him.

    Tragic indeed.

  5. deezerd says:

    At one of my old jobs, there was a sign hanging in the break room reading "The true test of character is what you do when no one is watching." Post-Carreon, I might add: " … or when EVERYONE is watching, and can choose either to man up – or to weasel out."

    Carreon clearly chose poorly, and that's all the sadder if he really was once the man some say he was.

  6. Chris R. says:

    I tried using rapeutate in actual dialogue today on a blind subject, it didn't go well…

  7. TJIC says:

    @Ann:

    > This is the worst part of watching a douchebag implode. The part where I start feeling sorry for him.

    Yeah.

    I got off the hate-on-Carreon bus about halfway through.

    The man was clearly behaving like a douche, but can I be sure that there's no set of circumstances that would have me acting like an even worse douche?

    I don't know what personal demons he's battling, but I assume that he's got a few.

    I'm glad he lost, but I don't relish seeing much more humiliation. Thankfully, the whole thing seems to be winding down.

  8. Mark says:

    Maybe CC was a "decent man" to his friends. But just looking at his and TC's websites and the litigations documented there makes me think otherwise. They seem to simply burn bridges everywhere they go. This latest imbroglio seems perfectly fit with their MO.

  9. Gigi says:

    So what happened to Funnyjunk? Their actions seem to have been overshadowed by Carreon's personal quest…

  10. Dan Weber says:

    Back in his freak-of-the-week post, Ken reminded us that free speech battles aren't so black-and-white. What if it was the guy who produced the comics we love that was being the censorious thug against someone we all hated? Would we argue as forcefully for the douchebag's rights?

    I would hope so.

  11. Mark Lyon says:

    "This is roughly like crowing that you dominated the captain of the firing squad by making him offer you a blindfold and a cigarette before shooing you."

    Or posting "1st-Degree Murder…MISTRIAL!" on facebook.

  12. nlp says:

    The sad part, just before the unleashing of the whirlwind, was the moment Carreon could have stopped it. When he got that response letter he could have taken a deep breath and sent back a reply saying, in effect, "I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I had believed that all the art had been removed. Thank you for your patience, and I will donate $X to the fund." And it would have been over. The internet mob would have disbursed, the fund would grow, and there would have been sunshine and ponies. Instead, he sued, and he sounded like a man with spittle in his beard. (Please note, I am making no claims regarding Carreon's facial hair or lack thereof.)

  13. nlp says:

    By the way, Ken, it was my understanding that captains of firing squads shot you, rather than shooing you, but perhaps you have more knowledge of the subject than I do.

  14. Ollie says:

    good thing the illuminati made sure Matt got the money home safely. good work guys

  15. Chris says:

    Boing-Boing has photos of him with the money:
    http://boingboing.net/2012/07/09/oatmeal.html

  16. Adam Raymer says:

    I think part of Carreon's problem, and his new-found craziness, is his wife. Most of what she writes shows borderline traits, and it wouldn't surprise me if it's rubbed off on Carreon himself.

  17. Delvan Neville says:

    Don't worry nlp: his name may be trademarked, but his facial hair (or theoretical hair) isn't. Spittle away! :D

  18. Chris R. says:

    @Adam, yeah we discussed it in the thread of part ix, basically he met and married her in 74 and dropped out of college. Moved to Oregon, didn't finish school until 86 and every time she has had crazy outbursts they've had to drop ties with communities they're involved in and sometimes even move.

  19. Robert White says:

    But didn't we already learn in Waaah v. Snowflake that each Delicate and Unique Snowflake is already entitled to having the law rewritten to their individual sensitivities?

    Now in the famous STFU ruling this power was, perhaps unjustly, limited to cases where the tort and resolution happened wholly within plantif's "mental sphere".

    So perhaps the precedent is a tad vague.

  20. Robert White says:

    Of course I recall you have to issue a Formal Declaration of Snowflake to establish standing in Waaah…

  21. Robert White says:

    On the note of past performance and its action as predictor of future returns.

    Winning doesn't test a man's character, and many a batshit crazy fucktard can skate through life with nary a blip because of the acts of fortune and having their bug-nutz behavior going unseen in ill-publicized corner cases of their life.

    The fact that Carreon seems to have gone under the radar until this incident isn't actually any sort of evidence for or against previous mental state. He was likely just as cramped in the membrane then as now.

    Only this time, either the self restraint mechanism gave way due to over use, or perhaps indeed, his stability and self control is slipping.

    I myself, coming from a long line of batshit crazy folk, occasionally struggle with "chat rage" or the possibility of "disproportionate response." And like most men, I dealt whit most of these issues in late adolescence. Rarely I do suffer relapse, where I wish there was in Internet Protocol that let one stab someone in the face over broadband, but like most people in my state, I let it pass.

    So maybe Chuckles just had one too many hits off the angry-weed this one time, but this one time is still going on so I doubt it.

    More likely the dike has given way and the levy has overflown, and there's now crazy all over the road in Mystic Connecticut.

  22. Robert White says:

    BTW: there is no reason to "hate" Carreon, just recognize that he and his ilk need to be pounded down like any abhorrent extrusion of impropriety.

    I don't hate him. I pitty him a little. But I don't for an instant regret hammering him back down where he won't do harm (or metaphorically stub the toe of) innocent passers by.

    I don't hate weeds in my lawn. I even let them grow there since I like natural habitat, but on my long dirt driveway I crush them with my car when I drive to keep the road passable for as wide a swath as possible.

    If'n he retire to his dirt-patch and fester in is mud like a good little weed, we'd all go back to not caring about him.

  23. Scott Jacobs says:

    I 'm with Adam… I don't know when the people you know knew the man, Ken, but I think after years of exposure to what is CLEARLY a very, very, VERY insane woman has eventually brought him down to her level of insanity.

  24. Rand Bell says:

    Rapeutation: 1. noun, the act of having fucked yourself in the ass so completely that you mistake the dildo in the back of your throat as having been put there by someone else. 2. Poorly conceived analogy equating verbal or written criticism for a horrendous and horrific sex crime. See also "Carreoned".

  25. Grifter says:

    Anyone ever see the movie "Bug"?

  26. M. says:

    Tara Carreon is crazy in that estrogen-fueled harpy in sweatpants way that fuels misogyny. Charles Carreon just needs a nap and a steady supply of dirt weed, administered by bhang suppository if he resists.

  27. W Ross says:

    So this story is pretty much over unless he seriously attempts to make that a tort or Tara enjoys another box of wine/6" bong rip.

    Which is to say it's probably not over.

  28. W Ross says:

    (He should start ButthurtPAC! Then he could raise unlimited money for the Butthurt community to lobby for his new law!)

  29. W Ross says:

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=896&start=110

    "Everything about the Illuminati is disgusting. Do you put on a dress, Matt Inman, and pretend to be a girl? Do you spice up your sadism with a little pedophilia?

    Same question for Ken at Popehat and Marc Randazza of the Legal Satyricon. "

    Cthulhu rises… here we go…

  30. Matthew Cline says:

    Quoth Carreon:

    I haven't been commenting on litigation. I litigate.

    You don't instruct your adversaries. My adversaries instruct me.

    It seems that Carreon considers himself to be an Internet Tough Guy.

    The use of the word "zombies" is always a signifier of serious and credible legal analysis.

    He might be referring to computers which have been hijacked by a virus and are being remotely controlled by the virus creator, in which case "zombie" is a perfectly fine word to use, though given the context I don't see how that could be what he is referring to.

    Unless . . . Mr. Carreon, through the Trojan horse "fair play," is suggesting a major revision of fundamental First Amendment concepts solely to protect his own wounded pride and the feelings of his ilk.

    He seems to be saying that a statement on the Internet which "goes viral" should be treated differently by the law than a statement which doesn't go viral.

  31. Brett says:

    Umm, what does one do when the crazy starts to look dangerous, not just simply incoherent? I think recent events may have been the tipping point into full Charlie Sheen level crazy.

    "Did you think I wanted to become a deity? OMG, that is SO male! Spare me the maleness of this world. I'd get rid of you ALL if I could. I wouldn't leave a one of you. I told that to Charles the other night, and he got a hurt look on his face. He said, "You wouldn't even save the best man of all?" I said, "No fucking way. You're still a man." I said it with a lot of force so that that would be the end of it. But no, he's got to shout me down. He's always got a sneaky, smart-stupid comeback. He lives on the strategists. He says, "Well, there are no girls who are any better." Fucker, he won the argument this time. But he can't even begin to compare to my win rate. I've been winning my whole life. He's been winning to, but between the two of us, I have the upper hand. He had the upper hand during the first 30 years of our marriage. But I'm going to make sure we go out with a BANG!"

  32. W Ross says:

    Reading that screed she just put up… she's gonna freak when she finds out I come from Omaha.

    DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN >:D

  33. James Pollock says:

    As to use of the term "zombie", I believe that this is another case of the "Internet lawyer" ALMOST, but NOT QUITE getting the terminology correct. Referring to a compromised computer as a "zombie" is archaic terminology, the current trend is to refer to "bots" and "botnets" instead. But other than being about 8-10 years out-of-date, he pretty much almost got the idea of a zombie computer right… except that there's no evidence (at least, not publicly-disclosed evidence) that a botnet was turned on him. (Kind of like complaining about genetically-engineered biological warfare, because you caught a cold. Or are allergic to the flowering trees in your yard. Yes, "zombie" computers (botnets) exist, but you haven't been attacked by any.)

  34. Moo says:

    Are putting on a dress and pedophilia related somehow?

  35. Chris R. says:

    I'm just waiting for her to start talking in knock knock jokes.

  36. Scott Jacobs says:

    My adversaries instruct me.

    You know where one frequently gets instruction? School.

    And boy howdy, did Carreon's adversaries take his ass to school…

  37. W Ross says:

    Their hit list grows. She adds to it as she finds people she disagrees with. So far we're at:

    Inman and theoatmeal.com
    Indiegogo
    Reddit
    4Chan
    Ars Technica
    Popehat
    Marc Randazza
    Techdirt
    The Fake Tweeters
    The Cybersquatters
    The DOS Attacker and Assorted Rapeutationists
    The Digital Mob

    http://rapeutation.com/2012/07/07/a-first-person-case-study-the-funnyjunk-oatmeal-carreon-inman-affair/

  38. apauld says:

    When I saw the rapeutation thing yesterday, I was hoping it was another parody site. But, alas the Carreon family have now just taken crazy to a much larger/sicker proportion. Trying to make a new, federal ruling to limit the first amendment rights to free speech is totally reprehensible; and not understanding that the internet spans across national boundries is just stupid. They are now more than vile, they are now just bile.

  39. Robert White says:

    Inman would look terrible in a dress… Now I got some Illuminatis robes he would look good getting out of…

    /Doh!

    (too gay? be honest… 8-)

  40. Robert White says:

    That word, "instruct", I don't think it means what you think it means.

  41. It'd be way more efficient if the Greatest Hits list were condensed to simply read "The Illuminati"

  42. Ki says:

    Reading through this, the whole thing reminds me of a typical Japanese RPG. Heroes beat the final boss (Charles) and declare victory, all the while the real evil, the true final boss sits back unchallenged with maniacal grin (Tara).

  43. Elix says:

    I'm almost completely certain that all Carreon wants is the ability to sue anyone he doesn't like for the tort of inflicting internet butthurt.

    Now, I'm not a constitutional scholar (I'm not even American!), but I'm pretty sure that is not only nowhere in the constitution nor did the founding fathers intend for it to be. For precisely the reason that Carreon is demonstrating by his actions.

    Charles and Tara Carreon, I hope you get well soon.

  44. Gigi says:

    I actually feel sorry for Charlie the Censor. Here's a quote from Tara's frustration outlet: "DO NOT FUCK WITH ME! You think Charles is tough? He would be NOTHING without me."

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=896&start=110

  45. Susan says:

    Tara: "What kind of cybersquatter gets a lawyer from Public Citizen to represent him four hours of early morning daylight after a letter is sent to a web host provider asking the name of the cybersquatter? Must be a VERY IMPORTANT cybersquatter to put the entire reputation of Public Citizen on the line and on emergency notice for him."

    One who is an American citizen threatened with 1st Amendment restrictions.

    Tara: "BOYCOTT PUBLIC CITIZEN UNTIL PAUL LEVY IS FIRED! That's what I'm doing. Not one more penny. And I have been a regular donor for years."

    If she has been donating for years then it really must have stung to have opposing council from Public Citizen.

  46. Dunex says:

    Meh, as soon as Tara says she hates something I feel the urge to donate/help..I am gonna end up broke :(

  47. M. says:

    Ohhhhhh-kaaaaay. The good in all this is that she makes my unmedicated bipolar self feel perfectly sane and rational by comparison.

  48. Ara Ararauna says:

    Glad that this episode is coming to a conclusion, but I don't think we have reached the end of the book yet…

    Oh boy, I feel bad for Chuckles, not because of all this ordeal FunnyJunk dragged him in by "unwittingly placing a carrot on string" in front of his nose (the culmination of trolling and a clear invitation to selfexposure), but because he received kneaded poison from his woman, that blargs about unchecked. Feels like she isn't reaching menopause quite good…

    Well, we know why she dropped (expeled?) school in the past, and maybe she finished it around 86 thanks to and with and astounding degree in "fellatio" and not by "intellectual awards", lol. Of course, with such degree she has more rights to blarg in self-nonsense when called out by people who clearly displays more neurons than her hollow inner paradise, and other self-deluding paraphernalia which would put any psychoanalyst and psychiatrist to easily declare her ill and in urgent need of sedatives, and a very long long vacation from internet, that monster that "never agrees with her".

    That's why some people can't have internet, they are not mentally ready to face their own faults when people starts to notice that something is wrong with X. Keyboards are know to deliver a huge recoil to their users.

    PS: If she is confronted with an @ picture in a Rorschach test, she sees pterodactyls, gorillas and naked women prancing about phallic totems, FACT.

  49. Dave Canon says:

    I’d like to propose a new internet meme: “Stop! Don’t Carreon”. To be used when someone is either being a censor like Charles or spouting crazy nonsense like Tara in her blog/forum.

  50. Hughhh says:

    Mister White, you have quite a way with words. Well played, sir. :)

  51. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Its not over yet…

    Carreon may have gone "Me Bad" on Carreon v Everybody, but Somebody in Everybody might still move to change it to be dismiss with prejudice based on Carreon's other statements, just to make Damn Sure.

    His "charity" theory is kooky and could seriously disrupty IndieGoGo if he raises it again (like he's threatened publicly), and he's also threatened people with "I may sue you later, when your pro bono attorney is gone".

    But, more importantly, Doe v Carreon is still ongoing. We have what, a month, for Carreon to decide whether he's going to fold or fight? I'm hoping he folds. But he could decide to fight for a couple rounds.

  52. Nibor says:

    @Ara Ararauna the stopping with school and finishing it much later refers to CC (and wikipedia says he stopped with school to be with TC)

  53. Mike K says:

    You know, it's funny. The only way I can see for a male wearing female clothing to be a bad thing is if the person believes that females are inherently worse than males. To see that a woman thinks that, is, well, disturbing.

  54. Stuart says:

    well, I failed at that. Lets try again

    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UDnTJcjPhY&w=640&h=360

  55. Louise says:

    @Ara Ararauna. I think everyone here agrees that TC has mental health issues. I'm not sure it helps to blame them on the menopause nor to suggest that any qualifications she may have were gained not through merit but because she slept with people in authority.

  56. Lakonislate says:

    I am curious about one thing: If Matt Inman had decided not to take a picture of the money, would that have been a problem? People sometimes say "I changed my mind," I don't see anything immoral or illegal about that.

    Half the internet has been watching and considering every tiny move Inman might or should make, but the mere fact that he's been walking on eggshells kind of feels like a "the terrorists have already won" scenario. He's handled it very well, but beyond the question of whether the charities get the money they were supposed to get, does it even matter if he had lied about something else, or been inaccurate, or wrong?

    In short, even though Carreon was pretty obviously wrong and stupid, all of this may still have had a somewhat chilling effect. Although I admit I am a pessimist.

  57. Courtney says:

    The thing that really pisses me off about people like this whining about "distributed reputation attacks" or "internet mobbing" is that that kind of thing really does happen–it just didn't happen to them.

    There are plenty of cases of decent people being viciously hounded by an "internet mob" in order to shut down what they are saying. The most recent one I have seen was the coordinated attack on Anita Sarkeesian by a bunch of misogynistic gamers who were offended that she was trying to raise money to produce a series of videos analyzing the way female characters are treated in video games. A group of at least a dozen people coordinated an attack involving rape and death threats sent through pretty much every digital channel where she could be expected to receive messages, attempts to shut down her Kickstarter campaign by claiming it was terrorism, DDoS attacks on her website and pornographic vandalism of the Wikipedia page about her.

    As horrible as that was, there are already existing remedies for what happened to her. She worked through existing channels to keep the Kickstarter going, repair the Wikipedia page, and improve security on her website. She calmly talked about what was happening on her Kickstarter page and on her website, making the point that no one should have to put up with this and that she wasn't going to let it stop her project. The attacks got media attention, and ultimately her Kickstarter raised over 26 times the money she needed from almost 7,000 supporters. I have no idea what legal remedies she is seeking, because she's not talking about it. (The only comment she has made is that a few "scarier things" have happened than what she described, but that she is safe and "working with authorities to deal with it.")

  58. W Ross says:

    Tara may wear the pants… but she wears these pants.

  59. Nibor says:

    @Lakonislate I think that Matt has enough knowledge about internet users and his own fan base specific that deviating from his initial plan would equal to online suicide.

    So not taking the picture or keeping some of the money (not that he needs it) will probably never have entered his mind, he just to internet savvy.

    He is depended for his income on the internet (fan base) he would never ever risk this.

    Oh, adding the two other charities, would not have endangered anything, for it was in reaction of popular demand, so he just obeyed the wishes off his fans.

    And this is the only thing blockaded by the whole thing (CC's win :-( )

  60. W Ross says:

    Another thing worth remembering is the Oatmeal put some of his financial well being in danger for this. Carrying a sack of $200,000 dollars to an off site location with nothing but a friend with a gun and a reporter, to play with it and return it… that's dangerous. He may be doing well, but I'm sure he couldn't take a 200,000 dollar hit.

    So Matthew in a very small way put his finances and even his life in danger to keep his word and give us some lulz.

    Contrast that with Charles Carreon, who wanted to get a bad judgement for a bad client to get a bad precedent to use in his battle with Penguin.

    Most of this is about the First Amendment… but some of this is due to the ridiculous good and evil spread here, lol.

  61. Kelly says:

    Love the photo shoot!

    @ W Ross: Prof. Elemental!! Sorry, he is a bit of a big deal in my house, lol!

    As to CC and TC. I don't pity him not really. Either TC is batshit crazy and he just watches as she runs amok or he simply is as batshit as she is and has no clue about their combined mental health issues. I have been thinking about all the evidence and yes, TC is clearly not mentally healthy. Whether she is getting any sort of help or not is not clear. Honestly, CC should be trying to focus on THAT and not stupid lawsuits and attempting to change laws so his butthurt can be all better.

    As for the Doe vs CC…I don't know that he is going to give it up. He is already starting that new website (which I had hoped was a parody) now whinging about his butthurt all over again. This tells me that he is willing to drag it out as long as he can.

    He, and perhaps TC playing puppeteer with him, has now realized just what a fool he made of himself. He has shown enough narcissistic traits in the past for me to think that he won't allow that to go on.

    (Disclaimer: All my opinion, I am not claiming facts or anything.)

  62. Nibor says:

    Kelly wrote:
    (Disclaimer: All my opinion, I am not claiming facts or anything.)

    This makes me sad, not that you are saying it Kelly for I have used it also in some of my comments, but that it would possibly be necessary at all.

  63. Matthew says:

    Tara's logic such as it is, goes like this, I think:

    Matt Inman is a modern day Hitler Youth type as he used "Hitler's porta-potty" as a hyperbolic description of his style, in an interview.

    From that and from standing against the blessed Carreons, anything connected with him is part of some sort of Nazi-style Illuminati plot.

    Jung's ideas underpin all of this. Jung (apparently, in an manuscript he decided against publishing) suggested that men dressing as women would free them from subjugation*

    The Franklin Scandal was a massive paedophile ring that went all the way to the White House and was covered up by the Illuminati (none of this is true – at most it was a local scandal, but it's clear that witnesses invented a story).

    The accused in the Franklin Scandal once dressed as women for a performance (according to John de Camp, is by no means reliable).

    Therefore all these Illuminati types must be cross-dressing paedophiles.

    So the apparent springing from nowhere of accusations of paedophilia actually follows a weird and twist chain of cause and effect to the conspiracist mind. Once you buy into one conspiracy theory it's common to buy into more and see connections everywhere, since you've surrendered any idea of critical assessment of the evidence.

    Since Tara and Charles are so concerned by the actions of large numbers of people on the Internet, no doubt they will be offering support to Larry Silverstein.

    *for a more informed and nuanced reading of the work in question: http://numenoldmen.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/sex-and-gender-in-jung%E2%80%99s-red-book/

  64. W Ross says:

    @Kelly CRACKING!

    I wonder if he sought this out, because what Inman did is VERY similar to what other copyrite holders did to he and Tara over the 60,000 files available on their websites, much of it pirated material Tara has stolen and given away libraried. (http://encyclopediadramatica.se/Talk:Charles_Carreon)

    Dunno…

  65. W Ross says:

    @Matthew Holy shit you're the Rosetta Stone of Word Salad. Two mighty Internets to you, sir.

  66. Matthew says:

    Oh and for the all Franklin thing, Google will give lots of lurid speculation and nonsense. Wikipedia, through the diligence of some editors, just sticks to the facts:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_child_prostitution_ring_allegations

    Be extremely skeptical of anything that attempts to go beyond what it said in that article.

  67. Kelly says:

    @Nibor: I know me too, but better safe than sorry. I just don't want them turning their crazy on me.

    @W Ross: Hee! Though, thanks to grogginess and coffee, I am now listening to the song and picturing Inman as Prof Elemenal and CC as Mr B.

    As to the cross-dressing accusation. I just sort of shrugged and moved on. Clearly she is reaching for anything she can to try and … make fun of? Inman. She doesn't seem to get that men wore skirts first and for a longer time frame than they have been wearing trousers. Then again, I am surprised she didn't link Inman to Hoover when she started down that road.

  68. Matthew says:

    @W Ross, thanks!

    Back in 2006, as some generally interested in skepticism, I joined the JREF forum. The mistake I made was to click on the conspiracy theories section and wasted a lot of time trying to argue with these people (mostly about 9/11). So I can sort of follow the thought processes, a lot of the time.

    The thing that's interesting is that I'm convinced that these people are necessarily mentally ill. No professional would attempt a diagnosis on the basis of internet postings anyway, but it seems that a lot of conspiracy types seem not to have a problem functioning in other parts of their lives. My theory is that fantasies about conspiracies are in a bubble that gives them an odd comfort but deep down, doesn't impinge on their reality. So they sound off but rarely actually do anything.

    One thing I'm sure of: Tara isn't going to stop and at some point we'll just have to leave her be, for everyone's sake.

  69. Kelly says:

    @ Matthew: Wow! I sort of understand her thought process a bit more now. She does seem to live a big conspiracy theory. That worries me though, what is the line between ranting and speculating online and it bleeding over into real life? It seems she has become more irrational and reaching…

  70. Jason T says:

    What are Inman's tax implications to making/raising/withdrawing $200+?

  71. Thorne says:

    "Everything about the Illuminati is disgusting. Do you put on a dress, Matt Inman, and pretend to be a girl? Do you spice up your sadism with a little pedophilia?

    Same question for Ken at Popehat and Marc Randazza of the Legal Satyricon. "

    Bitch can't count. I see TWO questions.

  72. Joe says:

    http://rapeutation.com/legal-analysis/

    Is it just me, or is there absolutely no connection to his discussion about GPS and government tracking of activities and the need for a new DIRA tort? His legal analysis raises additional questions as to his lawyering capabilities – as if we didn't have enough already.

    As far as his comment about internet mobs, I think Ann Bransom did an outstanding job of explaining why this shouldn’t really be an issue on her blog.

    Specifically ”. . . . . there is a reason that the audience was right 91% of the time on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, . . . . . . and as a group we are very good at assessing what the facts are.” I think that last sentence is key. When people come together as a loosely joined crowd on the internet they are very good at determining what the facts are. It also makes them pretty good about doing the morally responsible thing and not going after someone who doesn’t deserve it. The larger the internet mob the more they tend to gravitate to the moral center. If a single person or small set of people try to go after someone and the rest of the internet is watching, and if they care about the subject, they will step in and protect the person being wrongfully harassed. Call it crowd sourced morality, but it seems to be fair and consistent in what I’ve seen in prior situations.

    And while I would agree the situation with Carreon is tragic, what continues to bother me most about Charles Carreon is his ongoing obstinate insistence he is right and everyone else is wrong. He has not changed his stance on this. I don’t think this will be over until he learns otherwise. If he were to say he was wrong and sincerely apologize I think a lot of people would forgive him and move on. But he just can’t do it – that would require some sense of humility which he lacks.

  73. nlp says:

    Joe, there's an old saying that if you are absolutely sober and haven't had a drink in a week, and three people tell you you're drunk, the only thing to do is lie down and take a nap. Carreon can't actually recognize the internet response to his attacks as the equivalent of being called a drunk, which is why he keeps going forward with his attack.

    As for the inner dynamic in the marriage, I've known other couples who shared an odd worldview. They essentially feed each other and feed off each other. I suspect that to really break the chain of logic for the Carreons would require separation from each other, and that obviously isn't going to happen.

    In many cases of internet rage, where many people target someone who has injured another, the attacks die down if the person doesn't do anything to further inflame the crowd. Judith Griggs, of Cooks Source infamy, ducked for cover and the rage eventually died down. The more the Carreons complains in public, the more attacks will be launched. At this point I can't see either the Carreons or the internet giving up.

  74. W Ross says:

    @nlp EXACTLY.

    tl;dr Re "Tara the Victim"

    The fact is that if Tara keeps posting things, she's adding content that will cause conversation. She won't like that conversation, and her answer to that is to post more things feeding into that conversation.

    It's not stiffling to free speech to say "If you shut the fuck up, people will stop having a conversation with you," it's true. She is absolutely welcome (and encouraged) to babble free association all day into a public forum, but when she does that she is going into the public sphere and saying "THESE ARE MY THOUGHTS!"

    Just because she has no where to comment on her posts doesn't mean she just gets to put billboards up and we shouldn't discuss them due to their privacy or propriety. She is putting her thoughts out into the marketplace of ideas, and when a grown up person does that, they need to expect that others can and will respond.

    If she doesn't like what's happening in the comments of these threads, she can stop reading them.
    If she doesn't like people looking at her, she can stop talking.
    If she doesn't like people finding untruths, she can stop lying.
    If she doesn't like people finding embarrassing shit, she can stop posting embarrassing shit on the Internet.
    If she doesn't want to experience inflamatory speech, she should stop speaking about others in an inflammatory way.

    Tara Carreon isn't being harassed, she want's to have her cake and eat it too. She wants to be able to be the girl screaming insults from the back of a moving car, drive by-ing people with free speech while expecting none to come back at her.

    Nope, doesn't work that way.

    Tara and Charles are in no way victims, and they never will be until they stop returning fire. You cannot start a fight then complain about how bad you got beat up afterwards.

  75. W Ross says:

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/the-oatmeal-mails-pics-of-cash-kodiak-bear-seduction-to-lawyer/?comments=1&start=40#comments-bar

    Bets on lrryie being TC? 19 comments, heavy comment editing, huge block paragraphs, etc etc. The first comment that made me think it's a TC Sock:

    "He did not withdraw $200 K. he withdrew $20K.

    The $200K was the total amount raised from the fundraising.

    $20K was the orginal target amount for the fund raising, it was obviously exceeded.

    Having $20 K in the bank does not indicate he is "quite successful", it only indicates that he had $20K in the bank. Lots of people who have put money in the bank for a long period of time and let it sit have $20K in the bank.

    What I would like to see is the deposits into his personal accounts since this fund raising began, to show that the $20K he is claiming is his (what he withdrew and photographed) did not come from, or was not a result of, the fund raising. Yes, I know the money from the fund raising was supposed to have been transfered directly to those organizations receiving the funds instead of Inman having access to it, but what we don't know is how much they actually received (only the words of Inman) and I have not seen any receipt confrimations from these organizations that were supposed to have received the funds showing how much they actually received. An audit of his personal accounts would show if any of that money did someway make it into Inmans personal accounts. Not saying he did anything wrong, but he wanted to present proof that he was on the up and up about this fund raising thing and a picture of $20K alone doesn't really prove anything in this regards.

    I'm sorry, but I have an inherent sense of mistrust for anyone who would use fund raising for what are worthy causes as an "in your face Carreon" publicity stunt and who acted like an immature idiot just like his opponent. I expect maturity and seriousness in fund raising and use of those funds for worthy causes, and not cavalier self serving juvenile antics and idiotic behavior. When it comes to money (and most other things) I have learned to not take anyones word on the internet least of all that of a perfect stranger."

  76. Luke says:

    @W Ross – The posts are way too coherent to be TC. MC on the other hand… And how anyone can look at those pictures and think there is only 20k there is beyond me.

  77. Mike K says:

    @Luke it would be possible if you didn't know that it's next to impossible to replace bills in those bands with a lower denomination.Theoretically if there were stacks of 1s below the visible 20s, it could be that low. The thing is, those bands are so tight you have to cut them to get the bills out which would mean that the bank would have had to have been in on such a deception (which a Carreon would believe).

  78. Luke says:

    @Courtney – Thank you for mentioning the case of Anita Sarkeesian, I hadn't heard of it before and looking forward to see how the videos turn out.

    While I doubt the issue is completely over I think that in Anita's case the internet came through loud and clear when she was confronted with online douchebaggery. I don't think she would have been able to raise $168k if it hadn't been for the douchebags. Much as in the case of Inman, people put their money where their mouth is. And as Joe said above "If a single person or small set of people try to go after someone and the rest of the internet is watching, and if they care about the subject, they will step in and protect the person being wrongfully harassed."

  79. Luke says:

    @Mike K – Good point. I keep forgetting to think that everyone is in on the conspiracy!

  80. M. says:

    Randomly: Do you suppose Nader is aware of Queen Nutbag and her consort?

  81. @ W Ross – no bet. If it is TC, then she is surprisingly good at disguising her writing style. TC's native word salad may be completely off the charts as to content and meaning, but ironically she has a competent grasp of sentence structure, and for the most part her grammar, spelling, and capitalization tend to come up clean. lrryie's writing is distinctly less literate, from a copy editor's standpoint. Not saying it wouldn't be possible to fake that, but I don't think it's in character for someone like TC, who very evidently prides herself on her writing.

  82. Nibor says:

    Here is a link to the article that the reporter who was with Matt when the photo's were shot wrote:

    http://boingboing.net/2012/07/09/oatmeal.html

    And it makes clear that it was the total amount raised, even including some coins to make the full number (look on the floor between the F and U) .

  83. M. says:

    I tried to register for the forums but maxed out attempts because I just cannot read confirmation codes worth a darn. *sigh*

  84. Mark says:

    So… are both cases (Carreon v. Inman et al and Doe v. Carreon) in standby mode, waiting for Judge Chen?

  85. Mike K says:

    That must make you a robot! *gasp*
    Seriously, though, most have an audio version which might be easier for you to do.
    I wish you good luck in your quest to become human ;)

  86. W Ross says:

    I kinda like the term "Zombies" cause it's accurate (just not in the way they're thinking.) We're not automated robots, sure, but we are cracking open their skulls and eating their sweet, sweet brains.

    And then we leave a review, like a "Yelp" for attention whores.

    Yes, I think everyone involved in the Streisand Effect for whatever purpose should be known as a "zombie."

    BRAIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

  87. Beth says:

    One of the things I find interesting about the "distributed attack" concept is the level of denial present. It couldn't be that all these people individually have come to the conclusion that you're wrong. It must be that we are all puppets, controlled by a single source.

    He's forgetting a couple of things about the Internet. One is that there is an enormous variety of tastes, values, and morals represented. Another is that we argue with each other just for fun. If the entire Internet is agreeing on something, that is because there is a basic truth being addressed.

    If Inman were truly doing something morally reprehensible, someone besides the Carreons would call him on it. And others would chime in. Why hasn't that happened? I'm going to try to imagine the response of someone who is the closest to the Carreon's viewpoint and still a semi-reasonable person:

    Inman's initial response was juvenile.
    He's just bringing charity in to get attention. Publicity whore.
    Suing the charities in response is… STILL NOT OK.

    But no. According to the "distributed attack" theory, all these people disagree with you because every one of them is a mindless sheep, or a puppet under Inman's control, or otherwise working in concert with the mob. It certainly couldn't be that everyone actually disagrees with you.

  88. W Ross says:

    *s

    :D

  89. Nibor says:

    @Mark Doe v. Carreon goes before the judge (Chen) next month
    Carreon v. everyone is over, except when one of everyone dicides to presue legal costs or an anti-SLAPP.

  90. M. says:

    @Mike K:

    101011010101011010110

    Hello. This is Mary. I am a human with soft skin.

    http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2000/01/28

  91. Robert White says:

    @Beth — You wrong Inman. He didn't "bring int he charities just to be an attention whore." Have you read the site? He -is- an attention whore, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as you are good at it.

    He brought in the charities to sharpen the knife and increase the chances of raising enough money to really stick the knife in hard.

    That's called "knowing your audience" and "being effective".

    Besides FJ and Carreon are cancers, and there was a picture of a bear so what choice did he have? The bit kind-of wrote itself. /doh.

  92. Chris R. says:

    @M, I am sure every celebrity has some crazy obsessed with them. He might be aware of their "devotion" but I doubt he keeps tabs on what she does. I mean Charles had to demand Paul Levy forward his email to Nader, so it's not like Nader wants to be in actual contact with them.

  93. Chris R. says:

    @RW, I like the sharpening the knife analogy. Charles has brought all of this on himself. After the first C&D letter the internet was angry at Funny Junk and if Carreon hadn't acted out, no one would have cared about him. The rest is history, but trying to bully bloggers, parody twitter accounts, and everyone else was just him falling into one pit trap after another.

  94. M. says:

    @Chris R.: It's too bad they're not into Perot. I'm sure the three of them would get on like a house on fire.

  95. Nibor says:

    @Robert White I am almost sorry (have read somewhere you have problems when someone takes only a part of a post and pulls it out of context :-) ) but this wasn't Beth who stated it but she took an imaginary point of view and still came out that CC was wrong

    Beth wrote:
    I'm going to try to imagine the response of someone who is the closest to the Carreon's viewpoint and still a semi-reasonable person:

    Inman's initial response was juvenile.
    He's just bringing charity in to get attention. Publicity whore.
    Suing the charities in response is… STILL NOT OK.

  96. Beth says:

    @RW, I'm sorry if my post was unclear. I thought Inman's response was hilarious, appropriate, and generous.

    My point was that Charles' "distributed attack" fantasy theory is based on the idea that everyone attacking his reputation is doing so because they are aligned with Inman. In truth, Charles' reputation is damaged due to his own behavior.

    He refuses to acknowledge that his complete and thorough unpopularity is not due to every single person on the internet being an Inman fan. His complete and thorough unpopularity is due to his own actions.

  97. Orville says:

    One of the interesting tidbits I picked up from this saga is that The Oatmeal brings in $500k a year. I doubt that all of the Carreon websites combined bring in even $50k a year. Especially since Chas plead poverty when it came time to travel to the venue he chose to file his law suit in.

    I don't believe for a minute that having more money makes a person better, or that it makes them right when a dispute erupts – but website income can be roughly equated to popularity. Chuckie just didn't have a significant portion of the internet's attention, and I suspect that really stuck in his craw.

    Now, however, he has the attention he craves. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole affair has raised his income a bit. Lots of people are going to his websites and reading what he has to say. Lots of people know his name. I bet the fact that the majority of it is negative attention doesn't phase him one bit.

    Soon though, the internet will move on to the next thing. Then it will be time for another pro se plea for attention. We'll just have to see what shape the next stunt will take.

    Regardless, he won't ever have the success The Oatmeal enjoys. I hope he and Tara enjoy the flavor that adds as they chew on their livers.

  98. Swindapa says:

    @Orville

    "Now, however, he has the attention he craves. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole affair has raised his income a bit."

    Wait, how is that again? I do appreciate that the Carreons are old school. I mean, sure, we bitch about Tara's yellow-on-red color choices, and all of Charles' blogs are straight out of WordPress. No advertising "sponsored link" begging for click-throughs, no Facebook "like" thingies. They are straight out of 1999.

    Contrast that with FunnyJunk, whose method of generating income is to place more advertising than than (stolen) content on the page.

    Contrast that again with Inman, who is a consumate post-Fordist entrepreneur. The majority of his comics have some form of merchandising, no doubt ordered in small wholesale lots: t-shirts, coffee mugs, posters and signed prints, it goes on and on. I have no doubt that Inman pulls in $500,000k or more from his stuff. Sure, his profit margins are smaller and his products cost him more to acquire, but he sells to the world market. Look in the comments below Inman's blog post – the Illuminati are already clamping for "Philanthropy > Douchebaggery" T-Shirts, baby clothes(!), etc.

    I'm betting Carreon is the one getting REALLY shafted financially. He's old school. I'm betting with what he has in domain names and hosting, he's operating at a loss. The only thing he gets out of this is a damaged professional rep.

    Hell, FunnyJunk will probably see a quick bump in advertising profits as users rally to support the site (I'm betting they'll see a long term loss, though).

    /will stop now

  99. Swindapa says:

    Clamping = Clamoring
    The other choice was "clam lure". Really, autocorrect?

  100. Thorne says:

    @ Swindapa

    "Clamping = Clamoring
    The other choice was "clam lure". Really, autocorrect?"

    A funny thought…
    Maybe a ton of Tara's ravings are a result of being seriously autocorrected.

    Think about it…

    She could be trying to type

    "Matt Inman has a nice charitable pedigree"

    And Autocorrect turns it into

    "Matt Inman is a Nazi-controlling pedophile"

    I dare you to tell me this theory makes less sense than anything else TC's been spouting since this all began. ;)

  101. Orville says:

    @Swindapa

    By "income" I meant "website income". I agree that professional hit he has taken most likely has substantially hurt his income as a lawyer – though taking on FunnyJunk as a client suggests to me he wasn't doing that well anyway.

    As for his websites not having advertising – I admit I never have been to one. The sheer amount of crazy I have seen quoted repels me, and I had no desire to line his pockets by increasing his hit count.

    I am a bit gobsmacked to hear he doesn't have any way of monetizing the content his clan is spewing forth. In my mind it takes his actions from "stupid, but understandable" to "back away slowly and look for a large rock".

    It makes his "victory" even more Pyrrhic than I imagined.

  102. William C says:

    I'm still rather disturbed that Charlie himself added me to his "circle" on Google+.

  103. Mark says:

    @William C

    This is probably akin to his $10 donation to Indiegogo.

    He's probably using you as a specimen for his DIRA legal studies. :)

  104. Allen C. says:

    I'm kind of thinking the internet should just back off the Carreons at this point. Really all that is really needed is for Chuckles to be destroyed in court once or twice (Doe v Carreon and maybe The Oatmeal coming after him for attorney costs). Basically ensure Carreon has no ability to follow through on the "I'll get you when the pro bono lawyers are gone."

    Getting all worked up over Rapeutation seems pointless. Looking over American Bhudda and Nader's Library, TC was posting crazy shit years before anyone ever noticed Chuckles and will be posting it for years after the Internet tires of her. Actually this is likely the first time they've had an significant traffic at anyone of their crackpot sites and it is likely Tara is secretly (or not so secretly) getting off on the attention. She's clearly crazy and harmless though, all that really matters is removing Chuckles ability to file lawsuits. She probably things she's now some kind of ultra successful anti Illumanti crusader because she drew the attention of the 'Illumanti' to take her out. Of course crazy people never realize that if there was an Illumanti and you really pissed them off, your body would just end up in a hole in the desert.

  105. Swindapa says:

    @Thorne
    I like it!

    @Orville
    Upon the secret sign of the popehat, I swear: there is not one ounce of advertising on their sites, nor is there any conceivable way for them to be making money from pageviews. Go click away.

    @Allen C.
    Tara is not harmless. The nice hippie Buddhist people called the *code inspectors* on the Carreons after Tara took potshots at the "CIA" and "Drug lords" who wandered too close to her property. Think about that for a minute.

    I do agree that the Internet should stop poking them though. Some poor Mormon boy is going to get shot.

    Spectating, taking an interest in a family that has put thousands of pages up, documenting their crazy for the world to see… What exactly is wrong with that?

  106. Mark says:

    "Stop poking TC for fear she might do some real harm" was EXACTLY one of her arguments against Inman and the internet trolls. Just sayin'.

  107. Allen C. says:

    I guess my thinking is more as follows:

    !. She is incapable of engaging in rational discourse with the internet. So we're not going to talk to her and cause her to have moment of clarity where she realizes how CC was acting as a censor and she was acting nuts.

    2. She has no ability to hurt us. CC tried to hurt "us" (the internet folk) by going after the Does, but Public Citizen is shutting that avenue of attack down.

    3. The Carreons are setting up whole websites about this to get attention from it.

    Basically we've feeding her with attention (which she wants), making her feel important (look at ALL these people out to get me because I'm such a great activist), and increasing the crazy. The only real winner is Ars who gets to write an article (and thus pageviews) every time she posts a stupid rant. It's just kind of devolved into troll vs troll in a way at this point in my mind. She's a fun squeaky toy to bat around for awhile, but she has no variety.

    No matter how this ends, TC is claiming victory. She'll sit there in her house in Tuscon and talk about how badass she was because the Illumanti never did dare send a hit squad after her. If she ends up in the psych ward, it was a victory because she was so dangerous the shadow government locked her away to hide the truth. I see refusal to engage her as the strongest message. "Your husband lost all his court cases, The Oatmeal got its money, even Public Citizen kicked you in the nuts, and none of us even care to engage you because you're a irrelevant loser." Basically I feel she can't tell the difference between negative and positive attention, she just loves attention.

  108. Allen C. says:

    Also:
    @Swindapa and @Mark:
    If I lived in the vicinity of the Carreons I have no doubt I'd have a different viewpoint on how harmless she is. I see they've been run out of town before and if they were in my town I'd be trying to get them run out.

    In terms of doing harm though she can't do harm to us. She's going to take out all her frustration by putting a couple rounds in some local she had a pre existing issue with when she boils over.

    Basically the internet can without a doubt easily provoke her to higher and higher levels of rage. The problem is once she get all worked out and foaming at the mouth she's going to hit some soft target in the local community. She has neither the means nor the long planning ability to actually focus in on anything beyond that.

  109. Mark says:

    Interesting post by TC. This is what she says:

    There has been a third DOS attack against my websites this morning.

    (among other things, of course. she is never that succinct.)

    Notice that she said: "my websites", not "our websites".

    "My websites."

  110. Stuart says:

    @Allen: I kind of what to see her implode from all the attention but you're correct she may lash out at someone innocent with real physical violence. Isn't there some way of reporting someone who appears to be a danger to themselves and to others?

  111. Stuart says:

    want not what -sigh-

  112. W Ross says:

    @Allen C. You're certainly welcome to not participate! That's the beauty of Internet Freedom!

  113. Mike K says:

    Anyone think that the 'DOS attack' was people legitimately visiting 'her sites' after someone wrote an article about how crazy she was?

  114. W Ross says:

    @Mike K That's likely. A DOS attack against a small site by even someone using something like the LOIC would have kept it down for much longer than a few moments, and the DOS attacks SEEM to happen right after major publications release stories on the site.

    And note she's trying to connect Public Citizen with it now:

    "There has been a third DOS attack against my websites this morning. Let's get one thing clear: THESE INMAN HACKERS ARE DEFINITELY NOT FOR FREE SPEECH! Their First Amendment concerns are TOTAL BULLSHIT. They want to be free from the law that prohibits them from viciously attacking their business competitors and deprive me, Charles and anyone who associates with us the right to speak freely about social, political and legal concerns. And isn't it lovely that Public Citizen has put their weight behind this anti-free speech hate campaign?"

    So yeah, when Tara stops making claims like that, I think people will probably be less interested. But saying "Guise, we should totally not pay attention to the crazy meth clown that's doing the bat shit dance every single day while going 'LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME!'" well… good luck with that >:D

  115. Swindapa says:

    @Mike K

    Yup, I bet she purchases the smallest website packages. If they go for the ultra cheap hosting packages, there's a chance that they will be charged for their vastly increased bandwidth.

    Now that I think about it… ……

    (My attorney asks me to advise you that the above was merely a tasteless joke. He's Samoan, and knows about these things)

  116. Mark says:

    @Swindapa, we can't stop here. This is bat country.

  117. Chris R. says:

    I think his server issues are explained here:
    https://twitter.com/SatiricalChas/status/222785239443976193

  118. W Ross says:

    http://www.popehat.com/2012/07/10/not-cool/

    Maybe we should take this all off site. Didn't know all the comments were pissing Ken and Patrick off.

  119. Allen C. says:

    @Stuart
    I'd imagine she's already on the local police force's radar given how she acts. I'd assume they could call in other agencies as they saw the need. I'm just not sure how much a surge of random reports from people on the internet would be taken by the police (basically how do we get the cops to take a bunch of random strangers off the internet as credible people). Basically I just hope/assume the local authorities have a way of managing her and they're aware she's under even more stress due to Chuckles recent actions.

  120. M. says:

    @Mark: The "let me show you them" is implied.

  121. Mark says:

    Yeah, I read Ken's post. I'm outta here. If someone wants to create a subreddit to discuss CC and TC, I'm all for it.

    Nice talking to you, folks! KEEP THE LASAGNA FLYING!

  122. M. says:

    I can see why the thread mentioned got closed, but I'm not seeing that any discussion going on any of the threads I'm reading is comparable. I've been terribly wrong in critical social situations before, though.

  123. Swindapa says:

    I'd like to point out that the title of Ken's original article is "All this talk of harassment is harrassing me!" I'm impressed with his precognitive abilities.

    Seriously, @Ken @Patrick, thank you for hosting a forum where we can debate with other intelligent people – in a polite and pleasant manner – about the topic at hand. Speaking for myself, I have really appreciated all of the insight and added tidbits the Carreon threads have brought along, both in the actual posts as well as in comments section.

  124. Ken says:

    Didn't know all the comments were pissing Ken and Patrick off.

    "All the comments" are not pissing anyone off.

  125. W Ross says:

    Ok, didn't know if you meant just that thread or all the threads. Didn't want to cause a hassle, ya know? Misscommunication.

  126. W Ross says:

    By "all the comments" I meant the number of comments, I wasn't suggesting you meant every comment.

  127. Robert White says:

    Chuckels isn't a linguist either. "Rapeutation" would be a portmanteau of "rape and reputation" yes? That would combine as "rape reputation" which converts as a "reputation for rape". In a portmanteau you are limited in what words you can have interstitially. "rape of ones reputation" isn't really correct to combine. This would actually then apply linguistically that we think chuckles is…

    Nope, doesn't work.

    For it to have any application in the direction he is trying to synthesize it would have to portmanteau in some sort of collective or grouping noun. If you had "ddosutation" mabye?

    Nah, He's just trying to "force it" and make the language do things it doesn't want to do. He's trying to make us accept hist forced linguistic advances. Shame there isn't a word for -that-… oh wait…

    So Chaz -does- have a rapeutation then… I just don't think that is the fault of all of us out here…

  128. W Ross says:

    http://digitallife.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/10/12667082-will-laywer-and-cartoonist-continue-fighting-for-charity-in-the-wrestling-ring?lite

    "Charles Carreon, an attorney now infamous for his role in a legal battle against cartoonist Matthew "The Oatmeal" Inman, has been characterized as an evildoer in many reports. But when I asked what he thought about how the fight between him and Inman ended, he was a surprisingly good sport and focused on the good that came of it all.
    "While it's not the largest sum of money I have ever had a substantial role in raising," he wrote to me, referencing the $211,223.04 collected by Inman's fundraiser, "it is the first time I've seen it go to charity, and I think it's great."
    Advertise | AdChoices

    "I had no idea being a cartoon villain could be this rewarding," he added. "I think Matt and I should team up for a mud-wrestling match and see if we can top a million. Being the Mexican, I get to wear a mask.""

  129. HeatherCat says:

    @W Ross – let the listing of fitting luchador names begin!!

    Or not. Seriously, it sounds like he's trying to become all buddy-buddy with Oats after all this. I somehow do NOT think that'll happen.

  130. M. says:

    Carreon fancies himself quite the spin doctor, doesn't he?

  131. Swindapa says:

    God, I just got a mental flash of CC in an American flag speedo ala his Ars Technica photos.

  132. John Ammon says:

    Man, I just won't let the "I'm a Mexican" line go, huh… No Chas, you're an American, as much as I loathe that fact, it's still true. You were not born in Mexico, you are not Mexican. He has a real problem with these bothersome notions of "fact" and "truth".

    I'm disappointed that MSNBC (though not surprised), didn't see his statements for what they are.

  133. Shannon Lynch says:

    I wonder what Tara thinks about her husband wanting to mudwrestle with the oats. =]

  134. John Ammon says:

    He* won't let the "I'm a Mexican" line go

    Freudian…

  135. Grifter says:

    @John Ammon:

    I just thought you were saying you couldn't let it go without pointing out what an idiot he was for saying it…

  136. John Ammon says:

    @Grifter:

    Well, you know, that too :P

  137. Shannon Lynch says:

    This goes to the Popehat, I started reading because of the whole Carreon debacle going on. I enjoy all the articles that you post and seeing the back and forth with the commenters, it seems like a good community here =]

  138. Swindapa says:

    Carreon has tacitly admitted to the fact that nothing he could do in future, short of mud wrestling another man, would be as embarrassing as what he just put himself through.

    I can get behind that sentiment l.

  139. azteclady says:

    "While it's not the largest sum of money I have ever had a substantial role in raising," he wrote to me, referencing the $211,223.04 collected by Inman's fundraiser, "it is the first time I've seen it go to charity, and I think it's great."

    *speechless*

    Okay, not quite.

    Not the largest sum he's had a 'substantial' role in raising?

    Dear lord.

  140. Robert White says:

    And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the kind of Mental Gymnastics™ that keep persons like under the radar of normal folk.

    If every utter humiliation gets re-written as noble success, then you can only catch the Bug Nutz if you see it happening at the time.

    And so now the shiny veneer of sanity slowly re congeals over the despicable shit-storm in the man beneath.

  141. Grifter says:

    There's a new post on the "library"…
    Can someone translate this newest TC crazy for me? My Sense Parser appears to be broken; it just keeps veering off to the side and then into the ground.

  142. W Ross says:

    Late night word salad from TLC (TM)

    "I have no idea when it was that I became the most radical person in the world. Who knows, perhaps even the whole universe! It was when I stopped being a "Buddhist." I put the word "Buddhist" in quotes because — and I was going to write "even," but I should really say "especially" — after 22 years, I had no idea what the word even meant. It seemed that I was the only one who was interested in the answer to that question. Nobody else even asked it. And as I struggled to come to terms with my rejection of everything I experienced during those 22 years — because of having an experience of the utter emptiness of it all, the utter uselessness of it all — I found myself asking the very strange question, "What is Buddhism?" I wanted to know whether I was or wasn't. I made a large list. OMG, what a revelation to find that it was nothing at all, just a chaotic cesspool of conflicting meanings.

    I got the highest teachings, believe me. It's a matter of record. And I was the main transcriptionist for all those teachings. Just like what I do now, you might say that library work came naturally to me. So I handled the teachings intimately. And I saw that nobody knew what the hell they were talking about. I'm sighing remembering it; it exhausted me to see that it was just so much bullshit!

    My lama was nice; I loved him very, very much, and he really, really loved me. We had a relationship of great mutual respect. He thought very highly of me, and I thought very highly of him. We hung out a LOT together. We had a SPECIAL relationship, which however was never sexual. And I adored him until I saw him relate to his so-called "superiors." Like the big lamas, like Dudjom Rinpoche, or Pednor Rinpoche. Actually, he related perfectly to his "superior" Dudjom Ripoche. I was at the teaching in Ashland, I don't remember when — 1978 or something — where Dudjom Rinpoche broke out laughing and started pointing at Gyatrul Rinpoche, and he joking and laughing, and then the phrase "Gyatrul Rinpoche is my true successor" was translated from Tibetan into English. His son, Shenphen Rinpoche must have been there; I can't remember, maybe he wasn't. Can it be possible that no one told him? Because he stepped into his father's role like it was his birthright.

    Oh, I don't want to get into the birth thing right now, because it's really complicated. Who can keep track of all the reincarnations of Tibetan lamas? And it's not simple, like generationally successive, one every generation. No, there can be 7 of them at the same time, and they can even belong to different lineages. They have a rating system, and the Tibetans seem to know what it is, but I could never figure it out, and I don't think anyone else could, either. For some events, w'd have three levels of thrones, and Rinpoche knew who to put on each one. And a lot of times, it didn't really make sense or seem fair, especially when he put himself on a lower one.

    But with Pednor Rinpoche, he really did have a difficult relationship with him. Pednor Rinpoche was kind of like a mobster-lama. He was tough. You didn't fuck with him. He'd make jokes and laugh about the whole room full of us, being zombies. As if that was fucking fair! We only did what they told us to do, then they laughed at us. You had to be quiet and keep your head low. You can imagine how well that went over with me. Well, I was the exception, and rarely followed the rule. The bowing and scraping thing was never for me. Which is why Rinpoche hit me over the head once as I was walking up to get an empowerment from Pednor Rinpoche — more of those same vibes that came from him — I never liked him. In fact, one of the things he's known for is sponsoring a huge number of young boy monks. But are they happy? No way. If they could run away into the woods, and live in America forever after, even free and on the run, they would. They hated their life.

    saving to continue"

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=896&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=110

  143. W Ross says:

    @Grifter I got that she had a SPECIAL relationship with her Lama and not much else.

  144. M. says:

    Is she for real? I take back what I said earlier, she can have the mandatory bhang per rectum.

  145. Valerie says:

    Hi Ken & Patrick, I hope nothing I have said is out of bounds – I was drawn here by the Carreon Kurfluffel, but I am enjoying the way you explore first amendment issues in a nerd friendly environment. Please don't censor the comments – the discussions are both entertaining and informative.

  146. GrumpyOldDad says:

    Pretty sure Dira is pronounced dīəˈrēə.

  147. Grifter says:

    Granted asking the "why" of anything TC or CC do is leaping headfirst down the rabbit hole, but why does she keep just editing her posts to make them longer? Why not just make a new post? It's not like there's other posters on the thread…

    And on a side note, she has apparently doesn't actually know what schizophrenia is.

  148. Valerie says:

    Tara's last post really seems utterly unrelated to the Inman-Carreon saga. I would never judge another person's spiritual journey, and it seems like she had some good reasons for disillusion with her faith.

    That being said, I still don't see how Buddhist Lama corruption fits into an anti-Carreon conspiracy any more than the Catholic abuse scandal indicates a conspiracy involving me (I'm an admittedly cynical papist). Both are lamentable and perhaps food for thought about power and its corruptions, but…

    I kind of wonder if she's folded back in on herself in terms of her meditations. I mean I wonder if we will see mainly Tara-centric nuttiness with random bursts of general Carreon conspiracy theory over the next few days. Interesting.

  149. W Ross says:

    Oh God. It's expanded to double it's original size! The crazy is growing exponentially.

  150. Shannon Lynch says:

    Tara is Dr. Dolittle now.

  151. Shannon Lynch says:

    "What percentage of the humongous amount of money that poured towards the Katrina victims, actually got to their intended recipients? More money was donated than was donated to the 9/11 victims from what I heard. But there was a huge steal operation going on with all that money. I'm just guessing, but I think probably around 12% of the whole got to the victims. Wherever there is money, there is theft."

    This is where Charles got his Inman is stealing from charities idea.

  152. Thorne says:

    Man, everything she's saying has already been said much more succinctly by Homer Simpson in the "Homer the Heretic" episode:

    "Boy, everyone is stupid except me."

  153. Gal says:

    "Weirdized"? Really? I think Tara put that there specifically to put a hole in Thorne's autocorrect theory.

  154. Patches says:

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to be sued for saying it."

  155. Ki says:

    @Patches

    I find it quite amusing what you did there.

  156. Mike K says:

    It strikes me that she really doesn't understand Buddhist teachings at all. I think that's rather sad if she actually spent 22 years studying them. It's even sadder that she falls into the trap of "If I don't understand it, nobody can." It is pretty funny that she says that Inman et al didn't do anything to make sure the donated money made it to the charities, when about 93% made it to the charities despite her husband's best efforts.

    It's interesting that she sees family sized groups as inherently better than nationwide groups. It reminds me of the hierarchy of government types where a single ruler can be both the best and worst type, rule by a small group can be second best or second worst and rule by the people least good or least bad. I don't think she realizes that while there are families that are great, there are also families that are horribly dysfunctional and that things could be even worse without a government net that catches some of the worst ones.

  157. Gal says:

    @Mike K: It's not even Inman et al, she specifies the ACS AWF because they didn't do enough to make sure that the money would eventually get to them.

    Anyone who wants to donate to those charities directly could do so as they pleased. People who donated to the Bearlove campaign did so for a reason, and that reason wasn't "Cancer is bad, Bears are good" it was "Phylanthropy > Douchebaggery" in most cases, and "I want legal standing" in one.

    It's not that difficult to understand, unless you're a drug-addled dingbat participating in a one-woman crusade against reason.

  158. Swindapa says:

    See, I'm really interested in their hippie-Buddhist, living in a shack days. I a avidly clicked my way through that whole damn photo essay. So this post is interesting to me.

    Can we pin down the chronology any more than we have? She mentions 1978 in her post – how long did they live in a yurt (I have to admit, that was a cool yurt)? When did they leave? Was this the house that was cited for code violation? Were the kids born before or after they made the decision to stop bathing and be dirty flower children? Etc., etc. Someone mentioned looking for news articles involving Tara shooting at neighbors during this period, but I doubt there will be any – hippies tend to be insular and avoid eyes of the "man" as much as possible. Which is why I was so shocked when Charles made apparent that his neighbors had called the authorities about his housing conditions, but I digress…

    This is especially interesting if one compares to how the Carreons live today, in a "Tuscon coffin", ie tract housing (I admit, I looked at their current house on google earth. Creepy, i know). That's a big move, intellectually, egotistically, from "doing it on your own" out in the wilderness, to living in a suburban house that looks like thousands of other houses. Not sure where that takes us, I'm just saying.

  159. TacoMagic says:

    The true test of an advocate for free speech is to defend the rights of the person saying the things you would spend your entire life denouncing as evil.

    Mr. Carreon has, unfortunately, failed this test in a spectacular show of pitiable and toddler-like behavior.

  160. Mike K says:

    I'm not sure on any of that Swindapa, but based on her recent rant it's possible that their perspective on possessions changed. While I'm not a Buddhist, I'm fairly certain that one of the ideas is that objects are unimportant, especially compared to people and animals that have souls. If they fell out of favor with that idea, it's possible that the modern house and 'junk' they filled it with is purposely at odds with their previous life.

    Just to reiterate, I'm not an expert on Buddhism or any other religion so I use different terms and may be wrong. That particular point struck me from her rant because she mentions other 'lamas' stealing from her 'lama'. While the group she was in may have been corrupt, I'm assuming some sharing of things is considered normal.

  161. Wil says:

    My reaction to Carreon's spin doctoring: it's like intentionally causing a car accident, having your insurance pay out for the damages, and then claiming that you were glad you had a hand in getting the other party a new car.

  162. SteveW says:

    Okay, I think I finally have all the parts of this, and now see the big picture. Ann is right about "the crazy." Go and Google "gang stalking." Then go and re-looking at {shudder} "rapeutation." Essentially Carreon appears to have created his own version of the gang stalking mythos.

  163. SteveW says:

    Swindapa, is Google Earthing Carreon's home taking the Streisand Effect full circle?

  164. Erista says:

    The "Rapeutation" website is stupid. If I hadn't already known what was going between the Oatmeal and Carreon on AND already been told that this website was a shot at the Oatmeal, I would have had no fucking idea what the video was about. If you're trying to make fun of someone and yet people don't understand what you are trying to say even when they've already been told you're trying to make fun of someone, you have failed.

  165. Nicholas weaver says:

    hey:

    People who donated to the Bearlove campaign did so for a reason, and that reason wasn't "Cancer is bad, Bears are good" it was "Phylanthropy > Douchebaggery" in most cases, and "I want legal standing" in one.

    Its at least two people who donated for "I want standing".

    I donated so I could have standing in any possible class action lawsuit of The Internet vs Douchebag Attorney for Tortious interference. :)

  166. Chris R. says:

    @Swindapa, when they show the little hut their daughters lived in Charles says something like "It was a constant battle to get them not to smoke in there" and they mention their deceased son coming to visit in the photo essay. I am pretty sure the yurt was a 90's thing.

  167. Bruce McGlory says:

    "Because being ridiculed based on your bad behavior is equivalent to sexual assault, you know."

    It's pretty clear, given what's happened of late, that many of your male commenters would say its worse, cuz MISANDRY!!

  168. Nibor says:

    @Swindapa & Chris R.
    I did some recearch trying to get the facts straight so this is what I found.

    1974 CC married TC
    1978 Photo essay starts
    1986 CC Law degree
    1987 State Bar of California
    US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    Works at law firms in LA
    1993 Oregon State Bar
    Dep. DA for Jackson County, Oregon
    Living in Ashland, Oregon ???
    1994 Bankruptcy CC
    Building Illegal house in Colestine Valley, Jackson county OR
    1995 CC on U.S. District Court for the Dist. Oregon
    Private Practice
    1996 Sex.com case starts
    1997 1998 Gun incident, more to the end of period
    1998 Photo essay ends
    2000 First mentioning of a home in Tucson not same address as now.
    2001 Sex.com case ends
    CC Start with online orientation law/writes book
    2005 60 day suspension Oregon bar (for trust funds misuse)
    2006 60 day suspension California bar + 2 year stayed
    (for practising law in Canada & trust fund misuse)
    2009 First mentioning of home in Tucson were they live now
    US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit

    Disclaimer: This information comes from so many different sources, so these are not facts just indications of the information as far as I could find them

  169. Nibor says:

    2008 CC sues in sex.com case for compensation

  170. Chris R. says:

    Wow Nibor great recap.

  171. Swindapa says:

    Thanks Nibor, awesome summary!

    To add to these details, I browsed through the public records available at the Pima County Property Appraisers. Looks like there was a warranty deed issued ($172,000) by the US Bank National Association in 2007, to the Carreons. So they've been at their current address about five years. Ain't public records laws, combined with the Internet, a scary thing?

    We need to start a collaborative google doc, with citations and such (not serious, just my inner grad student coming out)

  172. Jane says:

    @Swindapa – The first half of the following writing by CC goes into a little more detail about their life during this time and may help answer some of your questions.

    http://www.american-buddha.com/AZ.rudeawakeningfiercegrace.htm

  173. Swindapa says:

    @jane

    Thanks! Weren't you the one who put us onto the photo essay too?

  174. Nibor says:

    Thanks Jane, completed the recap a little.

    1974 Married TC
    197. Travelled to India studied Buddhist teaching
    1978 Photo essay starts
    Living in the woods (Oregon) in Buddhist commune setting
    1982 moved to home in LA
    Start law school
    1986 Law degree
    1987 State Bar of California
    US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    Works at law firms in LA
    1993 Oregon State Bar
    Dep. DA for Jackson County, Oregon
    Living in Ashland/ Colestine Valley, Oregon
    1994 Filled for Bankruptcy
    Building Illegal house in Colestine Valley, Jackson county OR
    1995 U.S. District Court for the Dist. Oregon
    Starts Private Practice
    1996 Sex.com case starts
    1997 1998 Gun incident, more to the end of period
    1998 Photo essay ends
    2000 First mentioning of a home in Tucson not same address as now.
    2001 Sex.com case ends
    Start online orientation law/writes book
    2005 60 day suspension Oregon bar (for trust funds misuse)
    2006 60 day suspension California bar + 2 year stayed
    (for practising law in Canada & trust fund misuse)
    2007 First mentioning of home in Tucson were they live now
    2008 sues in sex.com case for compensation
    2009 US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit

    Disclaimer: This information comes from so many different sources, so these are not facts just indications of the information as far as I could find them

  175. Nicholas weaver says:

    Is there more information/citation on the various gun incidents?

  176. Jane says:

    @Swindapa – Yes, that was me, though it’s my guess that many people have ran across the essay this past month. Their parting from what she termed the ‘Death Cult’ intrigues me, so I’ve been researching what’s available online.

  177. Wil says:

    I just endured navigating the FunnyJunk and, aside from needing to bleach my eyes, I get the impression that generally their users don't have any idea whether "the admin" hired Chuck or Chuck took it upon himself. Also apparently the day the suit was dropped the search functionality on FJ that had been crippled/disabled started working again.

    Does it strike anyone else as odd that FJ has not weighed in on any of this *at all*? I mean, if they didn't hire Carreon it's no harm, no foul for them to say, "We didn't hire that douchebag." If they did, and they felt he was misrepresenting them with the initial letter (or the letter was outside what his job duties were supposed to be) I can't see how it would hurt to come out and say, "We hired Carreon to be our DMCA rep, not send demand troll letters" or "Yeah, we hired him to take care of some other stuff, we didn't expect this" or something similar.

  178. Nibor says:

    @Nicholas weaver:
    Only the mentioning by TC and by CC in the photo essay,

    But there is something you could dig (pacer) up, one of the cases you already dug up, was about a compensation for legal costs by CC from someone in 2000/2001, in these papers the in 1994 illegal build home was mentioned and I believe an restraining order.

    So I can imagine that the original case was about a restraining order for TC for shooting ? There is mentioning of a survey to establish if the incident took place on their land or not (in the photo essay), when concluded that it was on their land the case was denied/dropped,

    Please remind, this is all pure guessing but it would add up timeline wise.

    And newspaper wise, it was at their Colestine Valley home, Jackson county OR, they owned the land there. Likely between 1997 and 1998

  179. Mike K says:

    So is the death cult supposedly the group of Buddhists in Oregon? Now that you remind of that, it seems like a weird way to refer to it.

  180. John Ammon says:

    @Wil:

    Based on misc reports I've heard, the FJ admin is less than quality character. So it wouldn't surprise me if CC did hire him and the FJ admin deceived CC into thinking that all of The Oatmeal comics were removed, banking on the fact that he probably wouldn't spend the time on due diligence.

    But all of that is pretty heavy on hearsay and speculation :P

  181. Robert White says:

    @Wil — It's not "odd", its "smart".

    First, you should never publicly comment on any legal matter that you are or may be a party too, at least not without running it through a (competent) lawyer.

    FunnyJunk wasn't a first-order party in Carreon-v-Inman, but they clearly could have become deeply entangled by opening their mouth.

    Innman had quite succinctly shot down their opening salvo over the linking and any claims of defamation (truth being the ultimate defense) by showing the ongoing bad behavior of FJ.

    As it is, FJ is enjoying a web-traffic up-tick and paying no price for it at all.

    It would be very dumb for FJ to make so much as a peep while the shitstorm rages on.

    Silence is underused and oft misunderstood, particularly now that we have a "silence equals guilt" social mentality (actively used to undermine the incredible genius of the fifth amendment), but FJ is using silence to greatest effect.

  182. W Ross says:

    @Wil The difference between Funny Junk's admin and the Carreon Clan is that The Admin knows the Internet. He might not be good at Internet, but he disappeared day one and has kept a low profile since, thus mitigating his fail.

    Charles Carreon scould learn a thing or two from him.

  183. W Ross says:

    @could

  184. S. Weasel says:

    FunnyJunk has had a couple of traffic spikes thanks to the controversy, but it doesn't look to be sticking: Alexa summary.

  185. AlphaCentauri says:

    A Buddhist teacher I knew once commented that teachers needed to be careful about accepting students with mental illnesses. People with borderline personality disorder, in particular, see Buddhism as describing their experience exactly. They don't understand the difference between never having developed a well-formed ego vs learning to live a life that isn't confined by ones sense of self. They can become more disturbed instead of finding peace.

  186. Gal says:

    Can anyone point out the details of TC's shooting incident? I must've missed that one.

  187. W Ross says:

    "
    100 robot zombies complained to Photobucket, and got our video taken down. See what I'm saying? THEY and their army of corrupt journalists can say as many bad things about you as they want, but YOU aren't allowed to speak. The Inman gang are a bunch of fascists. There is NOTHING to admire about these guys, and everything to condemn. They are NOT the little guys, but the BIG guys in disguise.

    Here's the Psycho Santa Video for now:

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/psychosantamoviefinalfinalFINAL3.wmv "

    I… wut?

  188. W Ross says:

    Uhhh and http://rapeutation.com/ is down.

    Never a dull day.

  189. John Ammon says:

    I'm beginning to wonder if "CIA" and "Illuminati" are just descriptors to Tara, like "dickbag" or "douchebag" are to the rest of us…

  190. Nicholas weaver says:

    Even the Year 2000 federal case was mostly hardcopy, so someone would have to go to the federal courthouse to get those.

    The pre 2000 restraining order and other kerfluffles were in the state court (so no Pacer) and probably hardcopy only as well.

    If Charles doesn't fold on Doe v Carreon, someone in the area would probably be well employed to drop by and get all the case files from the federal and state courts on Carreon's pro se antics, but if (and I hope he does) fold, its not worth the effort.

  191. W Ross says:

    "THEY and their army of corrupt journalists can say as many bad things about you as they want, but YOU aren't allowed to speak."

    This is humorous, because we all know (and so do they) that they could just upload it on You-Tube. Unless it was taken down for the Oatmeal content in it and in that case it IS Fair Use and shouldn't have been taken down.

    But you don't want to put it on You-Tube cause you don't want us to be able to comment on it, which is why you tried to use a different site.

  192. Swindapa says:

    This came by way of Jane on an older thread, so thank her for them:

    http://www.american-buddha.com/yn.ashland.837.htm

  193. Swindapa says:

    That last comment as @Gal:

    This came by way of Jane on an older thread, so thank her for them:

    http://www.american-buddha.com/yn.ashland.837.htm

  194. Elegy says:

    And, while I'm making my afternoon check-in, I'll say this:
    Since the need for being careful about my identity seems to have passed (as Charles calms down and stops suing everyone and their mother), I'll begin posting under my non-throwaway identity, and link my real email address for the popehat admins.

    So, without further ado:
    Swindapa = Elegy

  195. Chris R. says:

    What do you know, you name a site rapeutation and people complain about it's content. No one could have known. Not even a White Hat Internet Lawyer.

  196. Pierce Nichols says:

    @Swindapa: I submit that mud wrestling another man would be substantially less embarrassing than Carreon's actual conduct.

  197. Mike K says:

    Theoretically it could be considered to violate their terms of service. Even if the use of copyrighted material (audio and visual) is fair use, you could make the case for it having nudity, if crudely drawn which is prohibited. I considered reporting the YouTube vid so it would at least be age restricted. Someone could also claim some form of hate speech, but that would be a real stretch.

  198. John Ammon says:

    For what it's worth, I say let them keep their ridiculous video up, it's their right to look crazy, why would we want to take that away from them? The right to free speech can be as much of a blessing as it is a curse; especially when nothing we could say about them would be as shameful and incriminating as their own words >_<

  199. W Ross says:

    But if you complain about it, you won't notice that the comments are open >:D

  200. W Ross says:

    http://rapeutation.com/phuck-photobucket/

    New butt0hurt (also, they closed comments and ratings after receiving about 7 dislikes in a few minutes, lol.)

    SUE PHOTOBUCKET!!!!

  201. W Ross says:

    http://rapeutation.com/legal-analysis/

    OK last post for a bit, but Ken ought to rearead this page. MUCH deeper into the Tort he'd like, including:

    "first, i think that the immunity provided by the cda, 47 usc sec. 230 needs to be re-thought. when combined with the allowance of pseudonymous posting by virtually all websites, three evils grow under its protection: (1) people pretending to be third parties while actually being the site publishers, (2) single users pretending to be multiple users, and (3) publication of defamatory and privacy-invasive information for which no effective redress is possible due to anonymity."

  202. John Ammon says:

    Did anyone mention to Chas that when you create an account on a website, the only "rights" you have are the ones that the owner of the site gives you? This is a constant battle for me on my own sites with the trolls that come around on occasion.

    They whine and moan about "free speech" and that they have the "right" to say what they want, which is certainly true, but not on my website, because I own it. If you want free speech, go start your own site, I certainly can't stop you. But if you're making threats and being rude on my site, guess what, it won't last long.

    It's the equivalent of being invited onto private property and then saying horrible things, if the owner wants you out, he'll get you out, one way or the other. I might be hazy on the actual legal precedents, but I think the analogy is solid :P

  203. John Ammon says:

    How long do you think until Chas sues Photobucket for a "breach of contract" >_<

    All it takes from Photobucket is a quick google search to realize they can simply laugh him away.

  204. Mike K says:

    I think it's interesting how he posted Doe's name on the site now. I realize that since it's the internet it was somewhat public after the initial release, but I thought it was great how few people used it. I personally chose to forget it after reading it the first time, but found it again in Ars comments. I'm curious how the 'Wikipedia Clique' fits into their view of what happened.

    The updated analysis is both intriguing and scary. It would seem to make all speech on the internet actionable, since it's foreseeable given the timeless quality of things on the internet that someone somewhere will eventually perform some illegal action based on it.

  205. W Ross says:

    @Mike K I saw that too. Guess he's getting revenge. I wonder if that's kosher? (Probably is, I can't imagine he'd give Levy any ammo.)

  206. John Ammon says:

    @Mike K – Which is exactly why everything he's whining about is garbage and would/should never be taken seriously.

    The whole pity-party that Chas is throwing himself is laughable. The fact that he hasn't just STFU already only makes him look worse. I haven't heard a peep from anyone outside his family who's supporting him on any level.

    As inappropriate as I think the analogy is, Chas raped his own reputation. In fact, he didn't even have a real reputation before this whole thing started, so really, he's upset that people see him for what he is. The old saying "giving him enough rope to hang himself" seems to fit. At this point we're not doing any harm, he just keeps piling the damage onto his own reputation by making terrible videos and horrible websites.

  207. I'm still curious why the RIAA hasn't done anything about all the pirated music on his website.

  208. W Ross says:

    You have to admit when someone's named Wikipedia as part of the conspiracy against them that they've fucking lost it.

  209. Chris R. says:

    @W Ross, well wikipedia can be USED for a conspiracy by immoral editors, but that would be like naming gmail for allowing us to communicate about people we don't like… just dumb.

  210. Mike K says:

    I was figuring that by 'Wikipedia Clique' he was referring to the editors that were going to delete his page. I'm assuming they'll be renewing that discussion again shortly, unless he does something so worthy of scorn as to merit it on his wikipedia page and saving it for a while.

  211. n o 0 n e says:

    @W Ross

    thank you for introducing me to Professor Elemental. despite my love for hip-hop and things with a wodehousian flair i was unaware of this fine gentlemen or the expressive genre known as 'chap-hop' that so effusively combines the two.

    upon my sam, i am in your debt.

  212. Nicholas Weaver says:

    T.J: Because they don't have Arizona council.

    Carreon is very good (and probably right, actually, in this case) at fighting jurisdictional claims. The RIAA would need to sue in Arizona or California, or Carreon would tie them up forever in court on jurisdiction (Penguin v American Buddha is still in the appeals process over just that issue).

  213. Myk says:

    @T.J @Nicholas – It would be fun, though, if RIAA were to launch a raid akin to the Kim Dotcom one- armed agents rappelling from helicopters etc. I would pay money to see the look on Tara's face when that one goes down! I realise it'll never happen, but one can daydream…

  214. Chris R. says:

    @Myk, that would probably be tragic because if she still owns her firearms she'd begin firing on police and they'd respond in suit.

  215. Chris R. says:

    Charles is going full Tara right now on Rapeutation.com adding pages and names by the buttload.

  216. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Wow, Charles just went off the deep end here:

    Paul Alan Levy, an attorney at Public Citizen Group who is said to be “an expert in issues of Internet free speech, removal jurisdiction, and the representation of ‘lawyers in trouble’ from sanctions, contempt findings and the like,” has sued me on behalf of a “Doe Plaintiff” who, so I hear from third-hand sources, is alleged to be the registrant of Charles-Carreon.com. (For the record – I have never read one line of the complaint.) Paul looks entirely sane, so we can only conclude that the smell of oatmeal is more intoxicating than it might seem. Freedom of speech is at stake! Aux les barricades!

    You would think he'd actually read the complaint by now.

  217. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and he edits as I read!

    Of course, the real question is, will Paul represent Mr. Recovreur if Walgreens fires him for unauthorized use of his workplace computer? Paul looks entirely sane, so we can only conclude that the smell of oatmeal is more intoxicating than it might seem.

  218. Chris R. says:

    Lol. 2 blog posts a day = has to use work computer? It must take him a real long time to write things down.

  219. Mike K says:

    I expect Ken will be listed eventually. You should write your own paragraph and send it to him. Then you can practice your snark and and save him a few hours of research.

    I notice that other than a few grammar mistakes that he's being very careful about what he writes. He's avoiding anything that could be remotely considered defamatory, although it's pretty bad that he'd mention someone's wife as part of his 'war' despite her presumably not mentioning his name ever.

  220. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Mike K: Yeah.

    And hey, it IS protected, he can rant and rave as much as he wants. Its amusing to a large degree, but by the same token we can taunt him and taunt him and taunt him…

    The "at work" comment even can probably be classed as opinion, and therefore protected. Just because the Real Chuckles may think it takes 4 billable hours to do a post (lawyers work slow, especially when they are happy things don't settle because it gives them a chance to bond with their clients and bill them more!), doesn't mean Satirical Charles does.

  221. Ann says:

    Yeah. So any pity that may have been seeding itself in my southern sensibilities for that piece of shit just got squished w/ the mention of Chris' wife. The only members of the Carreon clan that have been discussed have been those who have inserted themselves into the conversation.

    Referring to this as a war is preposterous. That said, it is now on like Donkey Kong.

  222. Marzipan says:

    Indeed, Ann. Seems like he's trying to drag in the family of all his critics as he views his family as having been dragged in.

    Truth be told, I'm surprised he hasn't included you for being…what was it, the "Lying Little Bitch"?…who started another fundraiser with the explicit purpose of demonstrating FU is a perfectly legitimate reason for donating money. Who else here will end up on his hit list…err…"Rapeutationers" list?

  223. joe says:

    Nicholas, Ann, where is he posting this – can you provide the link?

  224. I'm not surprised by the creepiness of bringing in Chris' wife. When Carreon and I talked via Twitter DMs, he asked me if I had any allegiances, claiming he didn't have time to research me. A few minutes later, he asked what a particular professor I'd worked for (on First Amendment issues) would say about his case. I checked my IP logs and confirmed that he had downloaded my resume. So much for having no time to research.

  225. Elegy says:

    Yeah, I can't find the list of enemies from his main site, all links appear to have been taken off. Perhaps you guys are reading something he thinks is protected?

    Link Please!

  226. Elegy says:

    In late, sorry, thanks for the link.

  227. Marzipan says:

    @Adam, yeesh. Sounds like he's been doing the Creep. I wish he would have taken his own advice: "Might have a career ahead of him if he learns that the smell of fecal matter is actually a warning of potential toxicity, not a signal to drive your snout deeply into the source of the aroma."

    Then again, after lying around in it for decades, I'm sure his intellectual sniffer has habituated to the stink of fetid arguments, no matter how forcefully he advances them.

  228. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Adam: Hey, look at it this way, you're first on Carreon's parade, you should be honored!

    I'm dissapointed, all my PACER money and, for what, cool quotes like

    Far from being worried, Mr. Carreon stated that he was pleased that negotiations had not proved successful because it allowed him to “bond with [his] clients and get more money out of them.”

    (Declaration of ROBERT L. LOMBARDO, in Global Innovations, Inc. et al v. ALS Scan, Inc. et al)

  229. Ann says:

    @Adam – he's back on Twitter?????

  230. @Ann: no, this was when he originally filed against Inman. He had followed me on Twitter, so I DM'd him asking for a copy of the complaint. He didn't oblige.

  231. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, adam, Carreon's claiming to have evidence of an evil DOS attack on him:
    http://rapeutation.com/evidence-of-dos-attacks/

  232. Elegy says:

    And…. I found the link to that post – got a little over excited at the douchebaggery there, won't happen again.

    What is bizarre to me is this: from its initial launch, I thought "Rapeutation.com" was going to be Charles way of introducing a serious discussion of what he (perceived) to be the faults of current tort law – despite the bizarre fonts and colors, and distinct lack of capitalization in his "legal analysis".

    Instead, he's sunk to extremely personal attacks against the people he thinks are after him in something like 72-hours or less. This only serves to undercut any high ground he could hope to hold, and it reveals his douchebaggery in all its glory. This guy is a foot-shot Olympian.

    I'm just waiting on him to start jumping on 4chan. They were on his list of rapeutationists earlier. Hopefully they'll jump up and down on him instead. (Ok, on second thought, I wouldn't wish that on anyone)

  233. @Nicholas: I saw. I'm waiting for something to get posted. If he's right, then he's right. I've already said that if those kinds of attacks are happening, then that's despicable.

    Say, you have a tech background, yes?

    @Elegy: indeed. Here I thought he might use the site to bring a unique perspective on how we should approach the First Amendment in the Internet context. Then again, the site's name is a rape pun playing off of reputation.com.

  234. W Ross says:

    Wow….

    The Carreons are the Endboss of the Internet.

    I never thought I'd see it in my day…

  235. Ken says:

    I'm betting that I find out that I'm bald and fat, and possibly stupid.

  236. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Adam: Yeah. Ph.D. Computer Science, specializing in network measurement and network security.

    If it is an actual DOS, rather than a flashcrowd and curious people hitting reload, that his system is back up says its just some script kiddies with something like LOIC, which means if it is a real DOS, he could probably track them down pretty easily because anyone who would do such a weak-sauce DOS is probably stupid enough to do it from their own home system.

    And I would be willing to help him on that, on a pro bono basis. Even reprehensible douchebags deserve free speech rights on their own site.

  237. Ken says:

    Agreed. A DOS is not free speech. I have zero problem with douchebags doing that being outed, tracked down, and reported to anyone who will listen.

  238. Nicholas Weaver says:

    ken: I suspect Carreon won't be so classy. Expect something dissing your family. That seems more his style.

    Oh, and Adam, he's surprised people notice him!

    Almost immediately after I posted this comment on July 11, 2012, Adam responded with a tweet that appeared on his own blog, posting a link back here. The dynamics of DIRAs generate strange attractors.

  239. I confess that I'm not nearly nerdy enough to understand what that means.

    (not the DOS description — that I understand crystal clear, and I join in your offer to help track down the malcontents.)

  240. Elegy says:

    @Adam
    You're right, I should have said multiple foot-shot champion. He was sunk from the point he picked the domain name.

    I was hoping that the mudwrestling comment was signaling the "aw shucks, let's let bygone be bygones/we were all just kidding" phase. Instead, the man starts piling on the crazy, Tara style. Good god.

    I wasn't really ready to buy into the "conflating rape with what he's going through" argument at first – I just figured it was evidence of poor taste and little thought on his part.

    But damned if I don't buy it now. I think the man's butthurt has gotten so bad, it is evident that he really feels he is being "raped".

  241. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Translation:

    "Script Kiddies": Think the cliche pimply-faced asshole living in Mama's basement. Cliche, but true. Tends to use off the shelf tools (scripts), thus the derogatory term.

    LOIC: "Low Orbit Ion Cannon": "Anonymous's" simple DDoS tool, but it by default is running from the user's computer. Thus its pretty easy to track down who's using it.

  242. Grifter says:

    Wait, Adam, were you questioning the DOS stuff, or the strange attractor accusation?

  243. W Ross says:

    @Ken

    "In the "Legal Analysis" he says: denial of service attacks (my network has suffered three major dos attacks, and i have quadrupled my server space, at considerable cost, simply to stay online) or other digital trespasses to chattels"

    Now go and look at the Nader Library thread here:

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewforum.php?f=24

    And note the 100,000 reads she's gotten in just the first two articles. If he's got DOS stuff then yeah, release it and throw the book. But I'm guessing his sites went down on high traffic and he had to pay to go to some next tier or something before they turned them back on- counting to him as the site being knocked off line.

    In that case, it's the salacious speech that's causing the traffic, not somebody firing mad packets at it. That's my guess.

  244. Nicholas Weaver says:

    W Ross: That's my bet too.

    The failures have been "Can't connect to database" in some cases, and his main site (the CharlesCarreon domain also hosts rapeutation and his other wonders. But its all database driven, and probably on a pretty dinky VM hosting through BlueHost. And it attracts a lot more traffic than he was used to.

  245. Oh, no, I get the DOS stuff Weaver's talking about. I used to do some low-level network security stuff for MySpace.

    The strange attractor thing, complete with link to this page… no idea.

  246. Grifter says:

    @Adam Steinbaugh:

    It's a chaos theory thing (that he's misusing). A strange attractor is a point in an equation that other data points "sort of" circle around, causing a sort of linked-looking eddy thing (I'm being very technical), and I believe he's saying you are linked to him like a strange attractor in a system.

    He is undoubtedly picturing something like this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system

  247. Grifter says:

    …which is on the page he linked, if I'd actually read it. I guess he's saying you're his other butterfly wing. It's a…compliment?

  248. Elegy says:

    @Adam

    That's chaos theory stuff, ever popular with hippies and graduate students who subsist on too much postmodernism. Put simply, it's a point in n-space (or the complex plane, etc) about which certain equations exhibit certain kinds of behavior.

    It's difficult to explain in layman's terms and no math, which is why I'm betting Carreon is just using a buzz word. Whatever he thinks it means, it doesn't. But I have no idea what he thinks it means.

  249. Robert White says:

    Plus, the whole "butterfly" thing was disproved because of the failure of the "initial condition" hypothesis. That is, the chaos butterfly works only if the universe is static as the initial condition, but because the universe isn't static when the flapping happens, no "resultant" storm.

    I'm no math wiz, but I love it when people who are -wholly- clueless use the words to steal cachet.

    also, "DOS" my ass, they just aren't used to having anything they said actually read. e.g. "toh noes, someone hit my site, I must be under attack!".

  250. W Ross says:

    @Nicholas Weaver Cool, so it's not me. Cause that's a LOT of traffic for a month on a site that gets no traffic. My bet is they were coasting along on a very inexpensive plan, then their sites got popular and the costs went up.

    If he's got evidence, he'll show his hand; real evidence of a DOS is usually pretty concrete unless it's sophisticated (in my understanding.)

    @noOne You're welcome. Always good to keep a little Chap Hop in your trouser pocket.

    @all
    /sets up soapbox

    OK so we're kind of through the Looking Glass here folks. I want to say here and now that anybody who suddenly goes Anonymous, shuts up, or heads off; I don't blame ya and do what you gotta. Shit is getting real when people start mentioning family members of press and commenters.

    If you stay, and if you have a web presence, the Carreon's may subject you to embarrassing disclosures. They may make generalized statements about you in print, or contact your friends and family. They may photoshop a murder of dicks on your forehead (yes, they're like crows.)

    If you stay I can't promise you victory… I can't promise you safety, or a delicious ham sandwich… But I can promise you one thing…

    lulz.

    Dozens and dozens of delightful, memorable, once in a lifetime lulz as you and your newfound friends are viciously attacked by Bellatrix Lestrange and Stephen Segal's half-brother in the most public, failure ridden way possible. You will laugh like you haven't laughed before, and then you will laugh again, because Tara will edit and repost the thing you just laughed at, making it hilarious.

    And you'll probably get sued.

    So if I never see you again, know I thought you fought bravely on the fields of hilarity, and I was proud to know you.

    But if you stay… well, again, probably dicks right on your face.

    But it will be funny.

    (*required music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZIEBZsV9hk )

  251. Ann says:

    If he's having database connection issues, could be SQL injection. The Nader Library site is very late nineties in construction and aesthetics. Is it a leap to think the site was utilizing inline selection statements prior to the "attacks" and then some poor website admin had to convert them to stored procedures? SQL injection could be purposeful, or it could be cropping up in the "bot-ish" version now that the site is more easily crawlable with all the inbound links?

  252. W Ross says:

    http://rapeutation.com/2012/07/12/hate-emails/

    A new section. So you don't "DOS" him with hits, here's the full text so far. Busy little bees, they. This ought to be a night.

    "As a Rapeutation gets going, many minor league Rapeutationists start to send hate emails. What is the effect of receiving hate emails, you might ask? It depends upon a lot of things. In The Sex.Com Chronicles, I described the anxiety caused by receiving scary faxes (the instant-delivery technology of the day), and you might think hate emails would cause the same response. But they don’t. As I received and read a few hundred hate emails, I experienced a range of responses. I was mostly amused, occasionally challenged, rarely annoyed, and in the aggregate, somewhat saddened.

    Amused because although the writers were familiar with my name, they didn’t know me, so much of what they said seemed silly and misdirected. Challenged when the writer raised a relevant point that seemed worthy of a response. Annoyed for a range of reasons that all amounted one thing — I had let them get under my skin. Saddened because so many people had the time spit bile at me, over a legal spat about comic websites, while the world is literally burning up around us, while American-made drones hunt humans like video-game targets on the other side of the world, while migrants struggle through the desert a few miles south of here in the Sonora desert, just trying to make it to a place where they can have a decent living. In that context, wasting time hatemailing me seemed like a terrible waste of mental energy. But I digress. This post is to give you access to some of the hatemails I received, to put names to some of the hatemailers, and allow you, dear reader, a view into the workings of a DIRA.

    THIS PAGE IS NOW UNDER CONSTRUCTION

    PREVIOUS : The Rapeutationists"

  253. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Ann: Nah. Naderlibrary/american-buddha are hosted on a different server from Charles's "professional" sites. Its the raputation professional site and the other professional sites that have been having issues today.

  254. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and if I do get sued, for expressing my constitutionally protected opinions and right to search and publish public records, let it be known I will make sure that the words "Snort my taint" end up in the legal record for the case.

  255. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Robert: Of course, the goal is to find the butterfly thats causing all the bad weather and KILL IT!

  256. Mike K says:

    "while the world is literally burning up"
    I loled when I read this on his site.

    I have minimal web presence Ross, so I have severe doubts they'll find me without latching onto some other random person. I may do website work, but I'm somewhat anti-social and have a tendency to reveal vague details that don't identify me when online.

  257. W Ross says:

    You know that part where the hero rides in on the horse made of Internets?

    https://twitter.com/wilw/status/223270342708305920

    Well now you do.

    Welcome to thunderdome, motherfather. Treebeard just stood up, and he's pissed about how you're treatin' his forest.

    (Told you there'd be lulz.)

  258. Tali says:

    @W Ross
    A Citizen Kane style applause for your soapbox preaching.
    http://thumbs.newschoolers.com/index.php?src=http://www.halforums.com/xenforo/attachments/citizen-kane-gif.4830/&size=400×1000

    I feel like I've missed a lot in the time I've been AFK, but I guess having a baby (and forgetting to pay the internet bill in the process) will do that to you ;)

    Now that I'm back, I'm totally with you. I'm in it for the lulz!

  259. W Ross says:

    Then remember that part of the movie where yet another hero takes notice?

    https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/223270690609053696

    >:D

    YA DONE GOOFED!

  260. Wil says:

    As a professional SQL geek, from what I can tell the Nader Library website is patched and not vulnerable to SQL injection. It's not intentional…they just lucked out. I've done a decent amount of intrusion testing for SQL injection and later versions of most forum software (Vbulletin, PHPbb, etc.) are relatively immune.

  261. W Ross says:

    @Wil Nice, so that base is covered.

    http://imgur.com/z8182

    I got the photo of the site uploaded so they can't delete their way out of it. We've missed screenshots of stuff that rabbited later and kicked ourselves so I wanted to have it.

  262. Mir says:

    I've been checking these threads and watching the Carreons self-destruct ever since this thing started. (And you all are hilarious, by the way) Watching their reactions now, these two Dean Koontz quotes keep running through my head. (Both quotes are found in From the Corner of His Eye.)

    “The problem with movies and books is they make evil look glamorous, exciting, when it’s no such thing. It’s boring and it’s depressing and it’s stupid. (They) are shallow, empty, boring people who couldn’t give you five minutes of interesting conversation if you had the piss-poor luck to be at a party full of them."

    "When you're as hollow as Enoch Kane, the emptiness aches. He's desperate to fill it, but he doesn't have the patience or the commitment to fill it with anything worthwhile… So a man like Kane obsesses on one thing after another…anything that seems to give meaning to his days, but that requires no real self-discovery or self-sacrifice."

    I'm not saying the Carreons are evil necessarily, but IMO they are certainly behaving as if they were hollow….

  263. Wil Wheaton just incited the entire internet to hack my Twitter feed and fill it with lots of tweets. You guys know any reputable lawyers?

  264. W Ross says:

    Just Charles.

    So no, not any reputable ones.

  265. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Adam: Better Call Saul!

  266. W Ross says:

    *Points at Adam* 25 retweets already. Hope your ready to get your blog read. You've just been outted as a Very Interesting Internet Person (VIIP) and will now be slaughtered by a tidal wave of 160 character love.

    LULZ I SAY! I $#$%ING TOLD YOU GUYS THIS WOULD HAPPEN…

    ahem… carry on.

    (You should have worn a hoodie. It's the thieves cowl of the digital age.)

  267. Jeff S says:

    Oh no!! Adam! Hold on tight for the DOS!!

  268. Mir says:

    I knew there was a reason I still hung around. This is better than a television show. *eat popcorn quietly in the corner*

  269. Mir says:

    *eats

    That was a description, not an order. :)

  270. Chris R. says:

    My favorite part is him making fun of my abandoned wordpress sites. Which I stopped working on after I decided I wasn't any good at making desktop wallpapers after 4 days. I am pretty sure I didn't get any comments on my satirical charles page within the first 4 days either.

  271. Robert White says:

    Note the the Crowd: You should take any link and put ".nyud.net" at the end of the host part of a link if you would like to

    (a) be polite to a site owner who isn't scaled up to support extra hits.

    (b) have a better than average chance of not showing up as a "hit" in any logs.

    This .nyud.net is the "coral cache" (http://www.coralcdn.org/) service that caches and forwards content to reduce and distribute load for any web page.

    So for example (using my site as an example because I _refuse_ to link at those tards in any way) "http://verusvoxvocis.org/WinterDark.html" becomes "http://verusvoxvocis.org.nyud.net/WinterDark.html".

    So too for all these Carreon sites. If you add and use that then you can watch the ass-hat sites without DOSing and _usually_ without directly visiting the site. (it will turn into a direct visit redirect on occasion).

  272. Elegy says:

    @W Ross
    I'm in to win it. I outed my real meta-identity earlier on this thread, and I'm here until Ken and Patrick get tired of us and start closing comments on all the Carreon threads.

    Heck, I even went and got a gravatar.

  273. W Ross says:

    "The Rapeutationists in the Inman-Carreon-Oatmeal Affair are a mixed bag of people who apparently can’t find any real issues of importance to focus their attention upon, and have thus devoted themselves to licking Matt Inman’s hindquarters. There’s no rhyme or reason to their involvement, and some have already harvested so many clicks from the fiasco, that I suggest we proceed in reverse order, from the obscure foot-soldiers to the royalty of Rapeutationists. And all of you, please be patient. In the fullness of time, you will find yourselves revealed here."

    There's the official threat in the "raeputationists" thread.

    Again, in a rare moment of seriousness, this shit has gotten real, and if you're in here, they may try to embarass you.

    That being said…

    /steps up on soapbox

    Tara, I don't need you to embarrass me on the Internet.
    I'm 31 and I'm divorced. A few years ago I had to go to a psychiatric hospital for a suicidal plan (self checked in, but true.) I'm a treated Bipolar with Severe ADHD and social anxiety, and I do spend a lot of my time on the computer. I'm not fat, but I could lose a few, and I've had relationships I'm not proud of. My parents will be a dead hole, my mom is battling stage three cancer and my dad… lol my dad is everything I wish I could be and am not. I'm a satirist, so I've probably told my share of off color jokes and those can be found a lot of places. I don't have a "real job" (I write novels and satire and for magazines, but hardly full time) and I often don't finish what I start, and often say the wrong thing in social situations which makes me awkward and weird in person.

    Oh, and I snore.

    The point is there ain't shit you can say to threaten me in regards to "outting me on the Internet," because I'm not embarrassed to be me and I'm not frightened of Sea Hags.

    Suck it,

    Will Goddamned Ross of Omaha Motherfucking Nebraska

  274. Mike K says:

    This may be a stupid question but… wouldn't a typical person (especially a lawyer) want to read all the information about a lawsuit against himself immediately?

    I mean, as soon as I was served with the papers I would read them through immediately. I wouldn't be wasting the time (over a week) building a site (how does it take that long to build anyway?) about how people were violating my rights (not that many are) and researching their families in an attempt to hurt them.

  275. Elegy says:

    @Mike K

    You forgot about the horrible video

  276. Gal says:

    @Tali: Gratz!

    @W Ross: Apart from anything else, the more people he goes after, the greater the chances of someone filing an anti SLAPP suit, are they not?

    Also, his proposed tort is insane. Ken hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that the more objectionable an act is, the more likely it is that simply pointing it out would lead to an "internet mobbing."

  277. W Ross says:

    @Mike K At this point we can't be rightly sure what they're doing, lol. But I do know if Wil Wheaton is mentioning it to people, it will be expensive, bandwidth wise.

    Let them build their audacious little Temple to the Illuminati… The bandwidth costs will bury them, because the more salacious it is the more traffic it'll get- the more news stories it will cause- and the stronger the Streisand Effect will become.

    You don't beat Charles Carreon….

    Charles Carreon beats Charles Carreon.

  278. Elegy says:

    @Gal

    I doubt Carreon will face professional censure over this. Nor do I think he should.

    What has he done? Sent a strong arm complaint letter; this douchebaggey, but that is something that is done with regularity.

    He has filed one frivolous suit (the Inman suit), ok two if you count the guy in Florida in 2003.

    Satirical Charles preemptively filed counter-suit on him.

    Oh yeah, he's making a public spectacle and giant ass on himself. Certainly this isn't making the other lawyers happy, no doubt they'll be the butt of more jokes, but then again you get these sorts of people in every field. It's his constitutional right to make as big of an ass of himself as he can.

    I just don't see yanking his professional certification over this. Partially, that seems too extreme. His rep is already ruined, and he'll never live down the infamy.

  279. M. says:

    Anyone want to give a synopsis?

  280. Robert White says:

    Please don't use that -stupid- word. You are just validating him.

  281. W Ross says:

    @Elegy I'm just tired of all the threats and the bullying from the Wicked Witch of the Southwest and the Arazona SIDS. From day three they've been implying "if you keep paying attention to us in ways we don't approve of, you might get sued." I don't care if he's professionally censured or not, I just hope the world knows the story when he does it.

  282. W Ross says:

    *"it" being whatever he does

  283. Gal says:

    @Elegy: I agree that he hasn't done enough to face censure yet (except perhaps for legal fees, unless I'm mistaken this nonsense did cost California taxpayers some money.) But it seems he hasn't given up on Doe Hunting. And if he does continue with that then yes, I do believe he should face censure.

  284. Matt Scott says:

    God, you work way too many hours for a few days and come home (after some sleep) to a big 'ol Carreon present.

    @Chris- Carreon doesn't seem to realize that Satirizing him really shouldn't take all that much time… a lot of rehashing what the man says himself, plus some dinos, some dick drawings (which I'm planning on making the background of my girlfriends computer when she's not looking), and boom, you have a kickass website.

  285. n o 0 n e says:

    @w ross –

    i will now have chap-hop in my pocket wherever i go thanks to Professor Element and your off hand recommendation.

    also, thanks for taking to the soapbox, your bravery and anns and nibors and etc. (i'm not dissing, it's just that the list would be long) has made this and all of the other CC related threads here a joy and an education to read.

    so, to go further and emulate at least a minor hero. . .

    i'm 41 and i'm married.

    a year ago i had to go to a hospital for a detox (alcohol – self checked in, but true.)

    i'm a recovering alcohol addict who has escaped the places where i abused, and i do spend a lot of my time on my farm.

    i'm not fat now, but i was really getting there – i've lost 11 kg since i moved to japan, stopped abusing, and changed my diet and routines.

    and i've had relationships i'm not proud of.

    family info redacted since they are all well and kicking.

    i don't have a "real job" (i am the benificiary of an accident settlement [on a bike hit by a car that ran a stop sign] that thanks to a good lawyer has my savings set while i am living off of a wife that wants to work while i try to fit in to a new society.)

    and i while i do finish what i start, i generally don't start much.

    oh, and i really fucking snore.

    my bravery ends here. gomen nasai.

    many thanks (and infinite apologies) to @W Ross

  286. LaserGuy says:

    OK, my first time posting here, hopefully I don't screw it up too badly! ;)

    @Mike K I saw that too. Guess he's getting revenge. I wonder if that's kosher? (Probably is, I can't imagine he'd give Levy any ammo.)

    IMHO, it appears that in the E-MAIL sent to Register.Com, he requested the disclosure of privileged and personal information regarding a private registration, based on the representation that this information was to be used specifically to add said person as a named defendant in an existing federal lawsuit -

    "Tomorrow I am going to amend the Complaint to allege a claim for cybersquatting in violation of the ACPA, with a prayer for imposition of the maximum $100,000 statutory penalty against fictitiously-named Defendant Doe 2.

    I hereby request that, prior to 3 p.m. PST on Friday June 22,2012, Register.com:

    3) Disclose the Private Registrant's name and contact information to me…

    If Register.com discloses the identity of the Private Registrant prior to 3 p.m., I will name the Private Registrant as Doe 2 in the First Amended Complaint. If Register.com fails to disclose the identity of Private Registration by the 3 p.m. deadline, I will be forced to name Register.com as Doe 2 in the First Amended Complaint."

    He didn't say "Hey, Register.Com – can you please give me this guy's confidential info, so I can dig into his personal life, and then launch a vindictive personal attack against him and his family on a new web site?!"

    This is outrageous! Given that he is an officer of the court, I would think (or at least hope) that misusing his position in such a manner would be a serious ethical breach?

    Someone needs to contact the state bar about this.

    I am particularly disturbed by his linking to a page with a picture of CD's wife apparently holding their young child, which he then follows with the bone-chilling comment -

    "But there are no innocents in war."

    WTF?!!! Was that a threat?!

    Register.Com also has some MAJOR egg on their face on this one – I wonder if they realize just how the information they "coughed up" for him is now being used?

    That's a news story in and of itself.

    Given the "disturbing" nature of some of what he was posting, I did a little checking on who was hosting his new site. While the WhoIs info is pointing to an offshore privacy service located in Australia, the site itself appears to be hosted at BlueHost.com.

    Given the content of that site, you might find this hosting company's TOS rather interesting -

    http://www.bluehost.com/cgi/info/terms.html

    Particularly Section "10. PROHIBITED USES", which includes…

    04 – appears to prohibit profanity.

    05 – "Private Information and Images. Subscribers may not post or disclose any personal or private information about or images of children or any third party without the consent of said party (or a parent's consent in the case of a minor)."

    13 – Other Illegal Activities, including – "failure to comply with applicable on-line privacy laws".

    14 – "Obscene, Defamatory, Abusive or Threatening Language. Use of the Services to store, post, transmit, display or otherwise make available obscene, defamatory, harassing, abusive or threatening language is prohibited."

    16 – Other Activities, includes anything that harms, or threatens to harm, the hosting company's reputation or goodwill.

    If you know of any site they are hosting that is in violation of their TOS, you might want to contact them and let them know about it.

  287. S. Weasel says:

    I'm coming 'round to the idea the Carreons are just a pair of sad old acid casualties. Which makes this whole business a lot less fun.

  288. Nicholas Weaver says:

    LaserGuy: Charles is an asshole, but I don't think he's done anything that should be considered a violation of BlueHosts's terms of service.

    Let the loony rant.

  289. Allen C says:

    This all suddenly becomes clear. When Carreon worked for Sweet Entertainment (a Canadian company) he finalized a lawsuit against an American company that has stolen some of Sweet's media.

    He takes the money and puts it in a trust. He was not supposed to do this, his orders were to deliver it to Sweet Entertainment. He then withdraws some of the money for personal needs (his condo in Vancouver).

    Due to his actions surrounding Sweet Entertainment, Carreon ended up doing a 60 day suspension. I'm not sure if he was ever reinstated in Oregon or that was part of the reason he's in Arizona and filling in Northern Cali.

    Suddenly the whole "I want to put Inman's money in a trust" makes a lot of sense.

    For sourcing, see here:
    http://censoriousdouchebag.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/prosecution-correspondence-p0001-p0087.pdf

    Scroll down to the the telephone memo written by Lynda Bey-Roode. It's on page 3 of that memo.

  290. Kristen says:

    Wow I wish all Internet sites were like theirs (apostraphe?); I can read it once, go back several hours later and it's magically different. Here I thought the 'in' thing was to add editing openly so people can see what changes have been made.

    I wouldn't be very interesting as a raputationist: stay at home mom of three with two on the Autism Spectrum. I don't have much of an Internet presence, just Twitter. My husband is awesomer than me but it'd be hard to make fun of his for special-needs children iPhone app, unless to joke about it selling hundred of copies in two months* (not a typo). :D

    Low blow to go after Chris' family. BTW, since when is working retail an insult? Taking care of your family, no matter what you have to do is very noble. I work as a waitress when we need the income. There's no shame in that.

    *wait, maybe I do want to be a raputationist, Strisand-effect my husband's app, baby! ;)

  291. Nicholas Weaver says:

    And he also has massive Chutzpah: He threatened to sue the Oregon Bar Association for publishing information about his suspension, a suspension that he agreed to by stipulation!

  292. Nibor says:

    Does CC knows that there is a difference between a Denial of Service (DoS) attack and a Disk Operating System (DOS) attack.

    For those who do not know what this DOS thing is, a little extra (privileged) information out of the sacred and ancient books (and I did write books correct here, spelled without an “e” for I refer to the paper version of a book, which can be found in the building that is called library, on the other floors and rooms than the ones you use the internet PC’s and/or connection) which date from the time before.

    Once a long time ago maybe even before you were born , computers were text based and to operate, at that time our mighty al knowing and providing supreme Microsoft, was without the Windows interface, then we (and yes I am that old) used DOS to interact with and operate the computer, just by typing command’s this without the use of a mouse or touchscreen, go and look it up there will be pictures if you are unable to imagining it.

    Back to the case at hand, what if the web server CC uses brakes down under the load of 30+ users a minute and reboots to the DOS 3.14 screen ?

    Is there a possibility that that is what is happening for that explains he sees that there is a DOS attack? For when you have a DoS attack there will be no notice on your computer that tells you it is so. As far as I understand you can get a message that the traffic is high and the server is not able to answer all requests or that the error buffer is full. But there is not the message “Hey man your under attack from a DoS, use this information to make yourself ridiculous on the internets”

    Disclaimer: But this is only me thinking and asking out loud, not stating that these are facts, I don’t want to be a named rapeutationist. Brrr shivering from fear ;-)

  293. Elegy says:

    @LaserGuy

    Good post! On one hand, I would say he's definitely violated his TOS. And I would say your point about registrar.com is a fair one, and come to think of it, it is a news story in itself. I mean, litigation is threatened, they cave immediately, and the guy runs off and starts blaring it on the Internet; it should be a lesson to them.

    On the other hand, I think Charles should be allowed to rant and rave as much as he likes.

    First, it's his constitutional right to make as big of a fool of himself as he wants to. Is this rapeutation campaign improving his real world reputation any? Nope, he's just shooting himself in the foot, again and again. His credibility is now shot, and will remain so because google doesn't forget.

    Second, Satirical Charles knew it would come to this when he signed on. Remember, SC waited until AFTER CC named as a co-defendant an Ars Technica reader who was impersonating him on Twitter l. Satirical Charles knew this was coming, before he ever stepped into the ring. Hell, SC is suing CC, which, when you look at it, is the same reason CC is in the spotlight today.

    Third, CC is only giving back as good as he gets. Go read back through the hundreds of comments in these threads. We've picked over Charles life with a fine toothed comb. I've looked at his house on google earth, examined his property records and taxes, etc. Put shortly, why can we do it, but he can't? Hell, we go on and on a out his wife (to be fair, she goes on and in about us, too)

    Again, I think your point about registrar is a great one – someone really should point out what CC did with the information after they exhibited about as much backbone as cooked pasta.

    But, vehemently, the solution here is not to sink to his level, and attempt to get him shut down for TOS violation. That is what HE does.

    The solution is to let him make such an ass of himself, so that he has not one ounce of dignity or credibility left, both professionally or personally. The biggest revenge will be to sit back, and lol while he shoots himself in the foot, over and over, in full public view.

  294. Nibor says:

    @Laserguy here is some extra info on the Registar issue:

    First post is with the same rage you are reacting:

    http://adamsteinbaugh.com/2012/06/26/did-register-com-get-punked-by-charles-carreon/

    Second post is a reaction after Adam was corrected by Marc Randazza

    http://adamsteinbaugh.com/2012/06/27/in-which-i-reconsider-register-com-after-marc-randazza-serves-me-humble-pie/

    But the first thing that happend in the Doe v CC case was a letter from Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen to Registar which resulted in removing SC identity again. So the first post of Adam wasn't that wrong.

    See this popehat article for the letter:
    http://www.popehat.com/2012/07/02/oatmeal-v-funnyjunk-part-viii-charles-carreon-gets-sued/

    What my question is, when a case is filed in name of a J.Doe is it legal for the acused to publicly name this J.Doe ???

  295. Elegy says:

    That's "we go on and on about his wife" not "we go on an in his wife".

    Ewwwwwwwww.

    Damn you autocorrect.

  296. Nibor says:

    @Elegy an Freudian autocorrect function? :-)

  297. Mike K says:

    The difference on the family issue is that noone looked into his family at all until they started to say stupid things in their own right. The daughters are barely mentioned, and usually when they are it's somewhat sympathetic. The wife is talked about on the merits of her conspiracy theories. CC is apparently willing to bring in family members of people he sees as attacking him for the sole reason of being related to that 'attacker'. Otherwise, yes, he's essentially done some of the same kind of research on others that has been done on him, with the exception that most people haven't posted their lives as in depth as he has.

    @Nibor Of course we remember DOS systems. Windows 98 still used it, and I remember playing games like hangman and chess on our old Tandy when I was growing up. Then playing with certain games that were more obviously DOS based (including the original Warcraft). For what it's worth, I also remember books although I frequently wished they were electronic. They were the only acceptable form of entertainment for boredom in class.

  298. Nibor says:

    @laserguy I have made a comment that is linking to different sites on the registar issue, but it's in the awaiting moderation list, I let you know when it get posted.

  299. Elegy says:

    @nibor

    You should see the things autocorrect says to my mom. Talk about Freudian.

    And to this day, I still use the cmd prompt in windows more than windows itself. My family's first computer was a 286 DOS machine, with a 20mb hard drive. Computer guy told my dad that "this is a you'll ever need". I believe my dad paid $4500 for it. Consequentially, my brain has moved past DOS, but my soul never will.

  300. Nibor says:

    I mix them up but I believe it was a 288*, 286, 386, 486, pentium, etc.
    But also a commodore 64,128 and amiga.
    And even a Z80 for a little while :-)

    The good old days.

    * I never seem to remember if it was a 2 or a 1 before the 88.

  301. Nibor says:

    looked it up But it was a 8088, 186, 286, etc

  302. Mike K says:

    yikes, you guys remember models on all of your old computers? All I remember is Tandy, then various Gateways including an Astro, the Compaq in college (could probably figure out the model, but that's because I did IT on it), and a Dell (only PC I've purchased myself). I don't even remember the model, but then I was more interested in making sure its specs met my needs, specifically 4 GB RAM (it's several years old before that was common). Next thing you'll say is that you've actually seen floppy disks bigger than 5 1/4" or that you remember using modems at speeds less than 256K. :p (not that any of those make you guys old, just surprising things I learned about in the course of computer classes that I never knew about otherwise)

  303. LaserGuy says:

    @NW: Well, for starters…

    "05. Private Information and Images. Subscribers may not post or disclose any personal or private information about or images of children or any third party without the consent of said party (or a parent's consent in the case of a minor)."

    So unless you're saying Chris & the others gave him permission, that one seems pretty clear-cut.

    Chris also chose to exercise his right to speak anonymously. That's a pretty damn important and constitutionally protected right, going back to the start of our country. It's also a right that Doe vs. Carreon is seeking to protect.

    I am therefore quite angry that an atty would misuse their position to gain personal info, in order to then use that to not only deprive Chris of that right by publicly outing (as well as personally attacking) him, but going after Chris's wife and kid as well!

    He is also explicitly threatening to do this to others, to intimidate / scare / bully / discourage free speech on this matter by those that don't agree with his tactics. This is what this whole lawsuit is about, remember?

  304. Mike K says:

    LaserGuy, I'm not sure where he got the pictures from but if he got them from a site that specifically says that by uploading the picture you are allowing others to use the picture, that would be permission. I noticed that Photobucket's ToS included some lines about that, and I suspect that the social networking sites he grabbed them from have similar policies. The name was also made public, rather than being given as privileged information, so while scummy, nothing wrong there. It also seems that the name is hearsay in that Carreon never actually saw the registration info before it reverted to anonymous.

  305. Shannon Lynch says:

    I actually want to thank Charles Carreon.

    Three months ago I went rock climbing and fell off, shattering my right foot into oblivion. I was told I was lucky I just landed on my foot and reminded several times I could have died. So after major surgery, bed rest, struggling to learn how to walk after two months in a wheelchair, and all these fucking horrible things you can imagine how bored and depressed you can get for being confined and useless.

    The whole Carreon/Inman debacle definately provides lulz. And it has brought me to laughing tears. I actually will sometimes and go read Tara's rants when I feel discouraged or upset because they are just so out there and loony how do you not cringe from it knowing she is deadpan serious and laugh so hard BECAUSE she is so deadpan serious.

    So thank you Carreon for giving a kid perspective here. It doesn't matter if you lose your ability to run, walk, or be a normal physical person again because your voice is what really matters. You can lose anything and everything, but your ability to speak out and say your opinion is worth dieing for.

    Of course….you showed it by being a censorious douchebag….but that's besides the point.

  306. Shannon Lynch says:

    *dying (and all other typos I apologize)

  307. Grifter says:

    @Nibor/Mike K

    I have two words:

    Oregon Trail.

  308. Nicholas Weaver says:

    For those who want to get their money worth out of my beer, err, Pacer money:

    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.11876/gov.uscourts.cand.11876.docket.html

    Is the case which caused the first cited bar complaint, where Charles rushed to the courthouse to try to file first in California, despite the plaintiffs AND defendants being in Maryland.

    Forum shopping attempt smacked-down… But hey, it succeeded in allowing him to bond with (and presumably bill) his clients.

  309. Nibor says:

    @laserguy he (only)linked to a google+ page, so that's totaly legal, for all you put on there is fair game for all and is public, if you don't want that you can shield the info you wish to share. you may not ripp the pictures and info to post elsewhere but linking is allouwd

    But it is not nice or decent to do so (to put it pollite), that is true but it is not ilegal

    But is I ask myself, it legal that he dicloses J.Doe's name when he is in court deallings with him, where the identity is consealed?

  310. Nibor says:

    @Grifter sorry was only 5 months at first relase, so I tip my hat and offer you my cain.

  311. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, the other thing thats amusing in Charles's forum shopping attempt. He argues that because ALS scans sold porn subscriptions to Californians, it can then fall under the jurisdiction of the California Courts…

    Which is how Penguin is trying to get him to stay in the NY courts in Penguin v American Buddha: sales of Charles's self-published sex.com book.

    I think Charles was NEVER a 1st Amendment defender. Rather, he is a very determined advocate for himself/his client. Since he largely represented pornographers, a group which often needs 1st amendment defense, he became a 1st amendment defender. Now that his only client is himself, he's switched around the other way.

  312. Elegy says:

    @Laserguy

    The proper response to butthurt is not to be butthurt in return and attempt to censor Charles as he has attempted to censor the Internet at large. As noted somewhere above, CC is making efforts not to post slanderous and/or libelous commentary. Until he does, he can say all the nasty things – and do all the nasty things – that he likes.

    Might I also suggest that if you're serious about Satirical Charles' right to anonymity, you refer to him as Satirical Charles and not by his given name. Yes, the info is out there now, but you don't have to help disseminate it. Just a suggestion, though, :-)

    @Nicholas Weaver
    Thanks again for using your beer money to finance my Carreon fixes. Shame it's just the docket though, would love to see the original complaint (don't go rush off and spend real moneys on it!). We could start a crowd sourced indiegogo project for you, but you might get sued.

  313. Nicholas Weaver says:

    The complaint is up there: THe RECAP docket link includes links to the case files, declarations, etc.

  314. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Also, some of the files aren't in RECAP but should be up soon: it takes a while for it to process documents sometimes.

  315. Elegy says:

    Awesome, thanks again!

  316. Nibor says:

    I don`t know but when I look at the raw source data of the rapeutation web site I see something that is a tracking java script

    It links to "track dot larkpub dot com" so beware he is tracking his visitors ;-)

  317. Nicholas Weaver says:

    His tracker is hosted on American Buddha's server (track.larkpub.com), so its an in-house tracking solution. However, "Lark Publications" is a non-entity.

    Its using http://piwik.org/ open source analytics.

    This analytics should allow Charles to easily see if his DOS complaint is false, by seeing where the referrers come from and that the "DOS" he got was simply Ars and others pointing to rapeutation.com

  318. Chris R. says:

    @Nibor he's definitely using pwiki analytics, which is being run on the larkpub site. Probably just logging location and ip. Which is fairly standard for any wordpress installation.

  319. Chris R. says:

    @Nicholas, I doubt his claims are relevant since the site hasn't gone down since the first day it was linked to often. Further more he claims proof but then doesn't present it. If he had a log, he could just dump it and it'd be settled.

  320. Matthew says:

    The "tracking" is just web analytics, same as pretty much every site on the web has the capability of doing (and a lot do).

    Having that on his website isn't particularly nefarious and doesn't allow him to identify visitors (that would require ISPs to give up details of IP addresses, which they aren't going to do). I can't honestly see anything to beware of here.

    Details of the software involved:

    http://piwik.org/

  321. Matthew says:

    And this is the specific WordPress pluging he's using:

    http://www.braekling.de/wp-piwik-wpmu-piwik-wordpress

    It could easily be part of the template he's chosen.

  322. LaserGuy says:

    @All: Doesn't matter if it's public or legal or not – their TOS prohibits posting any personal info without that person's permission. There's a good reason for that policy, it's called personal privacy.

    In any event, it's not my desire to censor anybody – he's got several sites to rant from. But that doesn't mean we should give him a "free pass" when he starts involving people's wife & kids either. :(

    @Elegy: SC had already posted his first name on his own site before he was outed, so I'm not disclosing anything. A commonplace first name is hardly identifying, which is likely why he felt comfortable revealing it himself.

    @Mike K: The difference is, TC made herself a very public figure on this, while Chris's wife & child had nothing to do with it, and had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    @Nibor: understood – same thing happened to my 1st post!

    BTW, SC dropped a tactical nuke in response to outing his wife and kid. Check-out the "full file" on his Did I Ever Tell You post. I found pgs 22-26 particularly interesting! I wondered what "Sweet Entertainment" was involved in that would cause the Vancouver Police to repeatedly "raid" the company, and what kind of video or production "content" someone would be so interested in keeping, or that would need to be reviewed to determine if it was legal???

    Reading further, I then came across pg 78-87 (Warning, not on a full stomach!)

    I know sometimes ppl will do something so outrageous as to invite being "slapped-down hard" due to the Streisand Effect, but I always figured that end result was unintentional?

  323. Nicholas Weaver says:

    LaserGuy: And there is a good reason NOT to seek his site's removal by TOS-lawyering.

    His action is mostly harmless: he has no followers, and if he actually tried to say, disrupt the Better Charles's employment, would be in a world o legal hurt. But seeking to remove Charles Carreon's site would be an act of asshat-douchebaggery censorship.

    Even frothing at the mouth lunatics, especially frothing at the mouth lunatics, need to have their right to speech protected. Just as we have the right to mock him, laugh at him, ridicule him, he has the right to be ridiculous, and we would be ill served if we did not defend his right to be a total, complete douchebag.

  324. Chris R. says:

    I do not support oppressing Charles Carreon's right to free speech. You have to defend the lowest of the low in order to protect the highest of the high. If anyone is DOSing him I hope they are brought to justice. If anyone TOSes him, I'll personally find him a new host if I have to. I am Satirical Charles and I approve this message.

  325. John Ammon says:

    @LaserGuy:

    Am I reading that correctly? Did the "what hat internet lawyer" want to get paid in pr0n??

    Chas… ಠ_ಠ

  326. Luke says:

    @W Ross – "They may photoshop a murder of dicks on your forehead (yes, they're like crows.)"

    I am very glad I wasn't sipping coffee when I read this! Going to have to remember this one, "A pod of whales, a gaggle of geese, a murder of dicks…"

  327. W Ross says:

    @LaserGuy Troll not, lest ye be trolled. That's the principle here. We can absolutely win by taking his stuff off the Internet whenever he makes an accidental misstep….

    At our own peril. We respond with actions instead of words, or just moving around information and we fall into the sort of world Charles Carreon wants us to live in. He wants that visceral "I'll SHOW YOU" reaction.

    He wants our rage, for it sustains him.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFkAAvDkj9k <- Related.

  328. azteclady says:

    LaserGuy: our host Ken is fond of saying something along the lines, "to combat hate speech, we need more speech"

    So unless what CC is doing is criminal/illegal, his speech is as protected as Matt Inman's or Satirical Charles', and if we care about freedom of speech at all, we should care about freedom of speech for all.

  329. Nicholas Weaver says:

    John: No, Charles wanted to get paid in the computer he was unwilling to return….

  330. John Ammon says:

    @Nicholas Weaver:

    But was it because of the content on said computer? o_O

    Pure speculation. But it's still fun speculation ;)

  331. Nicholas Weaver says:

    No, the porn was WHY he couldn't return it to Canada, he was afraid it wouldn't get through customs. I think he really just wanted a laptop, because he had no personal laptop, and was using it for personal use.

    The Box O Porn on CDs, on the other hand….

  332. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, I wonder if this is why Tara is obsessed with subpoenaing people's porn collection?

  333. W Ross says:

    http://censoriousdouchebag.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/prosecution-correspondence-p0001-p0087.pdf

    The Ross Report: My favorite parts of pages 1-2 of TELEPHONE MEMO

    Lyn Bey-Roode Telephone Memo

    "Then a few things happened, and there were some challenges that came up during the time that Carreon was working for Sweet Entertainment. Carreon developed a relationship with Carreon's partner[s?]"

    My word! A married man consorting with adult film stars! How scandalous!

    "Carreon was divided; he was not clear which way to go,"

    For money… or for booty. Which way indeed!

    "The partners were attempting to gain more interest in the company."

    Boy, starting a (implied?) sexual relationship with the company lawyer would be a good way to do that!

    "Mr. Price thinks Carreon left Sweet Entertainment because of a combination of being fired and leaving."

    That usually does it, yes.

    "All Sweet Entertainment's equipment was siezed, including about 100 computers, all their records, their files, "everything." at that time Carreon "got scared" and asked "are you guys going to be in business? Then Carreon withdrew. But there was already turmoil with the partners and employees."

    Wonder what sort of videos we could find on those computers, lol. Possibly one of wunterSlash banging a camgirl, which when I think about it would be BLARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH *cough… cough…* it would be just BLURRGGHHHHHHHHHHH…. *cough… cough… heavy breathing… spit…" let's just move on.

    "Carreon expressed an interest in keeping the content to for himself and/or for one of his companies."

    Probably Fapalot Holdings, or Strokington Inc.

    "Carreon was interested in doing something with the contents for his own interest."

    …into a dirty tube sock…

    "Mr. Price had a problem with that since he did not want to be put in a conflict situation, and Carreon quickly let it go. Carreon wanted this content "in lieu of payment."

    'I may be broke, but I filled the spank bank!' I miss those old days where a lawyer could be paid in a jug of liquor, a barrel of powder, or a bushel of digital vaginas. Simpler times, they.

    "One of the issues that arose was that Carreon kept some of that content."

    Fap Fap Fap FapFap….FAPFAPFAPFAP

    "Mr. Price is not sure how much content Carreon has and how much Sweet Entertainment has."

    'I was SURE that Butt Crazy Nurses went up to 27… but I can only find 1-8… CARREEEONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!'

    "Carreon brought some content back to Canada, but not all."

    'NOT THAT! That's for Willie…. Take ANYTHING else!'

    "Then Sweet Entertainment was raided."

    LERRRROYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY SPANKINS!

    (Satirical Charles… thank you for this.)

  334. W Ross says:

    (but yeah, if that statement is true, there was a time when Charles asked to be paid in disturbing images of exploited women Pronz.)

  335. John Ammon says:

    @W Ross:

    See, that's where I got that he wanted the pr0n, he wanted the "content", according to Mr. Price. A computer is not "content", it delivers "content".

    Also, did you start reading "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs" in mid analysis? :P

  336. W Ross says:

    @John Ammon Butters is our generation's Steinbeck. (See, I highbrow-lowbrowed you there.)

    But yeah, he also tried to jack a computer, but that content stuff is separate and pretty clearly shows that he wanted to be paid in porn (probably to start his on site… called… wait for it…

    "American Booty"

    Yeah… that's just right.

  337. Elegy says:

    I do not support oppressing Charles Carreon's right to free speech. You have to defend the lowest of the low in order to protect the highest of the high. If anyone is DOSing him I hope they are brought to justice. If anyone TOSes him, I'll personally find him a new host if I have to. I am Satirical Charles and I approve this message.

    WIN

  338. John Ammon says:

    @W Ross:

    Goes down smooth…

    I think there's a double entendre there that I didn't intend.

  339. Chris R. says:

    Btw someone else did the research for me here: http://charles-carreon.com/2012/07/12/wikipedia-is-mafia/

    But it's a good look into his ego.

  340. W Ross says:

    Chris, you are the hammer of the Gods.

  341. Matthew says:

    I hadn't really noticed this before (from Carreon's lastest "legal analysis" edit):

    “That’s where foreseeability gets into it. When Henry VIII said, ‘Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?’ (or words to that effect) he knew that someone would. The analysis isn’t really any more problematic than determining whether conduct is ‘outrageous’ for purposes of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.”

    As with the Georges, he's a few out: but what's six Henrys between friends? It's only 358 years between their birth dates and their death dates; and 355 between the dates of their coronations.

    Also, according to Wikipedia:

    "Upon hearing reports of Becket's actions, Henry is said to have uttered words that were interpreted by his men as wishing Becket killed. The king's exact words are in doubt and several versions have been reported. The most commonly quoted, as handed down by "oral tradition", is "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", but according to historian Simon Schama this is incorrect: he accepts the account of the contemporary biographer Edward Grim, writing in Latin, who gives us "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?" Many variations have found their way into popular culture."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket#Assassination

    And that's before we start wondering how the words of a 12th Century monarch with extensive political power should form the basis of an argument for a new tort, even they were accurately reported.

    I really don't think we can base much on "he must have known the effect despite not specifically asking for or arranging it" especially not in legal terms.

    Also, I'm not sure how much stuff happened immediately after the initial Inman letter and fundraiser. From that point onwards it was Carreon and not Inman who was escalating things.

  342. Mike K says:

    I was just thinking about CC's tort that he wants to invent. The way he wants it set up, he would be the one ultimately liable for all of the criminal (and non-criminal) acts conducted against him. His speech was an initial cause of Inman's speech which caused a lot of the following speech. Even if all of the following speech was deemed (under his invented tort) to make those people liable, he's then liable for it because their speech was a foreseeable consequence of his speech and if the subsequent speech is actionable, it makes his speech actionable.

    I'm obviously over thinking things, since I think too much as it is, but the way he worded things would seem to cause a string of liability that would be able to go back quite a few steps.

  343. W Ross says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Carreon&oldid=253709955

    Charles Carreon's first Wiki (as written by Charles Carreon.)

  344. W Ross says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NoRivalsMedia

    There are the Wikipedia folks, punching him in the dickparts. Side note, if he used the NoRivalsMedia account, did he make Wikipedia edits in their name? I don't think he's still affiliated with them, is he?

    If not that's kind of a dick move. (Not that I should be suprised.)

    Ends with:

    "June 2012

    Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that the username you have chosen (NoRivalsMedia) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.
    There are two issues with this:
    It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization or adding links to its website.
    Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.
    Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.}} The Bushranger One ping only 05:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)"

  345. Orville says:

    Can a bar association disbar someone for suing it?

  346. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and for those who want to have fun with PhotoShop: NoRivalsMedia at wikipedia uploaded this version of the Carreon photo:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_carreon.jpg

    as CC-SA, so you can go to town with photoshop, dicks, and photoshop-dicks.

    Because Charles Carreon released this photo for your enjoyment.

  347. Kelly says:

    Oh my, I step away for a day and I have hours of reading to do!

    I'm staying, watching, and adding my opinions. He can try and search me out all he wants. He won't find much and if he does, I couldn't care less. Now, should he post pictures of my kids… yeah it would be on then. It is every sort of wrong to drag someone's children into his little Whinging Fit. Wrong. That isn't about free speech, that is all about attempting to smear people and frighten them into shutting up. That just makes me very angry.

    Really, Wil Wheaton is watching… CC should realize what that means.

  348. DOS data is up. Mr. Weaver, your thoughts?

    It seems to me like it might evidence a DOS attack, but it's not clear whether the data refers to access to just rapeutation.com or, say, charlescarreon.com, american-buddha.com, naderlibrary, etc. If those tools were being used to download all those sites, that just might be people using scraping tools for what they're intended to be used for — and not trying to DOS him.

    But if someone's downloading 10-18GB of data from just rapeutation.com, then, yeah, that might be construed as a DOS attack.

  349. Chris R. says:

    http://rapeutation.com/evidence-of-dos-attacks/

    Site Sucker, Web Reaper, Xenu Sleuth are all web crawlers / archivers.

  350. Chris R. says:

    Same with Wget

  351. Stuart says:

    Lamest "DoS" ever. First Bluehost would most defiantly detect a DDoS/DoS attack. This is mostly normal traffic. It's just his site is getting a lot more attention than it's use to plus looks like some good souls are trying to preserve the crazy.

  352. neewom says:

    So, the "evidence" on Rapeutation is up.

    SiteSucker? Wget? really? At least that's a relatively accurate description of the services in question.

  353. Nicholas Weaver says:

    I suspect it wasn't legit dos, but rather curious people causing an inadvertant DOS attempting to archive one or more of his sites, interacting with a loop in the site design which caused the auto-crawlers to go crazy. E.G., Site Sucker by default doesn't include any limits on depth.

    With some searching the loop could probably be found, but since finding the loop would probably be something he'd call a DOS, or a tool he'd consider a DOS tool, I don't want to try.

    But a log of the URLs requested by the DOS attackers would be able to tell if this was a site-design error which caused the site-sucker type tools to loop, or if it is a real DOS attack, in which case, he already has enough information to go get em, and should probably work with Ken on constructing a well-worded, non-streisand-effecting nastygram to the ISPs involved.

  354. I concur. The use of what might be a datacenter in Brazil (though other sites describe it as a static cable ISP) is suspicious, especially given that the same IP turns up as having been used by a forum spammer. Might be a proxy itself.

  355. W Ross says:

    OK, using a program to suck all the files and information off a website is NOT a DoS. It's using an aggregation technique.

    Note the bottom of the page here, for example:

    https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Talk:Charles_Carreon

    People have been saying "I want to sort through an archieve of the information on Charles Carreon's site and have availed themselves of a full copy.

    That's like a restaurant getting upset because someone ate too much at their all you can eat salad bar. If you host gigs and gigs worth of music, movies and books, it's going to be bandwidth expensive.

    I am disappoint.

  356. W Ross says:

    "Just for shits and giggles I ran Web Reaper over the prick's private website: http://www.american-buddha.com/
    …and…wow…just, WOW! Currently downloading over SIXTY THOUSAND files…and uh…a LARGE portion of it seems to be pirated music. I mean…holy crap…this guy is a copyright lawyer who has a SHIT TON of PIRATED MATERIAL on his personal website! o_O"

    Yeah, if you're hosting 60 thousand files, 18 gigs of bandwidth is possible from one user.

  357. Nicholas Weaver says:

    W Ross: American-Buddha is on a different server. So unless links are from there to the Charles Carreon server for hosting reasons, load on American Buddha shouldn't affect Charles's sites:

    > dig +short charlescarreon.com
    66.147.244.65
    > dig +short rapeutation.com
    66.147.244.65

    > dig +short american-buddha.com
    50.112.243.103
    > dig +short naderlibrary.com
    50.112.243.103

    So I still suspect loop rather than "just sheer tons of copyrighted crap" being the cause.

  358. Mr. Weaver, would you mind if I quote and cite you on my blog (and link back here / to your bio)?

  359. Nicholas Weaver says:

    OR the logs could be for american-buddha, in which case, yeah, he's hosting a shit-ton of pirated stuff and a crawler will go crazy.

    But as the symptom we saw was rapeutation.com being down/inconsistent, I don't think its people sucking Tara's copyright-violation-buddhist-"library" that was burning the bandwidth.

  360. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Adam: Sure. But I'm not 100% certain it wasn't a deliberate DOS: the HTTP requests themselves are whats needed to tell the difference between "idiot tool + idiot site" and "deliberate attack":

    Deliberate attack would have the tool repeatedly fetching the same URLs, "idiot tool + idiot site" would have the tool repeatedly fetching DIFFERENT URLs that nonetheless point to the same basic content but, because its automatically generated, relative URLs keep changing so a simple "did I fetch this already" test would fail.

  361. Nicholas Weaver says:

    The other thing: Once Charles identifies the loop, a proper robots.txt file would stop the dumb crawlers. SiteSucker at least respects robots.txt by default, and just trimming the looping bit would solve that problem.

    He shouldn't HAVE to: its a defect in the SiteSucker and related tool that they probably are suceptible to loops, and that SiteSucker at least does not set a default depth for its breadth first traversal nor a rate limit, but griping about other people's bad tools won't help.

  362. Nicholas Weaver says:

    However, it is clear that some douchebags WERE hosing Charles's bandwidth. Whether it was deliberate or accidental is unknown, and only Charles has the data to tell: If the crawlers kept fetching the same URLs it was deliberate. If the crawlers fetched different URLs due to the dynamically generated design of the sites, it was accidental.

    If it is accidental, there isn't much Charles can do beyond fixing his site to eliminate the loops the crawlers ran down.

    If its deliberate, I wish him luck in writing a well structured NastyGram to the attackers' ISPs.

  363. Grifter says:

    That does not seem to be evidence of a DoS attack. That is evidence of a heavy load. The evidence of DoS is evidence that shows the heavy load did not come from a legit or accidental source.

    It seems akin to saying "See that shark tank? it killed that guy. Here's evidence there's sharks in the tank!"…what he needs is evidence that the sharks killed the guy

  364. Grifter says:

    I also wonder if his methods of web maintenance (like his frequent edits) are helping cause this looping, if looping is what it is?

  365. Matthew says:

    He doesn't specify what servers count as being part of "his network" so he could easily be counting American Buddha and the Nader Library – and given that they seem to have a lot of the same content but with different domain names, plus lots of TOC links and links to the next document, you'd expect loops, even if were to download lots of stuff twice in the different versions.

    Also, I'm pretty sure he's on shared servers* (Amazon for Buddha/Nader and BlueHoost for his professional site and this new one). Given that a proper DoS attack would affect other customers you'd think that the hosting companies would be on it.

    Also charlescarreon.com has hardly any content, if you wanted to DoS it, would you really use a site scraper and modify its settings to try and cause problems? Wouldn't it be easier to use something specifically designed to cause a DoS?

    *reverse DNS from the IPs

    Name: box765.bluehost.com
    Address: 66.147.244.65

    Name: ec2-50-112-243-103.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com
    Address: 50.112.243.103

  366. Mike K says:

    If that log is for all of the sites on the same server as rapeutation, maybe it's just that he has a lot of files spread out on his personal sites. He has shown a tendency to post lots of documents and his blog contains some relatively large images along with some short audio files and other things on his main site.

  367. Nicholas Weaver says:

    And if he does show the URLs, and it WAS clear that this was deliberate, not site design + dumb crawler effects, I will gladly help him write a suitable NastyGram ™ should he wish to contact me.

  368. W Ross says:

    @Nicholas Weaver Yeah I think you're wrong here. I'd like to see the actual logs or screenies of them, but what we see here doesn't say what the load was or where it was. It's not the original copy, it's a bunch of stuff he typed.

    Unless there's some actual context for things, it's a little early to join in a doe hunt with Charles, I think.

  369. W Ross says:

    (Also, you'll be assisting him in legal actions across 8 countries if you're right, lol.)

  370. joe says:

    Nicholas, Adam, Will Ross, Chris R., Robert White, Ann, Scott Jacobs, and everyone else who posts here under their real name, I salute you.

    Have to say, Carreon, Kimberlin, etc. wouldn’t find any dirty laundry on me because there isn’t any to find. I’m squeaky clean with sharp well pressed edges. I’m not just square, I’m a cube. I'm all together very unexciting compared to the rest of you. The only reason I don’t post under my real name is because if some whack job comes after me with frivolous lawsuits I have to waste my time dealing with it. Every once in a while I get a bit crazy, like when I put up the Crazy Crystal Cox YouTube Video. And that is one of the reasons I remain anonymous – I mean have you SEEN that woman? She is one scary looking dude. On a positive note if one of those nut jobs came after me, Texas has one hell of an anti-SLAPP with punitive damages required to be sufficient enough to prevent a repeat of behavior. On the other hand, I think Carreon much like Cox, doesn’t have much in the way of financial juice and thus is basically judgment proof. Kimberlin has simply taken a different approach hiding behind a 503.

    Meanwhile, the comments about DOS and 8088’s sure brought back memories. Many years ago, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, my first job was tech support. The system of choice back then was the 8088 with dual 5 and ¼ inch floppy drives. There was no such thing as a hard drive in those days. One of our remote office employees was having trouble with her computer so I told her to mail me the disk along with a piece of paper with the error message. Well, she decided that mailing the disk meant to peel open the square plastic covering on the disk and remove it. She then proceeded to “staple” the disk to a piece of paper with the error message. Needless to say there was no recovering that one. In other words she pulled a “Carreon”.

  371. Mike K says:

    Nicholas Weaver, I glanced at the google site search results for his professional site and noticed some pages with ?p=# so your looping theory is highly probable. That along with all the /tag pages could easily mean that any legit program came across tons of duplicate content.

    The site I work on has needed a bit of work to the htaccess and robots files to fix some of those issues due to the addition of a blog (which I don't write). Our issues were mainly just SEO concerns of Google seeing duplicate content and idiots linking to our pages incorrectly though.

  372. Did some research into the IPs. Seems to me that most (if not all) of the uses of SiteSucker/2.3.6 are coming from the same person — a number of the IPs are data centers or have been used by the same forum spammer, suggesting that whoever it is was using multiple proxies.

    So, maybe a DOS attack. Like Mr. Weaver says, though, fuller logs would give better info on that.

  373. Matthew says:

    charlescarreon.com is definitely on a shared server, rather than a dedicated one:

    http://website.informer.com/66.147.244.65

    That makes it reasonably likely that even a small traffic spike could cause problems for rapeutation.com (especially as its running wordpress with plugins) since its share of the overall server resources is going to be limited.

    Given that we know that Tara also she's been DoS'd three times, it could be that Charles has just posted the stats for those times and that the rapeutation problem was just heavy traffic from the attention it was getting.

    Suffice it to say he's not really giving evidence of malice without a lot more detail.

  374. Matthew says:

    Looks like Buddha and Nader have their own server, though, or at least their own IP address (given that the Amazon service is cloud based, perhaps that's how it works):

    http://website.informer.com/50.112.243.103

    Still, there's enough content on those sites for anyone trying to mirror them to cause problems without intending to.

  375. LaserGuy says:

    Freedom of Speech is great, he can froth all he wants. But Freedom of Speech does not extend to CyberStalking. Like someone rightly said earlier, you start going after my wife & kids, IT'S ON.

    Freedom of Speech also includes the freedom to post anonymously. But by posting that information, he took that freedom away from SC. And he is threatening to do the same thing to the other DOEs. In order to stifle Freedom of Speech of those who disagree with these bullying antics.

    Isn't the purpose of the lawsuit to put a stop to that?

    In any case, with all the play this is getting on the Interwebs, it's only a matter of time before someone from BlueHost gets curious and takes a look-see. And then it's game over. Not because of anything to do with freedom of speech. But for the same reason PhotoBucket already told him it's game over. At which point he'll probably make a PHUCK BLUEHOST page, to match his PHUCK PHOTOBUCKET one.

    I just hope Judge Chen(?) gets a chance to see his handywork first. Before he gets his own page(?!)

    Anyways, I'll get off my soapbox now.

    Am I reading that correctly? Did the "what hat internet lawyer" want to get paid in pr0n??

    "in lieu of payment" – isn't that a hoot?! Even that small section from the middle of page 23 ("though it was odd" paragraph) to the top of the next page, is just chock-full of "Sweet Entertainment"!

    Ah, I see W Ross picked up on that now.

    I'm still curious what the requirements are for the "hard" job of reviewing "content" obtained from a pr0n competitor, to decide which ones are "legal"??? But hey, it pays $10K/month!

    Oh Gawd, I just realized why Chuckles is so jealous of Inman's success…
    He showed him the Ultimate "Money Shot"! ROFLMAO!

    I'm getting goofy, I seriously need to get some sleep!

    Anyways, next up – some tracking info!

  376. LaserGuy says:

    Damn, I am tired – everything in "double block" above should be regular text – must not have typed the close tag right. Too bad we can't edit these things.

  377. John Ammon says:

    @LaserGuy:

    I read it, I got it :P

  378. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Assuming the traffic is ACTUAL DOS rather than inadvertant DOS:

    If they are proxies, well, all you can really do is get the ISP to shut them down, and if they are proxies, the ISP would want to generally shut them down anyway.

    If its individuals, you write a kind NastyGram for the ISP to forward to the customer, explaining that: "Yes, I'm unpopular, but my speech is just as valued as yours. And being a forgiving soul, I'm not going to involve law enforcement, or lawsuits, or anything else like that. But the next person you try this on may not be so kind and forgiving, so knock it off."

  379. Matthew says:

    @LaserGuy Satirical Charles has posted here specifically asking nobody to go after Carreon either by complaining about ToS violations or by DoS attacking his website.

    I'd say it was his call, wouldn't you?

    Even without that specific statement, I'd say that it was up to him, and him only, if he wanted to complain to Carreon's hosting company about what is said.

    I don't see the point in fighting other people's battles for them.

  380. Nicholas Weaver says:

    No, laserguy, the purpose of Doe v Carreon is to stop Carreon's credible threat of filing a nuisance lawsuit. Carreon put, in writing, a threat to sue SC basically "sometime in the next 3 years, in whatever venue is most inconvenient for SC", on grounds that are bogus and designed to threaten and intimidate SC into stopping speech that Charles dislikes.

    Carreon's "Stalking" is really very little different than posting public records about Chuckles himself. We've been a bit more polite about things, e.g. not involving Tara until she involved herself first, but still. Well, Charles's is much more pathetic, less effective, and less funny.

    The harm would be if, through DOS or TOS, someone blocked his right to make a total douchebag of himself in public.

  381. W Ross says:

    http://www.sitesucker.us/home.html

    Site Sucker. Doesn't look like a DoS tool to me.

  382. W Ross says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu's_Link_Sleuth

    Xenu Link Sleuth is a program that checks for broken links.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wget

    Also a program that downloads websites. Again, these websites were offered to the public for download and there's nothing on them that says one can't bulk download to enjoy later (hell, Tara's library of stolen content is all designed to be downloaded and enjoyed off site, so why can't you enjoy the site off site? (site.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gecko_(layout_engine)

    Gecko does a lot of things but also is not a DoS tool. This one is out of my depth, though.

    Seriously, I'm failing to see any evidence of a DoS here at all, just some curious people happening to download the whole thing- which again is the "All you can eat" restaurant thing, you can't offer it then moan when your intended customer takes you up on it.

    Anything he posted he was offering to pay for the bandwidth on. The fact that some number of people said "I'll have one of everything" is a consequence of the amount of material (unless he provides better logs that show otherwise.)

  383. Chris R. says:

    @Laser Guy, I do appreciate your support in the matter. However remember that the only remedy for speech you disagree with is your own speech. I have chosen to do so satirically and anonymously(up until now). Please join me and create more speech instead of less. I encourage you to talk about his behavior openly, however I am not going to cry to the internet that he is trying to "rapeutate" me. I understand you're angry at what Charles has done, being angry is fine, but using the tactics of censors to fight censors only creates more censors. If you want to help me in relation to my anonymity, please write register.com and complain about their breach of my privacy. If you want to help fight Charles Carreon's behavior, remain lawful and civilized. We can be better than the people we abhor, we need to be better. It's not always easy being on the right side of things, but it helps you sleep at night.

  384. Scott Jacobs says:

    Joe, I never say anything online that I wouldn't say to the person's face. With that in mind, why would I ever post under a name that is not my own?

  385. Stuart says:

    @ Scott, I think because like quite a few of us we do not have the time to put into fighting a frivolous lawsuit such as this. I hope CC gets his butt handed to him in this case and I hope Inman's lawyers join in.

  386. Robert White says:

    Another question is, if the site(s) content pages are subject to frequent editing, wouldn't any web archiving tools be forced to constantly re-spider the site as the content element headers indicated that the changed?

    Also, since Carreon et al are known to revise their statements, and make and then withdraw various libels (slanders?) and other actionable speech, anyone trying to document said speech would need to regularly scan "old" material for new or transient defamation.

    So multiply revisions per hour times the number of individuals and organizaitons that Carreon et al have variously accused and you end up with a lot of legitimate need to traverse the site regularly and deeply.

    Throw on some spectators and any reasonable attempt at archiving and woo-doggy you get a huge and wholly legitimate pool of spiders.

    And since the Carreon(s) are likely unable or unaware of the use of "Expires:", and likely cannot be trusted to honor same since their *ahem* "content" is demonstrably unstable, it's likely that their continuously motile segments are causing a huge amount of churn in any and every tracker/archivers.

    In other words, given the utter lack of stability of content, they are likely gaming themselves and unknowingly coordinating their own site disruption by triggering each scan anew.

  387. Stuart says:

    To me it looks like someone or multiple someones repeatedly copied his site likely due to the amount of edits and hide behind proxies for fear of being sued for just what is happening. The appearance (to CC) of a DoS. I've worked in the industry long enough to feel comfortable saying this was not a DoS.

  388. Matthew says:

    Generally, site sucking tools have to be run manually, they don't monitor sites looking for changes.

    The exception to that would be the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, but that only indexes sites periodically and I'm sure it's designed to do it in a way that is indistinguishable from normal traffic (they don't need to grab everything as quickly as possible).

    And if someone did attempt to get an up to date version of a site they'd already downloaded, only the new stuff would be download, which wouldn't amount to much.

  389. Kelly says:

    @ Laser Guy: That was me, or at least I was one of the people who said that. That being said, I have to agree with Chris R, so far CC has only proven how desperate he is. I am a minor player, very minor, in all of this so I doubt either CC or TC would bother with me. If they do, it would be my choice to demand they take down pictures of my children should they post them.

    I use my real name here because I highly doubt anyone but Ken and the other site admins would have the information to track me. They would find a divorced mom of four with very little money, who is a nerd/geek, and possibly my student loans. Oh and I'm Pagan and usually declare myself liberal. I haven't done much to add to the discussion except toss out valid Science. If Science scares CC… well then he may come after me.

    @W Ross: The Wiki stuff… I thought he claimed to be Mexican not Native American. Or does he claim both and is just more vocal about allegedly being Mexican?

    @Scott Jacobs: I second what you said. If people want to be offended by my honest opinion, that is their right just as it is my right to give my opinion.

  390. W Ross says:

    And I'm saying he doesn't say what those are stats for, and if it's for a cluster of his sites. Cause again, if there are 60,000 files and a ton of movies and songs and stuff, then 18 gigs of bandwidth isn't really a whole lot to suck (that's like 20 films, depending on the resolution. It's not a DoS amount of traffic.)

    So without some context as to what site or sites these numbers are for, they're useless (not to mention we're not seeing a report, we're seeing numbers and information he chose to show us.)

    Again, gonna need more before I can say "ZOMG they're RAEPING HIM!"

    This just looks like people were reading and checking a lot, and a couple of people used legal tools as they were intended to order the entire volume of the site at once.

    That's not DoS, that's more like a digital "black friday."

  391. W Ross says:

    http://censoriousdouchebag.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/prosecution-correspondence-p0001-p0087.pdf

    SLAAMMMMMMMSSSS on the breaks…

    6/6/05

    "Mr. Carreon said he had 'his kid's [or kids'] stuff on the computer' and that he had to first 'clean it up.'"

    O.o Wut?

  392. Kelly says:

    What the heck could his kids have had on the computer that he needed to 'clean up'? That just sounds…fishy… and more than a bit disturbing.

  393. Mike K says:

    Just to play (God's?) advocate on that question, he could have meant pictures of his kids or work of theirs that he was correcting for them. I mean the answer that would make the most sense is that he let them use a computer that was meant to only be used for work purposes and was loaded with material that only CC and the company he worked for were meant to see at the time.

  394. Valerie says:

    Wow – just returned to the thread after a day away. The crazy just keeps on coming!

    Its funny that a guy who sees himself as the champion of the proletariat decides outing someone as an assistant manager at Walgreens is somehow insulting. Its an honest & necessary job – which is more than one can say for Chuckles' career (not law careers in general, just him).

    As for the photobucket kerfuffel, I personally wouldn't have complained. The video is a treasure that must be preserved for the ages – but I don't own photobucket, so its not my call. He did violate the ToS.

    As for Tara complaining that their decision is somehow unAmerican, that is a bit pot & kettle, given that her husband is seeking to promote an actual law to limit speech. But I don't expect self-awareness or reason to intrude on the Nader Library anytime soon.

    If anything, I would suggest we hold an Indigogo fundraiser to make sure they have all the bandwith they need to keep the crazy coming.

  395. Kristen says:

    I'm the same age as his kids (there abouts), weren't they adults at the time? I graduated HS in 1999 and from what I've seen his kids are older than me.

    That makes it even weirder if they were indeed using the laptop, doesn't it?

  396. John Ammon says:

    @Kristen:

    That's kind of what I was thinking, they would have been adults or college age.

  397. Elegy says:

    Oh come on guys, now you're just fishing in his kid's direction. Uncalled for. Games, word documents, more games, some .torrent stuff, more games, homework. All scattered willy nilly in about 4 million different directories. If his kids were using it wit any regularity, they would have trashed it – (kids would be how old at this time?)

    Hell, my personal machine has digital litter all over it, and I'm almost 30.

    The bigger question is why were his kids playing on a laptop that is nominally owned by his client and employer in the first place. WTF? Thats grounds for firing anywhere, what with privacy and business concerns.

  398. Chris R. says:

    @Elegy I agree and covered in the above post.

  399. Kelly says:

    @ Chris R: I see now what he was doing with the computer… it was just worded in a wonky way earlier. Also, SC's take on scientific process had me laughing and then sighing and shaking my head. Sadly, too many scientists actually work that way.

  400. Kristen says:

    @Elegy,

    I don't feel I was "fishing in his kids' direction". I was simply pointing out that his excuse is absurd especially considering timing and ages. Nobody should have touched his client's computer is the point. My statement consisted simply of pointing out that his children must have been grown at the time. I do not feel it was out of line.

  401. Elegy says:

    @Kristen
    Sorry, that was *not* directed at you, and you weren't out of line at all. And I agree with you, it's a weird excuse, especially if the kids are of college age or older at the time and not around the house. I thinks it's definitely germane that he let the kids use the laptop, and to speculate as to WHY or IF he was making excuses. That's about CC's professional decisions. I apologize that you got hit in the "don't bring up the kids" broadside, not my intentions at all. :-)

  402. Kristen says:

    @Elegy

    I realized I probably misunderstood your comment after my knee-jerk reply. Thank you for the clarification. :)

  403. Elegy says:

    @Chris R

    And that's why the interwebs love you, because you're a classy guy. Love the new post. I'm thinking two or three more drcades of humiliation, tops, until he gives up frothing at the mouth and learns to keep a low profile.

  404. W Ross says:

    Elegy's right, with the context stuff of the other documents that makes more sense. I was like "In 2005 who are the 'kids'"? but yeah a parent would probably say that about his 30 year olds too. And "clean" can probably be used in other cases too. Probably nothing.

  405. CF says:

    From Charles rapeutational website during an argument with photobucket. Maybe I'm too simple to understand this whole thing, but isn't this what he is complaining about Inmam and the rest of his "zombies" as doing?

    photobucket:
    i’m well aware of what the first amendment means, but there is nothing in your tos that says a video may not refer to anyone by name. everyone has a name, that name is public, and their privacy is not invaded by using a name that everyone knows already. no personal information was posted. so you are just inventing excuses to justify a breach of the tos.
    when do i get my refund?
    regards,
    charles carreon

    Source – http://rapeutation.com/phuck-photobucket/

  406. Ara Aranaura says:

    @Nibor – I'm sorry, I didn't know they had a Wikipedia article (why they even have one?). Scratch all that little paragraph in my post then as it came from a misunderstanding on my part :)

    Still, I do think that she has a Ph in what I said due to her "expertise" about the onanistic ways and other Photoshop issues she muster about that same subject *sways madly on her bird swing*.

    Argh, typing on a different computer while at job, no good *hides*

  407. Roxy says:

    I'm not a legal professional, but wouldn't allowing anyone to use the client provided computer containing client documents and correspondence breach the attorney/client privileged?

  408. Nicholas Weaver says:

    I do think its ironic that he got ToSed from PhotoBucket for the same reasons he tried to get Inman ToSed from IndieGoGo, but whoever filed the complaint against Carreon to PhotoBucket is a censourous douchebag worthy of scorn.

    Especially since PsychoSanta is so unwatchable that it is incapable of causing any butt-hurt, let alone even Carreon's definition of tortous butt-hurt.

  409. John Ammon says:

    @Nicholas Weaver:

    I'm not suggesting that we support censoring, however, we should definitely support the rights of the site owners, and respect that they wanted it off their site. Because ultimately, whether it was a breach of ToS or not, it's their site, it's their property and if they don't want it there "just because", it's well within their rights to remove it.

  410. W Ross says:

    They may want to start self-censoring anyway.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/13/report-sparks-speculation-of-rice-as-romney-running-mate/

    If Condie is Mitt's running mate, American Buddha (and especially the parts with defamation on them ala "she was bushes' mistress," etc- are about to get a lot more attention than we could ever show them.

  411. Kelly says:

    @W Ross: If they start self-censoring the fun level will drop considerably.

  412. Chris R. says:

    @Nicholas Weaver, your opinions on the matter influenced this: http://www.change.org/petitions/photobucket-com-make-their-tos-clear-refund-carreon-s-money

    @John Adams, Photobucket definitely has a right to protect themselves or their business interest as they see fit. However their Terms of Service is vague and after only a couple days they removed his account and didn't refund him. The lowest photobucket membership is like $29.99 which isn't a lot but but for one year they are charging roughly $.08 per day. So I think it would be reasonable that they refund his money. Had they hosted him for a greater period of time I could understand their refusal, but they are just being disingenuous now.

  413. John Ammon says:

    @Chris R:

    But it is their call, since it's their website. Right or Wrong, it's still ultimately up to them. Should it have been reported? Probably not, but it's at Photobucket's discretion to ban accounts, and as an owner and admin of several websites myself, I certainly respect that. A lot of ToS are written to be vague for a reason, and most give the site final say in almost all matters.

  414. Chris R. says:

    @John Adams, I completely agree with everything you said. However Carreon asking for a refund isn't that outrageous, nor would it financially impact them meaningfully to do so.

  415. Mike K says:

    In my opinion the video does violate the terms. At the least it has crudely drawn penises which would fall under nudity. That being said, the account probably shouldn't be banned for one instance of violation when the video could have just been removed and the user given a warning. They really should give users specifics on why things aren't within guidelines instead of just saying it violates the terms.

  416. John Ammon says:

    @Chris R:

    I agree, a refund isn't out of the question. But again, it's up to Photobucket, he could obviously sue him over it, claiming breach, though I'm not sure how far that would get him… but hey, that hasn't stopped him yet >_<

  417. John Ammon says:

    @Mike K:

    When I'm banning or warning users on my sites, I'll often very specifically quote sections of the ToS, which usually leaves them very little wiggle room. I find it's often a good policy.

  418. Chris R. says:

    @John, sorry for misquoting your name twice!

  419. John Ammon says:

    @Chris R.:

    No biggie ;)

  420. Gal says:

    @Chris: I'd be happy to sign your petition, but after reading change.org's privacy policy they can quite frankly go fuck themselves with a Saguaro Cactus.

    If you don't mind a fictitious mailing address (wtf do they need that for anyway?) I'll gladly sign.

  421. The astute Ann Bransom wrote a piece asking what happened to FunnyJunk during this whole mess.

    http://blindscribblings.com/2012/07/whatever-happened-to-funnyjunk/

  422. ShelbyC says:

    "they can quite frankly go fuck themselves with a Saguaro Cactus."

    Now there's something you don't do twice.

  423. Nibor says:

    @ShelbyC Had to google that one, for we don't have cactus growing in the wild over here, but I can positively say that I think you are right on that one.

    auch.

  424. Chris R. says:

    @Gal, be my guest.

  425. Carreon is Above The Law's lawyer of the month. Congratulations!

  426. Grifter says:

    I have a question for everyone defending Carreon's rights to free speech re: Photobucket etc. How does the fact that he's fought so hard against the free speech of others factor in? While, of course, I also subscribe to the “don't like what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it” philosophy, I am conflicted:

    A part of me questions why we can't just hold him to his own words. If he feels it's appropriate to make a ToS call to a registrar, why can't we do it to him? If he feels that hosts should be policing speech, why do we have sympathy when the do it to him? Again, I'm not advocating these behaviors, I'm just wondering about what the logical framework is for saying these are bad things to do in light of his stated opinions that these are just fine things to do (unless they're happening to him).

  427. Robert White says:

    Having no actual information, I can still suggest that PhotoBucket might be aware of the Internet and have some professional interest in same. It is not unlikly that they became aware of Carreon and his reputation for, among other things, suing people with whom he has previously conducted business.

    It is not unlikely that they simply booted Carreon spontaneously after seeing/noticing the word "rape" occurring repeatedly in the referrer link(s) coming into their web site.

    That is, given the content and the likely future content, there is a non-trivial chance that -nobody- complained to PhotoBucket at all and they simply chose not to allow themselves to be associated with someone like Carreon.

    There is a "natural fallout" to being Carreonesque and that is that people start treating you like the pariah you have demonstrated yourself to be. Businesses are made of people.

    As I said, I have no actual information that this -did- happen, but I would find it likely that it -could- happen.

  428. Chris R. says:

    @Grifter you don't remedy censorious behavior by emulating it.

  429. Nibor says:

    @Grifter I don't think it's a question of sympaty towards cc but more that we don't want to become what he is.

    So disagree with someones actions and then do the same back or agree when someone else does the same action, just is not the right thing to do.

    Even if every fiber in your body tries to convince you otherwise, that is human nature at work, but it is the thing what seperates the ones that are more decent from the bullies and douchbags out there

  430. John Ammon says:

    @Robert White:

    That fits quite well into my "it's the website's business" mantra, doesn't it? :P While it might not be a good idea for people to report him, it's also Photobucket's sole discretion to boot him, they may have decided to do so to avoid having association with him, again, totally their call, right or wrong.

  431. Grifter says:

    @Nibor and Chris:

    I agree that this isn't about sympathy, nor shall we generally get rid of censorius behavior by emulating it, however, I'm just asking why it is that it is wrong to give him what he's asking for. He's never advocated DoS (and also they're illegal), so that's obviously out, but when he's brandishing certain legal behaviors, can not an argument be made that he'll only learn if the same is done to him, thus showing him the consequences of what he's asking for? Like I said, I'm not advocating it by any means myself, as my default position is always anti-censorship. I generally have to be dragged by my reason or another's towards the idea of limiting any kind of speech whatsoever, and I'm certainly not there yet, I'm just exploring the concept in my tiny, tiny brain.

  432. Nibor says:

    @Grifter do you hit someone to "learn" them to not hit others anymore?

    As a child maybe, but as an educated grownup ?

    So long as he does not violates the law, step back maybe watch and enjoy or start argue with him try to convince him of his errors but respect his freedoms( of speech) also when he does not.

    And when his actions become no longer legal hand it over to the lawenforcers

    And when impulses are becoming no longer contanable than walk away this makes a

  433. Nibor says:

    All the diference between a fighter for freedoms (of speech)

    And NO it is NOT fair but in the end you KNOW you did right aldough it dos not always FEEL right, but I repeat myself so I will stop now.

    Good night and I will be back soon

  434. Grifter says:

    @Nibor:

    I lol'd at your example, because I had originally typed it as an analogy, but got too long winded. How funny you'd choose the same concept!

    But no, I wouldn't hit someone for hitting, but if they're standing on a street corner telling everyone that they should enjoy being hit, that hitting people is A-OK fun times, I would ask whether someone who hit them to make them experience exactly what they're advocating is really in the wrong?

    Again, I'm questioning only the use of his own legal tactics; like you said, he hasn't violated or advocated breaking the law, so those that do that to him are obviously wrong.

    And yes, I have done things to demonstrate the error of their ways to grown-ups, when they've demonstrated a consistent stubborn unwillingness to even attempt empathy. It eventually ends something like this:

    "Seriously, can you please quit that noise, it's annoying"
    "I'll say it again, I don't think it's annoying, I'm not stopping…you should learn to like this!"
    "Okay then…(plays equal-leveled other sound)"
    "Hey, that's annoying!"
    "Oh, is it now?"
    "Hmmm…I'll shut off my noise then."
    "Thank you very much. (Turns off other sound)"

  435. just_wow says:

    Did someone say something about 'begging for clicks?'
    http://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/360334/Admin+is+lying/

  436. Ann says:

    Not to change the subject, but if anyone's interested I wrote an article over on TJ's site about where the hell FunnyJunk is in all this mess. Kind of an unexplored piece of the puzzle. Would be interested to get your all's thoughts on my sheer speculation:

    http://blindscribblings.com/2012/07/whatever-happened-to-funnyjunk/

  437. just_wow says:

    The above link is from 2010. It doesn't relate to the current controversy except to show how terribly pathetic FJ and its admin are.

  438. Ann says:

    Holy crap, Just_Wow. You and I just crashed into each other's brain waves.

    Nicely done.

  439. just_wow says:

    lol :)

  440. John Ammon says:

    I hereby award an internets to each of you, well done!

  441. Matthew says:

    Adam: "Carreon is Above The Law's lawyer of the month. Congratulations!"

    I have to agree with that article when it says that these two were robbed:

    http://abovethelaw.com/2012/06/a-law-firm-partner-and-his-boalt-hall-wife-stand-accused-of-planting-drugs-on-an-elementary-school-volunteer/2/

    Just goes to show that there are whole levels of douchebag that the Carreons have never got near.

    ————————

    On the subject of "teaching Carreon a lesson" you either stand for a principle or you don't. Using someone's methods against them is unlikely to do anything other than convince them that you're a hypocrite. Plus it runs the risk of eroding the principle you're supposed to be standing up for.

    I'm also slightly saddened by the apparent desire to portray Carreon as wrong in all things. The things he has does wrong stand fine on there own there's no need to twist things to make everything his fault.

    Photobucket have the right set whatever terms they wish, but their decision goes against the spirit of the service they're offering. Of they'd done it to someone on the other side of the argument then there'd be universal condemnation, rather than apologetics from some quarters.

    I'm sure satirical Charles' hosting company could probably find something in their ToS to shut his site if they wanted to. Would people spring to their defence in that case?

  442. John Ammon says:

    @Matthew:

    Would it be right if that happened, probably not, but they do have that right.

  443. Robert White says:

    @Matthew — If the back-links from Carreon were "rapeishot.org" or "rapeaintreal.net" would it be bad for photobucket to preemptively disassociate themselves?

    It's bad enough that Carreon is "diluting the Rape™ brand name" by conflating "people said meant truths about me" with "people forcibly penetrated me against my will". It is bad enough that his output is childish and kind-of annoying. It's bad enough that what starts with this is and is known from current example to be likely to end with pornographic slanders of public figures.

    Combine all three and how can you -blame- photobucket for just saying "never mind, I'm out".

    If you disagree, perhaps you can start "rapeconflatingslanders.com" and sell image hosting just for these sorts of sites. It is clearly a niche that photobucket has chosen to leave open.

  444. Chris R. says:

    @Robert White, I don't blame photobucket for removing his account. He has other avenues of free speech as he has proven with youtube. I do think their ToS could be more clear, and I think they should at least refund him. This is not just for Carreon but anyone who does business with photobucket.

  445. Grifter says:

    @Matthew:

    "On the subject of "teaching Carreon a lesson" you either stand for a principle or you don't"

    I do stand on the principle of free speech, but I also stand on the principle that one is responsible for the speech one makes…in this case, the speech directly relates to the concept of free speech.

    For example, the Westboro monsters don't advocate the silencing of speech; therefore, trying to silence them is bad for someone who claims to be a free speech advocate.
    In this case, Carreon has diretly advocated the silencing of speech, and if I recollect (it's hard to recollect all the crazy!) has stooped to appeals to the authority of hosts (site and fundraising) in hopes they will entertain a perspective on their TOS. While I recognize it's kind of "stooping to his level", my brain has also seen fit to say that it can also be interpreted as holding him responsible. My brain has pointed out that it is saying to him: "You think this is okay, therefore you cannot complain…as soon as you change your mind and say it is not okay, then you can complain". While I understand the idea that "We're better than that", and I wasn't really advocating it, I was wondering if there's a real articulable reason that it's wrong.

  446. AlphaCentauri says:

    Photobucket is in business to make money. If they make money by defending free speech, fine, but that's not really the niche they've carved out for themselves. They're an inexpensive place to host images. They appeal to bargain hunters.

    Hosting controversial content takes staff time, as Charles' multiple emails demonstrate (not even counting the complaints they claim to have received), and possibly legal costs. If you want your company to have a reputation for defending your customers' free speech, you'll be respected in the industry, but your pricing structure has to reflect the costs that are involved in that business model. Some companies want that market, some are content to leave it to others.

  447. Mike K says:

    Grifter, I don't have any sympathy for Carreon for having his video reported for ToS violations either. I wouldn't do it personally because unlike your annoying noise situation I can just ignore him completely if I choose. On the other hand there is definitely a good reason to not stoop to his level since an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. There are times where it's acceptable to do something back to a person, for example self defense. In those cases I don't think the purpose is to teach the person a lesson (psychology shows us that positive reinforcement is much stronger than negative) but more to prevent negative consequences. I could give some other examples, but I'd rather stay away from controversial issues that are unrelated to this situation.

    Applying that idea to Photobucket, people complained, most likely for bad reasons (since nobody was particularly harmed by it), forcing the company to at least look into the matter. The company obviously decided that the consequences of not removing Carreon were worse than the consequences of keeping him. Further they decided to keep his money, probably because they know he wouldn't have a case against them and every little bit of money improves their bottom line. I don't agree with the no refund part since he wasn't uploading multiple violations of the ToS or himself being a nuisance (until the banning). I think the fair thing would have been for him to just have his content removed allowing him to keep his account (rendering it a waste of his money since he couldn't use it for what he wanted) or given him a partial refund (he had use of the service for at least a short time so a full refund is a bit much).

  448. Mike K says:

    This is barely relevant, but, is the title of his post on the rapeutation site, "Hate eMails", capitalized in a grammatically correct way? I mean to me email should be 'e-mail', but I don't think I've ever seen where it was correct to capitalize mail. I've seen people use other shortcuts like eNEWS, but other than all the i products, seems to be rather rare.

  449. Captain Obvious says:

    This is your captain speaking. For your viewing pleasure this weekend we have included a video spoof of Charles here

  450. dex says:

    I'd say that Carreon's fall from grace is far, far from tragic, given that he was a minor, silly figure to begin with, and really didn't suffer much of a drop. "Lame" is about the strongest word you can affix to his betraying his supposed principles.

    @Captain O

    Good stuff.

  451. Captain Obvious says:

    Thanks Dex – for some reason it doesn't show up in the window here correctly but you can find it directly on YouTube under

    Charles Carreon – Nut

    So you can view it in full screen – and then spend the rest of your weekend trying to scrub that song out of your brain.

  452. dex says:

    @Captain O

    Thanks. Post the link on Reddit for an easy 900 views.

  453. dex says:

    Carreon taking credit for the 200k is like the star of a spectacular FAIL video on YouTube claiming that 10,000,000 views of him splitting his scrotum on an iron rail has to do with his incredible screen presence.

  454. Nibor says:

    @Grifter hi, I’m back sorry I had to pass out for a few hours.

    I think that in you comment you put your finger on your sore spot, what if someone is yelling stuff and it annoys you,
    1) you can go up to them and try to reason with them but there are many people that cannot be reasoned with.
    2) you can start to yell back, but it solves nothing, only get more attention to the yelling and let him spread his message more effectively (Streisand effect)

    so what now?

    When they are in a public space let’s say a public park (where it is allowed to proclaim/yell)
    The best thing is to move on, for it is legal and it is good that there is a place for those in need of yelling stuff.
    And we will defend this right so we can use it one day when we are in need of using it ourselves.

    Change of scenery now the “proclaimer” is standing in your yard so you go over and tell him not to do so (and in the process probably tell him to go off your yard) if he refuses you call the police for he is trespassing so he IS doing something illegal.

    When he would be yelling let’s say in a neighbourhood and it is not allowed to disturb the peace after 11:00pm again you can argue with him or yell but eventually you can call the cops for again he is doing something illegal.

    So long somebody is doing something annoying but does not break the law, let them for there can be a time for yourself when you are in need of annoying others.

    As far as I read back in your comment you somewhat hesitative but agree with me on this one, you only got a but.

    You pointed it out in your comment:
    What if someone first, once or even constantly tries to change these rules and make it illegal to proclaim anymore in that park.
    Because he has been butthurt by what is said or for he cannot enjoy his sandwich in peace in “his” (public) park as he egotistical wants.

    Than he loses that fight, for there are those of us that defend this right to yell in the park (as long as you do not yell for illegal issues like hate, harm, etc..)

    Now he goes to the park and start yelling/proclaiming himself that he is being wronged, obviously not understanding that is doing the same thing he didn’t wanted someone else to do.

    So you can argue with him even yell at him that he is stupid, but you do not want to go to the counsel and try to get him banned from proclaiming in “your” (public) park, even if he is telling everybody that you should do so.

    For there will be some of us, who despise him and disagree with him, standing beside him and defend the right, including his right, of yelling in THE PUBLIC park (as long as you do not yell for illegal issues like hate, harm, etc..) for there will be a day when one of us needs a place to yell.

    I thing that you already know this, only your guts is telling you it’s unfair.
    I defend these kind of things, so I can sleep at night, knowing that what I did is right, even if it feels unfair at first sight, for in the end I win, I have a clean conscious that allows me to survive/function in this world.

    But hey that only me yelling ;-)

  455. Nibor says:

    a little note: this is not an attack on you, for you already have said multiple times that you will defend the right of free speech and condamn any illigal actions. I am just trying to explain it a little more as you asked me/us to so the you I use in the text is not pointed at you but more in a explainetroy global use.

    Have no clue if sentence above makes sense in english but in my head it sounds right :-)

    So Grifter please don't take the text personaly.

  456. Mike K says:

    Nibor, I'm not sure that analogy is entirely accurate. CC was breaking the rules as interpreted by the admin of Photobucket. It would be more like a guy not wearing a shirt in a restaurant that says "no shirt, no shoes, no service" while trying to shout his message. Perhaps more apt would be a guy in a private place with his shirt off and his message painted all over his body. What the guy is doing isn't illegal, but if one of the other patrons of the establishment complains, the guy would be kicked out.

  457. Nibor says:

    @Mike K, I think that the admin of photobucket was totally in his right to kick CC of, let me be clear about that.

    Maybe their ToS could be a little more clear and I would like it when they refund CC, more in the way of here is your money we don't want it we don't need the hustle.

    But that is not what I try to say in my comment here, it is me trying to explain to Grifter (a fellow aspi as I understand now) why you don't go and fight someone like CC with his own tactics although it feels so right to do so.

    I think it was stupid of CC to try to post on photobucket in the first place, for the are a less open forum than youtube with higher standards and CC did not do his homework on that one, he kept in character as it where and we are becoming to expect from him.

    But I think it is not right that people that are not personally involved/attacked/offended by the video complain and try to get it expelled just to hurt CC, if it was Matt who had complained I would full heartily agree with that.
    But trying to stop him with his own means, when you just are annoyed by him (and not really personally involved) for what he has done, is in my opinion just one step to far.

    As I said before the admin had the right to expel him, for it is his site, hmmm…. this sounds a little like the thread on the post “Reader mail”, for whatever reason he thinks is appropriate.
    But NOT because he is “forced” by others who only want to bully him to do so, that is the difference I tried to explain to Grifter.

  458. Gal says:

    @Matthew: I disagree that the Easters were robbed. To my mind, the Easters are horrible people who happen to be Lawyers. Carreon is a Lawyer who used his standing and education to attempt to extort money and undermine the principle of free speech by wielding the court system as his own personal cudgel. And when that backfired he undertook further efforts to deny satirists their right to free speech, while attempting to deprive the ACS and AWF of charity money in the process. And when that fell through he began another campaign against free speech with his ridiculous proposed tort.

    Sure, the Easters are ahead of him for "citizen of the month" but "Lawyer of the month" is all Chuckles.

  459. Mike K says:

    I think I understand what you're trying to say better now. You're talking about in general doing what to CC what was done to him. I think it still misses that little bit of ambiguity. Maybe the better analogy would be a someone renting an apartment that forbids pets and keeping a cat. Now if you or I visit that apartment, we don't particularly care or need to know about the rule against pets. It's only between the landlord and tenant. The only time it would be appropriate to report it is if the person kept a violent pet that caused problems. Does that example fit a little better with your idea of the situation? I mean, it's premised on a different set of rights, but it seems appropriate. If CC is breaking the ToS of any service he's using, to me that adds a bit of ambiguity to the situation that's missing from the yelling in the park example. As a stranger, it's still not right to report him for it, unless he's causing or is likely to cause harm.

  460. Grifter says:

    @Nibor:
    I don't feel attacked. I'm getting exactly what I asked for; thanks for your thinking!

    @MikeK:

    I had a whole thing typed up as a response to Nibor, but I like your analogy a lot so I'm going to run with it.

    Apartment doesn't allow pets. Person A (PA) complains about every pet owner to the management, and is just generally a jerk. Then PA buys a cat. Is it wrong (as opposed to petty) for one of the other tenants to report him, and does it matter whether they were one of the reported pet owners or not?

  461. Nibor says:

    I can not follow it entirely, but yes I think it is fitting better to CC's specific situation now, where the yeller I tried to use was more to explain it in a globaly way for that was what Grifter was asking if I understood him right.

    In your annalogy I am missing the part where you want to tell the landlord abouth the pet, not because the pet is hindering you, but because you just don't like the man, one of the reasons you don't like the man is that he is complaining to other landlords that tenants in their building's have pet's, independently of they are alowed to have pets or not.

    When you include that in your analogy it would fit this specific situation, I gues

    But again I think we are saying about the same and see eye to eye but my bad english and my autism is making it hard to get our points across.

    Also I got the feel that there is some emotion/resentment on your side that makes it a little harder to get my view, this is totaly normal for my brain is diverently wired and I am very limmited on the emotional side of things.

  462. Nibor says:

    @Mike K. I see Grifter gets it better than me :-)

  463. Grifter says:

    @Nibor:

    I don't have an emotional investment or hatred. I was just thinking about whether it was wrong if someone did it (again, as opposed to petty), and couldn't come up with what I thought were satisfactory arguments against. I was taking "wants to make his life unpleasant" as a given motive, with the reasons for that not necessary.

  464. Nibor says:

    @Grifter hmmmm, Is it the "not wrong" is not the same as "right" debacle where we are puzzeld about? I used "we" because I struggel a lot with that question all the time.

  465. Grifter says:

    @Nibor:
    That is a good question.

    To me there are good things, bad things, and neutral things. Neutral things are things that you can do, that you have every right to do, but that aren't ethically "good" (helping orphans cross the street) or ethically "bad" (punching orphans in the mouth). Walking down the street is neutral; you have a right to do it, and if it gives you pleasure, have at it. Actively trying to stop someone by force or its equivalent (as opposed to argument to the person) from doing a neutral thing would be a "bad" thing.

    I don't think one can argue that one is doing "good" by whining to Carreon's service provider, so that's out. My qustion was, if it gives one pleasure for amusement, lulz, or from a sense of satisfaction of ones dislike, is it an ethically "bad", wrong, thing to do.

  466. Nibor says:

    @Grifter Yes in my world (of value's) it is wrong ethically, it is bullying, again as far as my values to which I live go.

    A better choice of words would be, I find it wrong, independently from if it is or not.
    This will be different for everybody, as usual with ethical questinons.

  467. Grifter says:

    @Nibor:
    And to me it is wrong too…but what I'm asking fundamentally I guess is is it wrong to hold someone to their own ethical standard.

  468. Nibor says:

    @Grifter As long as that is not conflicting with:
    your own ethical standard, if you ask it yourselve,
    mine own ethical standard, if you ask me,
    the group A owns ethical standard, if you ask the group A,

    so there is no defenitive awnser for as far as I understand it.

  469. Mike K says:

    Nibor, for the most part I would say we agree. Part of my thinking was that it didn't seem to completely answer what Grifter was asking and that as an imperfect analogy it was missing the elements needed to answer his question.

    Grifter, I think that probably depends on the reason you're doing the whining. If it's being done because it's fun, it probably still fits in the neutral category as long as it doesn't do any real harm. If it's being done in an attempt to hurt a person (whether it does or not), then it might slide into bad.

    I was thinking back on something said way earlier. It was mentioned that CC's right to free speech obviously wasn't violated by the reports to Photobucket because he immediately found an alternative. Would his rights have been violated even if every video hosting site, website hosting service, and ISP didn't allow his content? I'm still thinking no, but such a thing would definitely limit his speech.

  470. Jess says:

    He still has Youtube as a channel for his videos and rants – and he certainly uses it. So do others and there is a video parodying Carreon posted under Charles Carreon Nut. If there is one thing I have to fault Capt. Obvious on, it is that I can't get that song out of my head – damn you Captain.

  471. Grifter says:

    @Mike K:

    "video hosting site, website hosting service, and ISP"s are different things. Hosting sites have the right to stop you from doing things they don't like; it is my understanding that ISPs can't unless its illegal. I'm sure (to be hyperbolic) that both the KKK and the Westboro monsters have phone lines; as a utility they must grant access. And ICANN would have to give him a domain. But it is conceivable that if every hosting provider in the world said no, he'd have to host it himself.

  472. Ann says:

    Jesus. Can someone transcribe the first part. All I heard was "pterodactyl" up until Psycho Santa, which is, once again, stuck in my head.

  473. dex says:

    Charles and Tara are like whackier, eviler relatives of this couple. I thought of this scene when Tara described Charles doing a cowboy accent in court, and it was obvious he was reading over her shoulder actually correcting her as she wrote.

  474. Joe says:

    @Ann – if you want to get the Psycho Santa ditty out of your head try this one on Carreon

  475. John Ammon says:

    @Mike K:

    If they're all private sites, they have the right to refuse service, for any reason, they don't have to guarantee anyone free speech.

    It's like when you walk into a store and you see a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service". It's the same principle.

  476. Tali says:

    @dex
    HOLY HELL! What is this…I don't even…
    This is worse than karaoke night at the pub…

    @Ann I've been trying to figure out what he's saying, and no matter how many times I listen to it I can't make out more than a few words (like "Seattle apartment" and something about "Rosemary's Baby")

  477. Tali says:

    Ok, I've listened a little more (why the hell am I doing this?) and I'm pretty sure I've at least got the gist of part of what he's saying.
    I think he's asking if anyone is carrying Matt Inman's baby. And if so (Then he says something I can't quite make out about calling operation rescue) and that that woman better deliver the baby because it might turn out to be Rosmary's baby. Then more unintelligible bits then something about "you never know it might just be the apocalypse rolling out of your hips"

    WHAT. THE. HELL.

  478. Nibor says:

    @Tali please be carefull we don't want to lose you to the darkside.
    Know it is not all real and do not walk towards the darklight, it is a trick.
    If they offer you cookies please turn around and run what ever you do, run and don't look around.
    From that moment on all we want is please stop watching and listening to that thing.
    Be asured it will go away, it will only take time, maybe al few elctro shocks but you will be alright. ;-)

  479. Tali says:

    @Nibor
    lol I'll be careful (famous last words)
    I figure as long as I am only trying to figure out the words he is speaking and not actually trying to rationalize/understand what he means by those words.
    And I know better than to accept his cookies (or promises of dinosaurs), but its good to know electrotherapy can be used to cure any side effects of Carreon over-exposure.

  480. Ann says:

    I noticed Matt took the Bear Love thumbnail off his homepage. The pages are still there, but the thumbnail is gone. I wonder if that was a personal decision, an attorney recommendation, or a girlfriend inperative. He really does probably need to be careful of the crazy, especially given Tara's history with firearms. O_O

  481. dex says:

    Charles Carreon is bald, broke, pushing sixty, and married to a slightly creepier version of Minnie Castevet. (It isn't hard to imagine a crookedly lipsticked Tara delivering drugged foodstuffs to her neighbors in the hopes of rendering their bodies inert and fecund for the reception of Satan.) Matthew Inman is young, fit, rich and good-looking; somehow I bet your warnings go unheeded, Charles.

  482. n o 0 n e says:

    @captain obvious

    i love that song! leroy pullins is ∞ times better than musician CC on every day of every week in every month until ∞. i realise that the resulting equation = ∞, but there you go.

    in the video you have anonymous poster spelled as "anonymous poser", slight difference in meaning there, but ultimately quite fun!

    cheers!

  483. AlphaCentauri says:

    dex • Jul 14, 2012 @10:41 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiN6klOwWE4&feature=related

    Holy God

    In case this ethical discussion wasn't enough to convince us we don't want to lower ourselves to CC's level ….

  484. Chris R. says:

    Cray gonna cray.

  485. Kristen says:

    The first 32 seconds of that video (all I could get through) made my brain sad. :'(

    I couldn't understand a word he was "singing". Somebody should tell him the microphone is not supposed to be *in* his mouth.

  486. Captain Obvious says:

    Noone – thanks – that was actually deliberate. Poser as Satirical Charles is posing as Charles. But good catch.

  487. n o 0 n e says:

    @captain obvious

    well done then!

  488. Mark says:

    Interesting. Seems that the Nader Library have been fighting DCMA notices. Notice the dates on those emails.

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/scandark.toc.htm

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/hitchhikerbook.toc.htm

  489. Wil says:

    I suspect there might be quite a few more, once someone gets wind of their MP3 links. I think that they are really twisting the meaning of "library" as well as the associated code. Since when is HTML "difficult to copy"? Most browsers have the capability of copying a webpage and following links to grab associated pages. Although I have to say that the tactics of posting still shots from movies with text as a "video" is…creative…and reveals someone with way too much time on their hands.

  490. Mike K says:

    I'm not sure how it's difficult to copy either. You either highlight everything, copy into word processor, and done; or you save as html and bam, you have something instantly viewable in any browser and many word processors.

    Interesting how you mention that the posting of stills and captions means someone has too much time. That's what Charles said of all the "hate" email he got, since people could have spent that time saving puppies or other random things he thinks are important (which he could have done instead of wasting time responding…).

    I'd think that responding to all of those requests was why it was taking them so long to create their new site/video, but they're pretty much cookie cutter responses and should have only taken a minute each to send and possibly another minute to take down the content. I was wondering how they decide what color to make the pages. Clicking randomly on the links in those letters led to similar pages with widely different background colors.

  491. W Ross says:

    http://rapeutation.com/2012/07/12/the-rapeutationists/

    OK, does it actually count as speech when you don't say what you plan to, and just show a blurry picture and explain what you INTEND to do? Cause it's one thing for Charles to out people; he's due that. That's the game.

    But now he's putting up vague pictures/paragraphs about people he MIGHT do it to in the future (presumably unless they become quiet) and has actually (jokingly) asked for their domain.

    Is that legit?

  492. Mike K says:

    He didn't actually hide the guy's identity though. The file has his full name and the tool-tip has his full name. When I read it, the only thing he said about what he was going to do was an offer for a trade (probably joking), so it should be fine still.

  493. Chris R. says:

    He's an internet specialist, of course he hid the guys identity!

  494. Not sure whether this is projection or idle/vague threat.

    "I think you should be humble, Matt. Move to a third-world country, get another name, another face, and accept the fact that you have LOST your reputation in America.

    It's sad, but true. Matt Inman will never be the same. His life is ruined now. He'll be lucky not to commit suicide. It's that bad. It really, really is. His life is OVER!"

  495. Mike K says:

    Anyone else amused at how surprised TC is that more people noticing you means more people complaining about your behavior and more people requesting that their copyrighted materials are taken down? The language she uses in one of the latest posts is somewhat amusing to me too, but then that's because I don't swear, usually. I am curious to know who complained to their ISP (and what was complained about), since I strongly doubt it's the person she claims it is.

  496. John Ammon says:

    Adam, is that CC or TC? I'm leaning toward TC because of the level of obvious crazy present.

  497. Chris R. says:

    Adam, ZOMG! That means Tara has rapeutated Matt! It is all so clear now.

  498. Grifter says:

    @Nike:

    Obviously, it must be Matt Inman, since no one else ever has ever had a first initial M, nor has anyone ever used an initial that was different from their own! Duh!

  499. @John It's TC.

    She's also alleging that Inman himself complained to their ISP and signed his email with "M."

  500. John Ammon says:

    Well, who else could M mean?

    Morbo, Mentok, Malificent, Mongo?

    Nope, must me M for Matt.

    Solid logic.

  501. Ann says:

    I'm pretty sure "M" stands for "Multiple". As in, one of TC's many personalities complaining against the others.

    It is really tragic that the Carrions do not have ONE outside friend or family member who can get them help. But more terrifying that CC is in a position to litigate against ppl.

  502. Chris R. says:

    John, unfortunately this who debacle has had nothing to do with logic :)

  503. Mike K says:

    For some reason I'm starting to wonder if the Carreons are being paid by Inman. They have to be the best thing that has ever happened to his profit margin. Heck, they almost convinced me to buy something from his store, and nothing there particularly appeals to me.

  504. John Ammon says:

    Ann, I've met people like them before, they don't have any outside people because I'm fairly certain (if the Oregon Buddhist debacle is any indication) that they don't know how to keep friends… unless they're as schizo as Tara, but even then, I'm sure that's just a powder-keg in itself.

  505. just_wow says:

    @Mike K

    This actually hasn't been his biggest traffic spike of the last 6 months.
    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/theoatmeal.com#

    A few other sites on the other hand are probably seeing their biggest traffic spikes ever.
    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/funnyjunk.com
    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/naderlibrary.com
    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/american-buddha.com

  506. Mark says:

    It's interesting that they take down the material from one site (Nader Library) due to the DMCA notice but still have the gall to link to the same content on another site (American Buddha) from the very page that contains the DMCA counternotification! Boy, these guys like to cling to every bit of technicality they can find, apparently.

    E.g., http://www.naderlibrary.com/lit.billwrongstoc.htm

    Endless popcorn. Endless.

  507. Chris R. says:

    John, unfortunately this who debacle has had nothing to do with logic

    Suessian Slip, who debacle. Lol.

  508. Mike K says:

    At least it's not a Whovian debacle. Those get messy.

  509. Christine says:

    TC says: Since Matt Inman has NOT DENIED that he dresses up in girl's dresses and acts like a girl, and spices his sadism up with pedophilia, we can only assume that these accusations are true. The law says that a reasonable person, when accused of a crime, if he does not deny it, is assumed to be guilty of those crimes.
    Now, not a lawyer myself, which law says that? 'Cause I see big 5th Amendment issues with that logic…

  510. Robert White says:

    @Ann — The most likely reason to take down the bearlove thumbnails and primary link is that the campeign is over but new visitors are probably kvetching about not being able to participate.

    I am put in mind of the dying kid wants postcards problem where once the beast is out it is hard to kill.

    So I would suspect that Inman leaves the pages up for reference and completeness, but doesn't want the unwary, particularly the cross section of same who cannot read well enough to see the end date, to pester him with "your link to indiegogo is bad" emails etc.

    No lawyer or girlfriend pressure required, just a spam filter and the average rate of human gullibility and/or me-too-ism.

  511. Ben says:

    Hm. About the whole DMCA, legalities aside, does it seem like copyright should be the way that it is?

    It seems to me that the individuals who created and perpetuate the current legal standards regarding this topic are not doing so with any regard for objective reality.

    Stealing is wrong, as a moral imperative I think many people (though I am certain not all) can accept this.

    Sharing is good – many children are taught this from childhood. It is probably rooted in a more abstract "empathy is good", which is a benefit to us a species.

    Sharing and stealing are not identical. Fabled Robin Hood did not share with the rich and poor – he stole from the rich and gave to the poor.

    Even as someone who creates intellectual property as a means of sustaining myself (though to be fair, software for legacy database migration is not all the rage in BitTorrents) I think that my employer is reasonable to expect that whatever work they pay me for, I will not give away or resell to another individual, corporation, contractor, et cetera.

    I think they are also reasonable to expect that whatever work they pay me for is either entirely my own, or uses appropriate licenses (either purchased or GNU GPL).

    I think it is not reasonable to expect end users to be bound to silence about the specific product (either figuratively or in the case of a few companies I have contracted with, quite literally).

    What is worse, to me, is the notion that they can own a configuration of bits on an individuals hard drive – and that the reproduction or transmission of that configuration, for private use, is equivalent to the theft (and thus deprivation) of a physical good.

    So, even for someone so obviously disturbed as Mr. Carreon, I have sympathy to his attempts to share works we he found enjoyment of. I, too, like Phillip Dick.

    That Clans of the Alphane Moon is included in the request is just… appropriate.

  512. The package arrived! …. and was promptly thrown in the garbage, unopened.

  513. @Christine there's an evidentiary rule that allows you to construe silence as an admission, but it's in no way applicable to this situation.

  514. Chris R. says:

    Ben, I think copyright can be abused when it comes to fair use principles. However I think entire replication of a work is unfair. I also don't see the claim that because they are a nonprofit that calls themselves a digital library how that makes the reproduction of multiple works fair. Or should all creative work be licensed under a creative commons license in your view?

  515. Robert White says:

    Isn't throwing away the package unopened instead of forwarding it on to his clients a failure of his duty as council to FunnyJunk?

    I mean -we- can't complain about it since it wasn't duty to us, but it was still done.

    Looks like one or more Carreon jumped up and down on the package several times and tossed it about before discarding it. That is a sure sign of victory immortalized forever.

    Tantrum box!

  516. Chris R. says:

    Robert, you beat me to it.

  517. Mike K says:

    The sticker says it was received in damaged condition. The tossing it away without looking at says quite a bit about the person that threw it away though.

  518. John Ammon says:

    Wouldn't it be ironic if there was actually money inside, as a "I feel bad for you" token from Matt >_<

  519. Robert White says:

    Looking again, I imagine not the jumping up and down…

    Two haggard hands reach out to the shiny red and white package thinking the latest amazon.com purchase has arrived, or perhaps the renewal of an all important mood stabilizer from the long-term care pharmacy.

    The shaking hands read the address and become confused since it is hand written. The eyes verge upwards slightly to take in the sender's city… and then the dreaded name.

    A spasm contorts the withered frame crushing the side-walls of the rigid mailer beyond its endurance. The walls colapse outward into the sweaty palms as thumbs press ever inward on the most hated name.

    "He did it. I can't believe the bastard actually kept his word." the gargled voice mutters.

    The box goes flying, as if with a mind of its own. The girzzled hands flutter innocently.

    The postal worker has seen this scene play out before, here at the will-call window. She backs away slowly and retrieves the crushed and dented box.

    The Carreon speaks, aloud this time. "This box is damaged! You ruined this box!" Its the only thing the befuddled mind can find. It knows that, having had it's way with the box all will know of its unthinking rage.

    The postmistress sighs, this too is not new. "Yes, this was -clearly- our fault" she says, "see, now you have proof". She gently affixes the "received in damaged condition" sticker. It is all she has to offer to stave off the irrational storm that is likely to come. It's part of the local postal mythology, it's just something that needs to be done. 'They' must be blamed, and now, before the wrath and the spittle-laced invective boils out on upon the souls of the more sane. "Nobody can blame you now, your honor is safe… They will never know… 'They' clearly did this to your package."

    The Carreon creeps away, mollified by the tiny sticker and the $20 sheet of "forever stamps" so newly acquired just before the advent of the hateful box. 'With these stamps', The Carreon muses to itself, 'my words will be immortal. The Nader will hear me forever…'

  520. Mark says:

    Oh god, that unopened package is gold, pure gold.

  521. It says it was received in damaged condition. I wonder if that was a final FU from Inman.

    As for the not forwarding it to FunnyJunk, it's entirely possible Carreon asked FJ what he should do with it and they just kind of shrugged.

    Should've auctioned off the drawing itself for charity.

  522. Robert White says:

    @Adam — There probably isn't any original drawing to be worth auctioning off. A copy printed from your computer is likely just as original if Inman uses an electronic/computer image editing program to do his drawings. (It looks to me like he does, as they don't have that post-scanner feel to them.)

    So it would be the act of sending the printed copy through the mail that would make it "the real one" and only Carreon or FJ would then be entitled to do the auctioning.

    Of course, once the box was mixed with regular common garbage it would be up for grabs, so an enterprising trash guy, or a johny-on-the-spot could score a true original if they wait for the trash truck and were allowed to fish.

    Of course if this was pulled from, or placed at, a "dumpster" then it's already common garbage…

  523. @Robert: I wouldn't run the risk of going near that property without a bullet-proof vest.

    One that preferably doesn't say "FBI" in big letters.

  524. Captain Obvious says:

    I am quite put out that I am not on the list of Rapeutationists. I mean I put out a multi-media video about Charles Carreon being a nut and post it on YouTube and – - – — – - nothing. They must be too busy counting jellybeans – obviously.

  525. Ben says:

    Chris,

    I do not think that people not being compensated should be subject to copyright. Imitation is an important tool in learning and communication. What people see as being "fundamentally different" between recreating a painting (which is a classical standard of teaching 'artistic composition' – a subject which I have, despite my attempts, not been able to fully grasp) and recreating a copyrighted, digital image is actual just a matter of scale – if we accept that technology reducing the work required to achieve a thing, does not intrinsically alter that thing. For example, whether we use an automated wheat thresher or a more antiquated method like winnowing with a scythe and a bowl, either way we end up with the grain and no chaff. One way is just more efficient.

    So, really what people object to is the pace that current technology sets – and the ease with which intellectual property can become disassociated from it's creator. Nobody has a problem with someone remembering a song and singing it to themselves – or even singing it to friends.

    There can be no real doubt they have taken that set of stimuli, stored it in their memory and then proceeded to recreate it.

    But when we involve 'technology' then 'magic happens', as in;

    Person A generates an ordered set
    Person A broadcasts ordered set
    Magic Happens
    Person B receives ordered set
    Person A owns person B's copy of that ordered set

    I think, perhaps, we have confused somethings owner with it's originator. Another, more concrete example would be if I made a chair.

    I make a chair
    I give you the chair
    You make a chair like my chair
    I say I own the chair that is like my chair

  526. Ben says:

    Ha!

    First line definitely could have been composed better. Feel compelled to clarify;

    I think individuals not engaged in commerce should not be subject to copyright.

  527. W Ross says:

    Holy flipping God. HUGE UPDATE on the Nader library thread. 25 DCMA notices.

    That's game. If they fight that, they're broke. Checkmate, Charles. Strange game… the only way to win is not to play…

  528. W Ross says:

    Also, when does this become actual defamation?

    http://imgur.com/fccWq

  529. Chris R. says:

    I like how she is equating cartoon violence to real people with dicks in their faces.

  530. Chris R. says:

    Ben, I don't think we are on the same wavelength, so I am having a hard time understanding your view. Do you think that once something can be reproduced by another person the idea is no longer restricted for reproduction? So as long as I can retype any work that is composed of text, it is then mine to give away? If then that is the case, how do we as a society support the artist and creators? Are they to labor to enrich my life for free or just personal satisfaction?

  531. W Ross says:

    She pulled mention of Paul Levy off rapeutation.com too. Bit off a bit more than you could chew there Tara?

  532. Robert White says:

    @ Chris R. — Side note. As a society we supported artists and creators for countless generations before copyright. We didn't "create rock stars" before copyright. We didn't make crap-tons of money off artists and creators before copyright.

    But then again, why should spending a year in a studio creating twelve songs -pay- -more- than spending a year doing any other job.

    If work product were the basis of proper compensation we would pay the descendants of brick-layers every time someone stood on, over, under or near any structure they laid brick for.

    I am -not- against copyright. I love my words. I would like the ability, should my words ever really "get out there", to control who can butcher them and how much, and maybe get some green folding applause if someone were to take my words and turn them into some hollywood blockbuster. (not that I'm holding my breath).

    I also like that copyright lets me put out software under the GPL so it cannot be used unless the user agrees to share the proceeds of my work and their work on just as I shared my work with them.

    It is, however, ridiculous to imagine that maintaining the copyright on Happy Birthday (the song) is in any way likely to make the two long-dead women who wrote it rise from the grave and create more work.

    It is also ridiculous for each participant in the work of creation to imagine their variations on the eternal stories get to claim ground without acknowledging the existing ground they used in their advance.

    DRM is RIGHT OUT since it doesn't just evaporate the moment the copyrights actually expire, so the things so locked are technologically encumbered in -excess- of the rights granted by copyright.

    In terms of non-commercial copying… I am of the "so what" school. I think copyright should be a "no butchering" and "no bogarting profits" protection. But I don't think it should be a decades long license to toll for literal reproduction or "sampling" . Yea, a tricky line to draw. But a line I think should be drawn.

    The idea that our culture, the songs of my youth, the songs of my today even, are not mine is ridiculous.

    It is the structure of the law, and common sense, that what is made by the mind alone, and then communicated to another mind, is a public good. That we -artificially- grant back to the creator particular exclusive rights is a reward and and a thank you.

    When I write, which I do, I -don't- -own- those words. Not really. Not if I show them to people anyway, because once I do that those words, if they have any value, belong to those people too. They couldn't divest themselves of them and give them back to me if they wanted. "What has been seen can not be un-seen" is a truth, not just a meme. So once I set my words free they are not mine. They are not "property". They can not be stolen or borrowed. They are contagion.

    People have been writing and creating music since the dawn of time, and pretty much for the pure applause. When we as a society decided to give the artist a chance to live on their effort, largely because we don't need them out plowing the fields these days, we didn't promise them luxury or a lifetime's earnings for "pop goes the world."

    The record RIAA's charter says they exist -solely- to promote the distribution of music. Well guess what, it distributes itself these days. Why haven't they declared victory and left the field?

    They are profiteering douchebags. PERIOD. They are redundant and need to be laid off.

    See all the short arguments are too short. The long of it is that everything you have been raised to expect of fame and fortune and the production of the arts is less than a century old. It is starting to topple since the means of production has finally re-caught-up with the means of distribution. Music used to be all live, and it was only worth the cost of the one ticket each. Music got to be almost all recorded, and that was expensive. Now that it isn't expensive any more to record or distribute, the temporary disparity is dead.

    The law just hasn't caught up to this microscopic 100-year oddity and its necessary demise.

    Artists aren't -supposed- to be block-busters. It's bad for them. It inflates their egos and then you get atrocious "solo projects" and bald trollops falling out of limos.

    This money for art thing is an effing disaster for the arts -and- the money.

  533. Wil Hutton says:

    Ben, what you're talking about is distribution of a copyrighted work. It doesn't matter if there is commerce or not; it's physical or digital; or it's taped to a balloon. I feel that the copyright holder should have the right to say how a work should be distributed; Penguin is in every right to tell the Carreons to remove the works that they published without permission. However, I also take a slightly different tack on copyright issues. I feel that the duration of copyright should be defined to a reasonable period of time (say, 25 years) and after that all works should pass in to the public domain. No reprinting, re-releasing, renewing, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. The litmus test there is, of course, availability to the public – the day that your work is introduced to the world in a mass format, the clock starts ticking. During that time, the copyright holder enjoys all of the protections that copyright holders currently do – including the right to distribute the work. The reason for that is I feel overly long (currently, effectively infinite) copyright duration hurts free exchange of ideas. I do not feel that short term control (such as preventing someone from digitally distributing a work while it is in print) does the same harm. However, there are copyright holders out there that had, at one point, made a work available but have no intention of ever letting their work see the light of day again. They hold it close to their chest, forever out of print, and resist any attempts to resurrect it. I've seen this with roleplaying game publishers; I've also read that the large majority of recorded music is kept perpetually out of print by the record labels. To me, that's cheating society. Now of course, I'm not a lawyer and it might not be feasible for copyright to work that way, but hey it's my little pipe dream.

  534. Chris R. says:

    RW, I don't disagree with anything you said. I think copyright is broken, I don't think distributors should be the ones who own it. I think creators should be owners if anything. I also agree with Wil that there should be a time limit that can't be renewed. However I do see initial flaws in your relation to the past. In the past there where no mediums other than live performances for music, publishing wasn't wide spread, and paintings were created once and sold. However today people want their own copy, to play/read/view at their choosing. In the past an artist controlled where they performed music etc. and if they wanted to charge for that, they could. If I want to control a piece of art, music, or literature (as to view/listen/read) for myself, I think it's fair that I pay for that right. Really to fix the system, we would need to make it so copyrights weren't transferable. I also agree that digital locks like DRM and "licensing" software is an abuse of the whole system. I am pissed that I can't play Diablo III unless I have internet connectivity in fact. I still think that I should pay for a copy of it though, if I want to play it.

  535. azteclady says:

    @ Ben I don't think copyright works the way you think it works.

  536. Ben says:

    Chris,

    I am indeed saying that an individual should not be constrained in what patterns they can communicate or to whom.

    Because, in the end, that is all that a copyrighted work is, yes? A pattern

    As to paintings – imitation has a long history, stretching back to antiquity – the distinction our modern society seems to be one of accuracy and efficiency.

    We reproduce these patterns passively – just through observing, memorizing and cogitating upon them – yet, when we use technology to augment our natural faculties, some nondescript event transpires to make it wrong.

    Ownership of physical things is also exclusive – it is the reason why theft is even a problem. If one could copy your neighbor food, without depriving them of food, would that be wrong? Is it wrong to copy the way that your neighbor stacks and orders their food?

    Claiming ownership of a configuration of binary digits, to me, seems preposterous. At most, I believe we should be able to claim some right to any concrete value that they add, which is why I think that copyright, in any form, ought to apply if and only if it concerns commerce.

  537. W Ross says:

    @Ben So I write a book. Then you give it to everyone. How do I write for a living? Should anyone who does anything that can be replicated just quit, or should they work for you entirely for free?

  538. Ben says:

    AztecLady,

    Perhaps I do not. I understand it to be that when you copyright a composition, in this case of a book, you are being given the exclusive rights of an ordered set of characters, as well as a combinatorial set of ordered sets, consisting of any of the component members therein.

    So if A writes book M{n0, n1, n2…nx},
    B 'buys and reads' M{n1…nx}
    B writes L{M{n1…nx}}
    Person B gives person C L{M{n1…nx}}

    Then person B has violated person A's 'copyright' because he has reproduced – at least in part – M{n0… nx}.

    Am I incorrect?

  539. Chris R. says:

    @Ben, maybe you misunderstand the issue above (if not, I apologize). On the sites that are being issued the DMCA notices, they reproduced in full the works in question without modification other than how they are distributed and are allowing people to read them with unfettered access. There is no building upon the works or sampling thereof.

  540. Ben says:

    W Ross, well, a more realistic alternative would be a 'crowd' patronage model.

    People like your stories, they pay you to write them a story. People appreciate your music, they fund your composition of a song. People enjoy your painting, they commission a painting.

    With crowdfunding sites as they are, this would seem to me to be a model that more closely approximates the reality of what is happening. Owning a pattern is as patently (hehe) ridiculous as owning the representation of that pattern that occurs in our own, biological memory.

  541. Ben says:

    Oh, sorry.

    No, I understood that they had added no value to the works, just reproduced them (So in the previous example person b would be writing the set of all elements on M into L, instead of just the elements n at one to n at x).

    I was just meaning that I do not think it is correct to restrict access to information and ideas, like that.

    But then, on an anecdotal note, I got annoyed when I visited Yale and I had to get special written permission to enter the stacks.

    And that was purely physical and exclusive (and also, in hindsight the policy was enacted for a completely reasonable goal – student guests had previously carelessly ruined several valuable documents).

    So perhaps my views on copyright are colored by a deeper conceit that "All information should be made readily available to me!" That's what my friend surmises from that episode, anyways. :)

  542. John Ammon says:

    @Ben

    As someone who regularly "creates", I'm very protective of my work, nothing infuriates an artist more than someone trying to pass off your work as theirs.

  543. AlphaCentauri says:

    Wow, I can't believe they're throwing out the package unopened, after all this publicity. Auction it on eBay unopened. Considering what people paid for a grilled cheese sandwich that looked like Jesus ….

    The page of "hate emails" on rapeutation is a hoot. He's equating a courteous email explaining why he doesn't have standing under California law to bring a suit against the fundraiser with a one-line email saying, "fuck you and rot in hell, assturd." There are just no filters in his frontal lobe at all.

    I'm sure the neuropharmacologists of the world would love to know exactly what combination of recreational chemicals produced the Carreon family.

  544. Jeff S says:

    10 bucks says they just set the package there, snapped the photo, and then greedily opened it like a 4 year old on Christmas morning.

  545. Narad says:

    Claiming ownership of a configuration of binary digits, to me, seems preposterous.

    This is a very odd thing to say in light of all the set-theoretic posturing. You're basically claiming that it would be "preposterous" for anything that is representable to be owned. Your very noggin is under the Bekenstein bound.

  546. Wil Hutton says:

    Okay, this is way-past-bedtime-dewombing day-Newcastle-induced rambling. For thousands of years, artists have been fostered by the wealthy, who owned the works once they paid the artists. The idea that before permanent recording of non-tangible works (or the ability to take photographs/copies) this was somewhat different is post-R.U. Sirius "information wants to be free" crap (to me, cyberpunk is 1990s hippy stuff and I *like* cyberpunk) – the only things that "society" owned were those that were so widely disseminated, such as folk songs or legends, that there was no value in controlling them. Artists need to eat, and much wealthier people who wanted pretty things made that happen. To whit, someone -a publisher, a recording company, a rich investor – paid or loaned real cash monies for an artist (the Ramones, Philip K. Dick, Andy Warhol) to produce an artistic work. While, in a philosophical sense, that work is "society's", the investment that the "patron" put into it should see some kind of return. Whether it was 500 years ago or now, that means controlling how that work is reproduced. Just because you *can* distill that work into a bunch of 0s and 1s and distribute it far and wide, doesn't mean you or anyone else *should* be able to do so with impunity, any more you should be able to walk into an unlocked house and watch their cable (which is the proper analogy – nothing is stolen, but do you really want strangers in your house using your stuff?). Conversely, something that winds up worming its way into the collective societal subconscious – say Nine Inch Nails or Star Wars- deserves at some point to be liberated from the patron's grasp (the record label or George Lucas) and placed into the hands of the public domain, because honestly after long enough time has passed if they're still holding on to it they're being greedy douchenozzles. Plus, by the time it's gotten to the point that everyone knows the meaning of "It's A Trap!", it's very difficult to argue that George Lucas has any real control over the work anyway. The idea is to strike a balance between balancing the creator's, or the rights holder's, interest versus that of society at large with the weight toward the right's holder at the beginning with an increasing share going toward society as time goes on.

  547. @AlphaCentauri: to be fair, he does say on the page that he's including emails that made him think.

    How those are "hate" emails is beyond me. That 90% of unsolicited comments and emails on the internet come from feral children who somehow managed not to electrocute themselves while typing out obscenities (and the other 10% consisting of constructive criticism or spam) is not a novel observation.

  548. Ben says:

    "Your very noggin is under the Bekenstein bound."

    Hm? Most systems, save for a gravitational singularity, lay 'beneath' the Bekenstein bound. That is why it is used, as a computational upper limit within a given region. If my noggin' was one of the relatively few examples of a system above such a theoretical computational limit, I think we would all be in a grave amount of peril. Oh the heat I would radiate!

    As to "You're basically claiming that it would be "preposterous" for anything that is representable to be owned."

    No that is not the claim put forth, because a set is not it's powerset. They share combinatorial elements, but not the same mathematical identity. Let us examine more closely;

    We will start with a supposition that I hope we can both agree to;

    A car may be owned.

    What people might call 'common sense', yes? (Unless, I suppose, one object to private ownership… Or just private ownership of cars.)

    Well, a car can certainly be represented by something – it can be represented by a symbol or ordered set of symbols (as a word) it might be represented by diagram, a schematic, or even a set of information that represents it down to the quantum level :D

    We still both agree that the car can be owned, regardless of our ability to represent it, yes?

    So, suppose now that we have a massive garage, with a massive number of light switches in it – and that each light switch's state could be used to adjust the subatomic state of a space within this massive, magical garage.

    If that individual then takes the garage he owns, the light switches he owns and proceeds to flip the light switches, one by one, to precisely reproduce that car – can he be said to have deprived the car owner of his car?

    I would hope we can agree that this is, tautologically, not the case – because he reproduced it. Our original owner still has their car, but there are now two cars; originator and perfect facsimile.

    Sweeping out further, has our magical garage deprived the owners manufacturer of something?

    Certainly we might say that the manufacturer is deprived of 'potential business' – yet just as certainly we could say that another manufacturer would deprive them of 'potential business', should they create an entirely different car.

    We might say that another manufacturer creating another car is intrinsically different – a car manufacturer should own all of the representations of their car, all of the ways that it might be recreated. By that account, they should own the representation that occurs passively, in our own little magical garage in our 'noggin'.

    The previous loose set theory/literary analog demonstrate that while I may own an instance or object, I may not (or should not reasonably allowed to) own an abstract construct (or the results of it's independent reproduction).

  549. Nibor says:

    @Ben I can't say I fully understand all you are saying but I am getting the idea that it is intellectual property what is hard for you to grasp because it is not physically to grasp.

    It is not a car, a book, a song where the problem lays it is that car, that book and that song.

    Coping that car is wrong, when you make a car that is not a copy or a close copy (and what is close copy is a huge debate often fought in court see Apple v Samsung), that is perfectly okay.

    You made an analogy about a chair, let’s use that one:
    A. You designed (new unique design, so not a copy of existing design) and made a chair
    B. You give/sell the chair to someone
    C1. He/she makes a chair (no problem)
    C2. He/she copies your design and makes a chair like yours without your permission (problem)

    And you don't own that new chair, you own the design of that new chair. (it is not a physical thing)

    It is not a chair that composes the problem here, but it is the ungraspable thing called idea and design that is baffling and hard to get for me too (my mind suffers some of the same problems as yours does, as I understand, not that I am suffering by the way ;-) ).

    There are things that can’t be copyrighted like a chair, a car, a song or a book but if you make/think/design a unique one that design/idea/concept is your property (as long as you don’t sell the right to it on to someone else, like a publisher or a company you work for and has it in the contract that everything you make/think off in their employ is their property ), and you choice by who and how it is spread and if you earn from it or not.

    However I can use a photo or a part of a text and use it to comment on the original and that is fair use, but if I sell or distribute a copy of something without the consent of the owner, than I’m wrong,

    There are people that spread their ideas/designs and give (on forehand) everybody permission to spread it, use it as they see fit, copyright free material. (This makes it more confusing for someone like me what is allowed or not).

    Am I making some sense to you Ben?

    Side note: over here in my country a library may loan books, CD’s, etc. but they first have to buy these themselves, what if the stuff on the Nader Library are copies (not owned by N.L.) itself would that be an problem ?

  550. W Ross says:

    @Ben See that's the thing though. YOU don't want me taking your car and walking off with it, cause it's your shit that you worked hard to acquire. But when it's my shit, you suggest "Maybe crowdfund it, cause I'm gonna steal it!"

    That's an entitled point of view. I spent my entire life filling the contents of my head to be able to write, and years practicing, getting rejected by publishers, and a million other things. Then I offer a royalty free PDF for 99 cents so I don't over burden people with rights and shit, and so they can move it from device to device.

    I've done all that, and you've… uh… logged in. And presumably clicked a button.

    You're saying I shouldn't even get a lousy buck, because "information should be free, dude?" People like you are why Newton held back manuscripts for years and years rather than releasing them… because he didn't want his life's work to be stolen.

  551. W Ross says:

    @Ben And I also want to say… cut the bullshit. You want shit for free, all your enlightened nonsense is a way you trying to morally talk around the fact that you're taking a contrary position because if a small number of people in society do that they can be significantly enriched by doing so- you're not a philosopher.

    You're taking a large quantity of things that aren't free and stealing them, then saying "My way is better, look!" the way someone driving down the shoulder to escape a traffic jam does. That whole position is illusory, however, because if the world was just like you, the traffic jam would exist on the shoulder too.

    It's only a working philosophy because a small number of people decided to say "fuck the rest of society, I'm getting mine" and if EVERYONE was as selfish and entitled as you you'd end up with far less entertainment content (and especially video games- PC Gaming is nearly dead already because of piracy.)

    Simply put, you can be an asshole only because the vast majority of us choose not to be. If we were as selfish and entitled as you seem to be, the whole system would collapse under the weight of apathy and sloth.

    But no, you're totally an information warrior of the new digmillenium.

  552. John Ammon says:

    @W Ross: Based on how he forms his arguments, I'd take a bet that Ben is a math guy, in that instance I could somewhat understand his stance. People who have never created anything have a hard time understanding why we artists are protective of our work, they often don't understand the effort, time and emotional investment in a creative work. As a designer, it's a constant battle for me, proving to my customers that my time and my work is paying for. It boggles my mind that people can love my work, but then have a hard time paying money for it >_<

  553. John Ammon says:

    is worth paying for.*

  554. Mark says:

    Wow, talk about the Streisand effect…

  555. Mark says:

    More hate emails posted on Rapeutation.com

  556. Ben says:

    John,

    I create intellectual property for a living as well. Not to my own specifications (that did not work out) but to an employers. I am not an artist. I sometimes like artwork. I rarely enjoy it enough to purchase it, though I have an acquaintance who likes to go to galleries.

    W Ross, so then, reproduction must by necessity be theft. yes? I consider theft of a car to be bad because it deprives the owner of all the functionality his car. I consider replication of a certain string of binary digits to be the purpose of a computer. It seems to follow that claiming that I own any such bits arranged in that sequence would be attempting to deprive the owner of his computer, or at least partially of it's use. I do not perceive this to be 'philosophy', though I suppose that like most things it can be discussed as such.

    It is not really germane to this discussion what I do and do not engage in, but I personally do not participate in any of the peer-to-peer file sharing. Not that I believe it is unethical, but that our culture as a whole disagrees with me. It holds little benefit for me yet runs the risk that I am, in fact, wrong. Which when a viewpoint is opposed by society-at-large, seems to often be the case.

    Nibor,

    I believe that I do understand you. You believe that an idea can be owned, yes? I would contend that the only way in which an idea could be effectively owned is through utter secrecy.

  557. Chris R. says:

    Ben, let me clarify a point then, since I'm trying to understand. Lets not compare cars to music. If someone steals a book from a store is that theft?

  558. John Ammon says:

    Ben, it seems like your biggest sticking point is digital vs. physical. In your mind, are digital creations, "ones and zeros" less valuable than "physical" creations like books and cars?

    They take just as much time and effort to create, the fact that they're digital shouldn't give them any less value or worth as an item that can be stolen.

  559. Valerie says:

    Man, just when I think they've understood the Carreon (excuse me Strisand) Effect, they return to delight. I am very much looking forward to this creation TC is advertising at the moment:

    "I'm going to have to do a picture of Matt as Rudra. It won't be pretty, what with horses and boars entering his rectum and three skulls. But it will be accurate. "

    "It will be accurate." Fucking priceless.

  560. Chris R. says:

    Ben, ok. Is it because the cost of producing the physical book, shipping it, etc?

  561. Jack Cass says:

    The comments about Carreon's vocals on his "song" made me think of this http://www.rockandrollconfidential.com/hall/hall_detail.php?dd_keyid=249

  562. Ben says:

    Yes, I concede that a physical book and corresponding .epub that I can get on my Nook are of equivalent value to me. (Well, probably favoring the value of .epub's, actually – they are both cheaper and they do not take up shelf/storage space. But in the sense that they both provide the same core benefit.)

  563. Ben says:

    Chris,

    It is not. People may value things for different reasons. The store owner may value the physical book for it's ability to feed his family, or for it's importance to society, or for the labor that went into it's production or any number of other reasons.

    Stealing is wrong because resources are limited and it deprives another person of the use of that thing. It impedes our ability to decide what is crucial, what is luxury and what is superfluous.

  564. Nibor says:

    @Ben yes if you would live in a world where there is no ownership you are right but Apple would be not the compagny it is if that was true for we made laws that say a idea/design/song/story are considerd propety although it can not be held in your hand, the work put in to them is awarded with ownership even if it feels wrong it is the law and almost every designer writer creator and majority of people agree

  565. Nibor says:

    @Ben you are correct about the limited resources but this is also true for authors for there are not many real good ones and they would stop if they would not be payed so in a twist you agree

    Only you did not see original creators as a (limited) resource but they are

  566. Chris R. says:

    Ben,

    It impedes our ability to decide what is crucial, what is luxury and what is superfluous.

    I agree entirely, which is why I am against file sharing. Just because I can have it all, it doesn't mean I should. A world without pursuit, would be unimaginable to me. Choosing how to spend your resources gives the expenditure meaning in it of itself.

  567. Elegy says:

    @whoever said this was game over from all the DMCA notices

    I don't think so. Tara has explained American Buddha's response to DMCA notices. It goes something like this:
    1. Tara receives a DMCA notice
    2. Tara says "eff off, I'm a library, if you don't like it sue".

    I'm not sure where she said this and I'm typing on my phone – I think it was when she was talking about Inman NOT sending a DMCA notice to FunnyJunk first. Can anyone provide a link?

    My point is, is that IF these DMCA notices aren't pure harassment by anonymous trollers, Tara's position is that she is within the law and you'll have to sue to get the content removed. I see this resulting in two outcomes: either she doesn't get sued, because who wants to step into this rats nest of insanity, or we have lulzs for years following the court cases. Either way, I doubt she'll he removing all of her copyrighted content anytime soon.

  568. Ben says:

    Nibor,

    Huh. That is an interesting way of viewing it. You are not owning a specific ordering of ones and zeroes, but instead purchasing a more ephemeral quality along the lines of "a portion of the originator". A property that a physical craftsman may not, necessarily, imbue into their work.

    I will have to contemplate that for a time.

    Chris,

    Simply because one can does not mean that one should. I agree, might does not make right. Yet, as humans, we cannot help but reproduce thoughts in our acts of communication (thus Dawkins' meme theory).

    To me, it would appear that the resources involved are the processor, the memory and transmission method and electricity. Since the work is not consumed by the act of copying, it is not a limited resource.

    So, the instruments used all belong to private individuals acting privately – they do not prevent others from having access to an idea. In fact they increase it.

  569. Elegy says:

    Found it – and it appears I've misquoted her:

    "HE NEVER SENT EVEN ONE DMCA NOTICE TO FUNNYJUNK, which means that Funnyjunk wasn't responsible to do EVEN ONE LITTLE THING for him and his content. In the law, there's something very important: it's called "NOTICE." You can't prosecute a person without NOTICE. As the ABOL LIbrarian, don't expect me to take down your content without DMCA "NOTICE." And a letter or email doesn't qualify; a DMCA NOTICE has to be in the proper, legal form. Those are the REAL Internet Rules."

    So, sorry Tara, but I SWEAR I read somewhere on you site that you routinely ignored DMCA notices because you are a "library".

  570. Laura K says:

    Elegy…wow. And here all this time I've wondered what kind of weird shit is in the Vatican library…Tara would make it look dull…

  571. John Ammon says:

    What's a "Notice", is a "notice" something other than a type of message? I wasn't aware that "notice" was a delivery method. o_O

  572. Mark says:

    They are putting DMCA counter-notices, which, according to the Chilling Effects site means the following:

    If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]

    So, indeed, they are saying "go away, I'm a 'library'; if you disagree, sue me."

  573. Elegy says:

    @Mark

    Interesting. Is that confirmed (first hand knowledge) or just a likely assumption?

    So what happens If you file notice, receive a counter-notice, and fail to sue? Obviously the content goes back up but if it's still a violation, can you turn around and provide notice again, at a later date, or does the infringer now have right to your content by default?

  574. Mark says:

    Here's an example of NaderLibrary counter-notice

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/lit.billwrongstoc.htm

    As for the details of the DMCA process, I have no idea. The Carreons seem to be experts on this, though.

  575. Nicholas Weaver says:

    One thing on Tara's counter-notices being "go Sue Me": She's remarkably hard to sue, and everyone who might sue her knows it.

    Penguin vs The Carreons is still tied up in the court of appeal on purely jurisdictional issues (namely, can they be sued in New York. And I think Charles Carreon is right on the issue: their connection to New York is so tenuous to be irrelevant.).

    Thus in order to sue Tara on this, the copyright holder really has to sue in Arizona, or perhaps Oregon or California, and Oregon and California would be something they'd fight but might lose ("American Buddha Inc" is still an Oregon company, and you can make a very strong case that legally, Tara == Charles, and Charles has the CA bar connection).

    Beyond that, Charles will fight, for free, forever. Once its clear that they will lose more than $X, the incentives for them change from "oops, me bad" (Carreon v Inman, Toyota, debt collectors, etc) to "I'll fight forever". And since the copyright judgements are not in the $10K in legal fee range, but in the $100K+ range, Carreon will fight to the end as he's doing in Penguin v American Buddha

    So in order to smack down a site which is irrelevant, no loss of revenue, and not even a good example to make for others in the "Don't do this or get crushed category", the content owner would have to

    1) Hire local council

    2) Break the corporate veil to target the Carreons themselves

    3) And then try to extract enough value to cover their costs against a judgement-proof, pro se opponent…

    So if a copyright holder wanted to sue the Carreons, and not get stuck like Penguin in a jurisdictional morasse, it would be talking tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs to get, uhh, absolutely F-all.

  576. Elegy says:

    Apparently the Carreons actively file counter-DMCA materials, and were involved in a case against the City of Ashland over Hopsicker's "Welcome to Terror Land". So there's one instance.

    Here's the counter-notification:
    http://www.american-buddha.com/DMCA%20COUNTERNOTIFICATION2.pdf

    Here's the collected case material, up to the appeal:
    http://www.american-buddha.com/ambuvs.city.toc.htm

    Don't know if this stuff has been floated to all of you professional kibitzers on Popehat – if it has, I apologize for the repost.

  577. Elegy says:

    @All

    Any knowledge of the Carreon's filing of counter-DMCA notices should be directly attributed to Mark, not me – he's the one who pointed it out in the first place.

    Wasn't trying to steal your thunder, Mark. Sorry. :-)

  578. Mark says:

    I don't have any thunder to steal. All I did was a simple Google search. :)

    BTW: the concept of having a freely available digital library is new to me. I would expect a library to have at least a membership requirement before allowing users to view the books. Anyone else know of similar sites?

    The closest that I know is the Gutenberg Project, but it only carries books in the public domain (or otherwise copyright-free).

  579. John Ammon says:

    So the solution to avoid being sued for copyright violation is to be a poor-as-dirt, stubborn lawyer with a tenuous grasp of copyright law?

  580. Mark says:

    To correct my previous post: actually they (NaderLibrary/American-Buddha) do have a membership program, but it is not enforced when you attempt to "check out" the books.

  581. Nicholas Weaver says:

    John: Yeah, and not be doing the same infringing activities that a lot of other (bittorrent) users are doing, so it isn't worth making an example out of you.

  582. Elegy says:

    @Nicholas Weaver
    My reading of this whole DMCA ordeal, to the "T". I might point out that interjecting a much larger issue into this case – how and how much a library is allowed to reproduce online – is a brilliant defensive strategy, because it will stretch the legal process into YEARS as it moves up the chain of courts in appeals, etc.

    In this case, the Carreons' reputation as a bat-shiat crazy litigatious douchebag will actually serve him well, because any copyright holder will weigh the costs of tangling with this guy legally, for YEARS, over REALLY STUPID interpretations of well-understood laws and back down immediately. The only people that can afford to really

    @John Ammon

    So what I'm saying is: yup, you nailed it in one.

    @Mark

    Well I didn't even know there was such a thing as a "counter-DMCA notice", so yeah, you still have some thunder. :-D

  583. Elegy says:

    Erk, that should have been:

    The only people that can afford to really tangle with the Carreons are the big publishing houses with lots of in-house legal representation.

  584. azteclady says:

    Can a number of people whose copyrights are being violated by the nader library and/or the american buddha site file some sort of class action against them? If so, would that reduce the individual expense to the point where it would be worth the effort?

  585. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Elegy: Actually, that doesn't help too much. Penguin v American Buddha smacked down the "We are a library" bit very early on. Things like Carreon's gross misreading of the DMCA and California Charity statutes don't last very long.

    The tie-up on Penguin v American Buddha is much more about "does Charles do enough 'business' in New York to be sueable in a New York court". Well, if people actually bought his book, he might not survive the appeal. Which, to my mind is unfortunate, because it means that basically anyone who ever sold anything online to anybody can now be sued in any state for the sole convenience of the plaintiff.

    (that Carreon is notorious for having done the opposite: rushing to the courthouse in California to slow things down in a case where both sides were in Maryland, is just a bit of irony on the top…)

  586. Nicholas Weaver says:

    erk: Being a big publishing house doesn't help, they need local council: Thats probably why Penguin is fighting so hard in New York rather than just going "eh, whatever" and moving the venue to Arizona.

  587. Elegy says:

    @Nicholas Weaver

    Obviously, I am not a lawyer – thanks for the correction. :-D

  588. Chris R. says:

    Ben, thanks for clarifying your point of view numerous times. I think I can now sufficiently say that while I respect your point of view, I disagree with it. I do not think ideas and actual bodies of work are the same. I have many ideas, I act on few, and invest substantial time in fewer.

  589. Wil says:

    Ben, I think your disconnect from most other commenters (Chris R., myself) is that we distinguish between the idea and the expression of that idea. You are right – ideas cannot be copyrighted and once they are out in the wide world, they can't be controlled. However, the specific expression of an idea – whether it be a book, a painting, or a song – is completely unique to the person that created it. When another person copies the expression of an idea down to the last detail – whether it is through analog or digital means – they are effectively giving the middle finger to everything that the creator put into that work. There is no part of the work that you can point to and say, "This came from a childhood memory, this was a profound thought." The work and the creator are intimately linked in a way that goes beyond the idea itself, and that link manifests from how the idea was expressed in choosing specific colors, words, or notes. Because of this, simply copying a creator's work with no regard to the wishes of the creator because you think that it should be allowed deprives the creator of something less tangible than money or use – but doesn't make it any less of a theft.

    And hopefully I haven't gone full Donna Barstow…because obviously there are limits. ABOL goes above and beyond, seemingly based on a flimsy interpretation of what it means to be a "library". Barstow goes off the rail by calling any and all "copying" theft. The sane solution lies somewhere in between the two.

  590. Mike K says:

    I'm shocked after reading through the emails that Charles posted. I would say most of them were rather polite. I imagine that most of the emails he actually got weren't polite, but so far calling them "Hate eMail" seems a bit extreme.

  591. Christine says:

    After reading some of these "Hate" E-mails, I have to agree with you Mike. There are some rude ones in there (those can usually be told by the subject lines or fake E-mail addresses, without having to read content) but some of them are either asking for clarification or giving advice of the "quit now before it's too late" variety. If you're looking for a great one specifically, I enjoyed page 24, from Shannon in Seattle. I kind of want to send her a thank you note for the laugh!
    Also, at charlescarrion.com, the song that's just been put up is wonderful.

  592. W Ross says:

    http://charlescarrion.com/ill-sue-you-maybe/

    OOHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SHIT SON! LOL

  593. Kelly says:

    @ W Ross: That is the best 'version' of that song yet! I am still laughing. :D

  594. W Ross says:

    I think somebody just "served" Charles Carreon. According to the rules, "it's on."

  595. McNugget says:

    I continue to be amazed that no one has taken issue with him being FJ's DMCA takedown/ notice guy. Is it reasonable, after watching his response to Inman and his response(es) to the DMCA takedown notices served on him and his wife at their personal sites, to expect *anyone* to be comfortable mailing him and and asking that their work be removed from FJ? I would love to see another artist contact him specifically about their uncredited work being used on FJ and see his reaction. it just seems so illogical to allow someone to be your legal filter who refuses to remedy any situation. He's just going to refuse to take things down and threaten lawsuits or tell them if they want it gone they need to sue, just like he's doing now, and I just can't see how using that as your blanket response helps FJ or anyone paying him to be their DMCA takedown notice guy.

  596. Hughhh says:

    All due respect to Bryan Durel (AKA "admin" at FJ), I don't think he had any idea what kind of person he was engaging when he initially asked CC to write that fateful letter to Inman. Durel probably typed "DMCA internet specialist attorney" into Lycos or HotBot, and CC's name popped up.

    In short, I believe Durel operates with very limited financial, technical, social and mental resources.

    Sidenote: Y'all have been hilarious, insightful, informative and thoroughly entertaining throughout all X parts of this sorry tale. As my man Andy Kaufman would say, T'ank you veddy much!

  597. Ann Bransom says:

    Quick update: all the money from LLB's Delicous Oatmeal that Might Have Been has been donated to the two charities.

    http://blog.annbransom.com/2012/07/adventures-in-first-amendment-and.html

    I know many of you here donated, and I just wanted to say thank you SO MUCH. Let's keep fighting the good fight against censorship!

  598. Tali says:

    Congrats Ann! I'm so glad you were able to raise so much!

  599. n o 0 n e says:

    when did a TOS get approved? i remember seeing this community shouting down such suggestions as well as making suggestions to the Carreons about how to improve their sites in order to fight such attacks. any way, those Carreons. . . Cray Cray!

    FROM TC on July 19 — "Charles told me that he found himself on the Popehat.com site today, looking for something about someone, and he found a discussion of whether they should attack American Buddha Online Library with a TOS complaint, and they agreed that they would. They think they are going to determine all of our lives by group concensus. They are a bunch of wannabe Communists. I went fo find the reference, and it was just so very, very horrible, like being with a pack of wolverines or hyenas, it was so very, very ugly, I had to get away! I couldn't get through Robert Anton Wilson's "Illuminatus! Trilogy, either, for the very same reason. It was too ugly."

    damn, what a liar!

  600. Hughhh says:

    If only Tara would provide a link to said reference, we could all know what she's talking about. Or maybe not.

  601. Hughhh says:

    I forgot to mention earlier — for those trying to decipher CC's "singing" on the YouTube video linked by dex — that the lyrics are on the front page of rapeutation.com.

    Psycho Santa, Qu'est Que C'est , Fa fa fa fa fap FAPFAPFAP

  602. Hughhh says:

    TC has ninja edited her most recent post (quoted above by no0ne) to splice in images of and references to "hungry ghosts" and George A Romero's Night of the Living Dead.

    They said they had gone over every aspect of our life with a fine tooth comb, looked at our house on Google earth, checked our tax records, property records, and history of lawsuits. Like they were just going to eat us up.

    I HAD TO GET AWAY FROM THOSE PEOPLE, IF THEY WERE PEOPLE! IT'S LIKE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD OVER THERE.

    [image of the movie poster]

    Her post now concludes with this:

    Strangely, Popehat.com, and all of the sites associated with Matt Inman, are professional gossip/slander sites that accuse OTHERS of gossiping and slandering! Everything they are guilty of, they accuse others of doing. It's sick, and aberrational, and not at all funny. They FEED off of people's hate.

    They examine every issue very crudely, and then declare victory in their analysis.

  603. Hughhh says:

    And now we have an actual new post. Watch out, easily-identifiable Mike K, you Internet terrorist, you!

    I guess you'll have to ask David Wynn Miller the answer to that profound punctuation question, Mike K. I hope it doesn't keep you up at nights! I think you should ask Matt Inman to do a nasty cartoon series on dashes and no-dashes, because he knows EVERYTHING about grammar, and then all you Internet terrorists can be schooled properly about THE WORD.

    If anyone's wondering, these late night transcriptions are brought to you thanks to my significantly non-US-related timezone. :) I'm not sure Tara can cite the same as her reason for being up at this godly hour.

  604. Joe Pullen says:

    Popehat is a "professional gossip/slander site" – who knew?

  605. M. says:

    What the fuck is she blathering about? Tara, please go back to your anti-psychotics. They miss you very much.

  606. PLW says:

    I'm pretty sure it's a thoroughly amateur gossip/slander site.

  607. Valerie says:

    I think TC and CC have basic reading comprehension problems. Its pretty clear to me that the majority of voices on this site did not support TOS attacks or any attempt to silence their crazy, crazy voices. A few people did, but a majority stood firm for freedom to make yourself look like a wack-job. I think there was more support for copyright holders to enforce the DMCA, but that as someone pointed out, unless someone is willing to engage with this litigious crew for a very long time, that is not likely.

    In fact, I believe that Satirical Charles created a petition requesting that Photobucket refund the Carreons' money (not sure if it was Satirical Charles or someone else, but the top of the petition has Charles on a Dino with a rocket launcher, so I am assuming it is).

    http://www.change.org/petitions/photobucket-com-make-their-tos-clear-refund-carreon-s-money

  608. Thorne says:

    Oh, and really… we "feed off of people's hate"…??

    I think it's pretty clear we all feed off of Tara's batshit insanity.
    It's the only other constant in the universe besides hydrogen.

  609. Valerie says:

    @ Thorne Yup.

    and Tara, if you come back to this site, I would point out that we are not the ones shooting videos like Psycho Santa and photoshopping penises on our "enemies" pictures (I do wonder if you have a Nixonian enemies list of rapeutationists).

    The records people looked at about your husband and your family were public information. Don't start suing the universe if you don't want people to look for evidence of past malfeasance and hypocrisy. You have a website full of pirated material, crude propaganda, and other assorted strange shit. I imagine very few people knew or cared about the site until you & Chuckles decided to file a baseless lawsuit because your feelings were hurt. And then they called you out.

    I mean come on – you posted crap about Matt Inman's mom who had literally nothing to do with the matter. Why? I can only assume because you are a vindictive nut job who can't see that doing so is fundamentally different from looking into Charles Carreon's colorful legal history.

    One last thing – you cited exactly 1 example of a so called grammar Nazi here. You might find a few more. They are not the majority & they are not similar to Jared Longer, so please don't waste the SPLC's time writing an email to an organization that has better shit to do than listen to your weird-ass conspiracy theories.

    Step away from the computer, put on your tin foil hat, and everything will be ok. But if you want to keep publishing nonsensical junk and inviting ridicule, that's cool too. Just have an iota of self-awareness.

  610. Valerie says:

    Also, when you say, "Charles told me that he found himself on the Popehat.com site today, looking for something about someone," can I assume that is an individual you wish to add to your rapeutationist enemies list?

    —Your Illuminati Friend and Hungry Ghost (damn I could go for some ribs right now…

  611. Well, at least Mr. Carreon was finally able to find himself.

  612. Mark says:

    Judge Chen ruled that Carreon v Inman and Doe v Carron are not related.

    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.256114/gov.uscourts.cand.256114.33.0.pdf

    (Thanks to whomever is keeping us updated via RECAP)

  613. W Ross says:

    Tara, we know you're reading this and nobody cares or is scared of you. Something real happened in America today, and nobody cares about your attention whoring or moron of a husband.

    Today is not the day for someone who likes firing a gun at people to run their mouths. More important stuff is going on.

  614. Thorne says:

    "Awakening", by Tara Carreon

    There once was a man from Nantucket
    Who was actually a secret Illumnati stooge
    Blah-blah… Buddhists….
    Something… something… Conspiracy…
    GodDAMN, my poetry's fucking awful.

    :D

  615. Mike K says:

    Wow, I don't read her site or this thread for a couple of days and I'm accused of being a grammar nazi. Too bad she missed the part where my question was on capitalization rather than punctuation, especially since it's fairly obvious from the comment she quoted that I consider both 'email' and 'e-mail' acceptable.

    Since she was worried about my sleeping habits I should let her know that grammar has never kept me up at night. The thoughts that keep me up at night are typically fantasy or work related because I have trouble shutting down for the night.

  616. Valerie says:

    And the latest cray-cray is:

    "Matt Inman's cartoons are probably funded with our tax dollars, like all those war games the Pentagon makes for children."

    You know that box you can check on your taxes so $1 can go to the presidential race? I would love it if there was a similar box to tic to subsidize comedy (although, one could argue that funding the presidential campaign already does that, at least as long as Stewart and Colbert are on the air).

  617. S. Weasel says:

    Sorry if this has come up before, but I was just browsing cheap Kindle non-fiction and ran across Charles' bibliography. It's quite extensive.

    No, I wasn't tempted. Not even for the bargain rate of £.77 per title.

  618. Mike K says:

    Any chance of a translator for her recent series of posts? It's as if I asked what color the sky was and got an answer of "Purple monkey dishwasher". It almost seems relevant at first, if wrong, but quickly takes on the appearance of random nonsense.

  619. Grifter says:

    So I hadn't checked the TC craziness for a bit. On doing so:

    I would like to apologize for even bringing up the subject of TOSing, since obviously just bringing it up is sufficient for Tara to think it's being advocated.

    For the record: I was just looking at it from a perspective, and looking for a cohesive response to that perspective. I was never advocating (Dammit, I know better than trying to be defensive to crazy, but nonetheless I am).

    Also: the irony of her copypasting The Elements of Style is hilarious.

  620. Mark says:

    I really have no idea what she's saying, but I haven't wasted too much of my time trying to understand it either.

    I find I funny though that they (she?) can't leave that "COME HURR AND LOVE MEEEE" picture alone. Just goes to show how f'ing PISSED they (she?) must have been when they received that letter in the first place.

  621. Mark says:

    BTW: CC apparently removed all references from the Oatmeal from his site.

  622. Patrick says:

    Carreon is right that there isn't much room for legal redress when you draw the ire of the internet. But for most people(who don't have law degrees or substantial resources), there just isn't much room for legal redress. Period. Internet mobbing is one of the few ways that the law can be exploited for the benefit of regular people, rather than the many ways that the law is exploited to people's determent. (e.g. threatening frivolous lawsuits, patent and copyright bullying, lobbying, and escaping prosecution through application of expensive lawyers and legalized bribery.)

    I guess that, in this context, Carreon's behavior makes perfect sense.

  623. Mark says:

    TC is still fuming about all this ordeal. Impressive the amount of hatred in her. Now she flat out confirms one of the theories that circulated on this forum a couple of posts ago.


    AN EXCEPTIONAL, HEROIC, OFF-THE-CHARTS, ABSOLUTELY UNHEARD-OF lawyer would be one who took a hit for his client, like Charles did. He completely took all the heat in this matter in order to protect his client. And to stand up for women. There was no way he was going to get out of doing that, while he had ME as a wife. I don't let my husband bend over and take it in the ass from no sadist Internet punks! Go and rape some other man, you perverts.

  624. John Ammon says:

    Man, they really feed off each other's cray cray, don't they?

    Yeah Tara, Chas is a "hero"… like all men who have the integrity to sue charity based on butt-hurt acquired from a drawing that they took way out of context.

    This is the part where I roll my eyes.

  625. Valerie says:

    It seems like most of what she is posting now has shit all to do with Matt Inman, except that she randomly inserts his name in the middle of her 'ahem' meditations… on um… whatever the fuck that mind dump is about.

    Come on Tara, it's time to find a new nemesis and start a new thread.

  626. W Ross says:

    Nope, now Charles has become qualified to diagnose mental health:
    http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=896&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=130&sid=c4396278788bb012879b30c209c46e5b
    "SMISH: Social Media-Induced Self Hate
    by Charles Carreon

    A new mental disease for the Internet age is proposed for inclusion in the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders: Social Media-Induced Self-Hate ("SMISH"). This proposal stems from the writer’s inquiry into a closely-related disorder, dubbed SMIDS for Social Media-Induced Delusional Disorder, and explores the likelihood that both SMISH and SMIDS may simultaneously afflict one individual, with one disorder or the other gaining the upper hand due primarily to the nature of the sufferer’s interactions with Social Media.

    The primary subjective characteristics of SMISH are a sense of insecurity and compulsive reinforcement-seeking behavior through Social Media. Secondary characteristics are a fear of judgment by Social Media Peers (“SMPeers”) and compulsive propitiatory behavior intended to head off judgment and establish trust-links that will protect the SMISH-sufferer from becoming an Object of Hatred among their SMPeers. A tertiary characteristic is total involvement with the Social Media world and a corollary loss of interest in relationships with Real World Peers aside from interactions within the Social Media world. At that point, SMISH has ensnared the sufferer in a cycle of addictive behavior from which they will likely exit only after a period of serious self-assessment, or an intervention by concerned friends and relations.

    The objective indications of SMISH usually manifest sequentially and in conjunction with the emergence of the subjective characteristics outlined above. Victims generally progress from incipient SMISH, characterized by an inclination to overvalue SMPeers and devalue Non-Social Media relationships, to acute SMISH, characterized by increasingly compulsive abuse of Social Media, to the third level of true addictive behavior, characterized by frenzied posting and craven toadying to SMPeer authority-figures. The disease often takes hold in an acute form over the course of a few evenings, and progress to a chronic condition over a period of weeks.

    SMISH does not require any particular type of host subject to become established, and the notion that only certain types are predisposed should be rejected at the outset. Narcissistic personalities might seem less inclined to SMISH than insecure types; however, the desire to gain mass approval of SMPeers appears to reveal hidden faults in even robust personalities, that, like gullies that turn to ravines overnight in a torrential flood, become deep fissures, exposing the raw heart of a painfully-suffering ego.

    SMISH can produce consequences that seem merely pathetic, as when one sees a young girl posting compliments in praise of aggressive male personalities in hopes of receiving a word of approval. For youthful sufferers of this stripe, moderate treatment modalities, including redirection of the individual toward non-Social Media relationships and relationship counseling, may be entirely adequate. However, SMISH can evolve in two other identified directions: a suicidal state, or SMIDS.

    Suicide due to SMISH is an established phenomenon for which a brief online search will provide sufficient anecdotes to eliminate doubt as to whether SMISH can be fatal. What is essential is that caregivers realize that once suicidal ideation has taken hold of a SMISH-sufferer, the condition cannot be dismissed as merely an Internet neurosis. Treatment for SMISH-induced suicidal ideation must be as radical as the condition, with the understanding that the stakes are life and death. The sufferer’s use of Social Media must be terminated immediately, all communication with or about SMPeers must cease, and an intensive program of self-approval must be put in place. Physical exercise, outdoor recreation, and non-reflective outward-oriented activities should supplant the previous introverted, obsessive attachment to Social Media. Such an aggressive course of therapy may well produce dramatic results in a short period of time if the disease is caught before it progresses too far.

    The evolution of SMISH into SMIDS is far more insidious, however, because SMIDS-sufferers outwardly direct their pain towards the Objects of Hatred who are their chosen online prey. Like road-rage on the streets and highways, SMIDS creates hazards for other individuals of which society must be mindful. Since a separate discussion of SMIDS has already been published, we will not repeat that analysis here, and rather discuss briefly why SMISH has the potential to co-exist with or turn into SMIDS.

    Simply put, SMISH is at bottom fueled by the fear of judgment by SMPeers. Among the community of SMPeers, dominant, aggressive personalities skilled in ad hominem argument and the use of pointed invective rule the roost. SMISH-sufferers are often passive personalities who lack verbal combat skills. Although initially attracted to Social Media because many of their Real World Peers are interacting online, as they learn to deploy propitiatory tactics such as shilling and toadying for their more aggressive SMPeers, they are seduced by the online environment and become addicted to its self-abasing rituals. Nevertheless, over time, they find themselves both immersed in self-hate at having sold their integrity for an impermanent sense of personal safety, and walking on eggshells, experiencing profound anxiety about the possibility of becoming an object of online derision, or most fearfully, an actual Object of Hatred ("ObHat").

    Many SMISH-sufferers adapt to their passive role online, and master the craven postures of appeasement seen on so many blogs and bulletin boards, where covens of SMISH-sufferers gather around dominant SMPeers in fulsome displays of unwholesome adulation. Many SMISH-sufferers alternate between SMISH and SMIDS on an occasional basis, joining occasionally with Social Media Mobs to hurl Cybercurses at various ObHats, thereby demonstrating their loyalty to dominant SMPeers, and ensuring themselves against becoming an ObHat themselves. Although not being entirely committed to the aggressive conduct, they nevertheless engage in it convincingly, much like an ordinary citizen who finds herself caught in a momentary mob hysteria, then later thinks better of it. Finally, some SMISH-sufferers “ripen” into the pure aggressive neurosis of SMIDS, as they discover that the only way to feel “safe” in a toxic Social Media environment is with a verbal rock in their hand, ready to give as good as they get. They have contacted their inner brownshirt, and civil society has gained a new enemy. For further discussion of SMIDS, see the related article."

  627. Hughhh says:

    Tara Carreon's mastery of Photoshop knows no bounds: http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?p=18415#18415

    WHO IS "KEN" @ POPEHAT.COM?

    Well, "KEN"? If that is your real name… o_O

  628. Nibor says:

    So if I get it right you act out (insane/differently/aggressively) to get the approvement or attention from other online people you value high.

    Hmm, sounds common clan/group/social behaviour and has its excesses when one does not understands the rules or is unable to “fit in”, this behaviour is deemed a problem or a mental illness

    Because someone might flee into making him/herself into a joke/aggressor so he/she is not accepted by compiling but accepted by being a cray/douche

    Hmm again, sound familiar someone behaves bad, puts out a lot of garbage (to entertain the masses of online people) when that does not work, tries to bully them. As that not seem to have the right response they make complete fools out of themselves by spewing the most incoherent and offensive things online.
    (please remind it has to be online, for how other than that can the highly regarded (online) individuals find their excesses)

    Then CC puts his and TC’s psychiatric report on his website (where he also tell the(online) world that he raped his reputation) to tell us what?

    That it all is not his/her fault, but it is the (online)peers pressure that they feel that made them do the things they do, so an insanity plea?

    This is what he is saying or did I get it wrong?

    Note to myself: Maybe I misunderstand it all and he actually thinks that I am or others like me are the ones that have the illness, hmm I believe my shrink will disagree with that ;-)

  629. Valerie says:

    I believe Ken has already been "outed" by another of his "victims," Donna Barstow. Sorry Tara, the mystery has been solved. :(

  630. Ken says:

    That's some weapons-grade crazy over there.

    And I've lost track of the number of times my full name has been posted or linked to here or published elsehwere. She's a pretty incompetent researcher.

  631. John Ammon says:

    Am I the only one who finds deep irony in Chas and Tara investigating potential "mental illnesses"?

  632. Mark says:

    This is all recycled bullshit, pardon my french.

    TIDS – Tantra-Induced Delusional Syndrome: http://www.naderlibrary.com/tids.htm

  633. Valerie says:

    @ Ken Wasn't your full name also in the podcast you did on the Oatmeal case? Is it possible she didn't listen to that? Seems unlikely given that you are on her enemies list.

    Well, I can't speak for everyone, but since I don't want my criticism of censorious asshattery to be considered as "COMPLETELY ILLEGITIMATE" by whatever rules Tara believes that I believe in, here goes:

    Hello, my name is Valerie O'Gilain, and I am addicted to Popehat.

    Thanks Carreons, I wouldn't have known this blog existed without your "weapons grade crazy." You have added sunshine to the day of this laid-off constitution-loving social studies teacher. :)

  634. Valerie says:

    Also, if you are the head of the Boston Mob, do you know where I could buy a horse's head on the cheap? I need it for… personal reasons.

  635. Ken says:

    If you want to know what kind of liars these Inman guys are, they claim to have the RIGHT to know the "true creditor party," have "the true character and principal nature of the proceedings" identified, have the true party APPEAR, and be told the TRUE NATURE AND THE CAUSE OF WHY THEY ARE IN FRONT OF THEIR COURT (KANGAROO COURT, IN THIS INSTANCE), and yet they act anonymously against us. The charge against Tara and Charles Carreon is being led by "Ken" at Popehat, who does not reveal his true name, and has private registration for his domain at WhoIs. He claims to be a lawyer, but so does David Wynn Miller, and so did Stephen Michael Cohen, and a lot of other con men. Impersonating a lawyer is a strategy of many a fraudster. He could be the head of the Boston Mafia for all his stupid followers know. They could be working for the Devil himself.

    WHO IS "KEN" AT POPEHAT.COM? WE DEMAND TO KNOW HIS AND ALL THE NAMES OF OUR ACCUSERS! OTHERWISE, THESE ATTACKS MUST BE CONSIDERED AS COMPLETELY ILLEGITIMATE BY THEIR OWN RULES.

  636. John Ammon says:

    Not surprisingly, they show a complete lack of situational awareness and weak Google-fu. I was able to figure out exactly who Ken was after following this blog with just a little bit of Googling.

    Sorry Ken, for those of us who's google-fu is strong, your identity is not secret :P Of course, regarding conspiracy-nuts who don't believe anything and don't know how to "internets" very well, you're completely safe, your mystique remains intact!

  637. Ken says:

    Many people figured out who I am.

    And that's before my name was published multiple times on this site. And before I linked, multiple times, to other places that reveal my name. And before multiple people posted blog posts commenting on my identity being public. And before several nutcases pursuing me created YouTube videos and hate sites about me and my writing at the blog. And before multiple blogs, forums, and news sites began routinely referring to me by my full name in linking here.

    Seriously. At this point, if you can't figure out who I am, you're painfully crazy, tragically stupid, or intractably lazy.

  638. Mark says:

    Sorry, TC, but you don't get to demand anything.

  639. Mark says:

    I also find funny that she "demands" something, but doesn't provide an avenue where people can reply to her "demands".

  640. Valerie says:

    Is TC "painfully crazy, tragically stupid, or intractably lazy?" The answer is D. All of the above.

    Seriously, cutting & pasting aside, how lazy is it to just toss Matt Inman into your existing Al Capp cartoonist Illuminati plot?

    As I recall, she just basically cut and pasted a bunch of cartoons and other crap, said Capp had conspired to kill John Lennon and then said that Inman=Capp and John Lennon = Chas.

    There is nothing worse than a lazy conspiracy theorist.

  641. Ken says:

    Also:

    It has been reported (source unknown to the writer) that every lawyer in existence and every lawyer coming up has to take a SECRET OATH to support the bankruptcy. This seems to make sense after [I] read about Mr. Sweet's CASE FILE DISAPPEARANCE discussed below. There is more to it. Not only do they promise to support the bankruptcy, but the lawyers and judges also promise never to reveal who the true creditor party is in the bankruptcy proceedings. In court, there is never identification and appearance of the true character and principal of the proceedings. This is where you can get them for not making an appearance in court. If there is no appearance of the true party to the action, than there is no way the defendant is able to know the true NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACTION. You are never told the true NATURE AND THE CAUSE OF WHY YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THEIR COURT. The court is forbidden to tell you that information. That's why, if you question the true nature and cause, the judge will say, "It's not my job to tell you. You are not retaining me as an attorney and I can't give you legal advice from the bench. I suggest you hire a lawyer."

    SHE'S ON TO US!!!! SHE'S ON TO US ALL!!!! Initiate Protocol Seven Sigma! Notify our man in the Vatican! Tell the Pentagon agents to wipe all data files! Activate the secondary fluoride effects! Disinter Oliver Wendell Holmes! Somebody call Matt! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, SOMEONE CALL MATT INMAN AND ASK HIM WHAT TO DO!!!!

  642. Valerie says:

    @Ken Roger that. Sanding the monkey.

  643. John Ammon says:

    Our precious bodily fluids!

  644. Shannon Lynch says:

    Maybe they will make a song about you Ken :)

  645. Mark says:

    Roger that, I'll keep the lasagna flying. 18291.

  646. Jeff S says:

    Protocol Seven Sigma. Roger that. Charlie, Tango, Cash, uh, 47, Victor, Charlie, Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman!

  647. Ken says:

    Oh dear, she's discovered what was already widely published.

    However, she remains too crazy, stupid, or lazy to read or comprehend the name of the author of a post:

    Kenneth Paul White signed his name "Via Angus," on his list of Ten Recommended Books at Popehat.com, where he revealed his Illuminati connections: "Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea, Illuminatus! More than anything else on this list, Wilson and Shea's satire of conspiracy theory, with a touch of Arthur Clarke, H. P. Lovecraft, and James Joyce, made me the paranoiac that I am today." Angus was a Celtic God who discovered the fountain of youth, i.e., he was a pure Illuminati god.

    I'll bet $100 that Kenneth Paul White is a member of the Order of the Golden Dawn.

    Also, she thinks that "Via Angus," where the word "Angus" is linked to a post written by someone named Angus, actually means the author "signed his name 'Via Angus.'"

    Yes, "Via" is the first name. It's a family name. It recalls my Aunt Via, who is married to my Uncle Hat-tip.

    What an utter whackjob.

  648. Ken says:

    Also note that, despite portraying herself and her verminous husband as people who defend rights, she hates defense lawyers. Big surprise.

  649. Ken says:

    I'll give her this—the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man line is a hit, a palpable hit.

    ::golf clap::

  650. Robert says:

    Yes more keep this going please.

    I. AM. ENTERTAINED.

  651. John Ammon says:

    Hahahahaha… I was wondering where she was going with "Via Angus"… I figured that was a reference to where you found part of the content for the article… that's common practice. She thought it was a name >_<

    This is how the mind of a crazy person works, they take something that's completely innocuous, insert some ignorance, and then formulate a conspiracy that apparently soothes their addled brains…

  652. Valerie says:

    Geez, Tara, thanks for ruining Ghost Busters for me. That was my favorite movie as a kid and now all it calls to mind is your crazy ass and the first amendment.

  653. Ken says:

    I must say, that miter looks very cunning on that pig.

  654. Ken says:

    It's interesting.

    Tara Carreon claims that my identity is a mystery.

    And yet:

    1. Her IP address seems to be 98.174.248.228. I say that because I checked the visitor logs on my law firm web site, and a visitor from Tuscon at that IP address visited my firm's page and my page, the same things she quotes and the same pictures she copies on her forum.

    2. The visitor logs show that she got to my firm's web site from a link in an email — suggesting someone emailed a link to her this afternoon.

    3. Yet a visitor from the same IP address in Tuscon visited the site 20 days ago — well before the "who is Ken" nonsense. Was that Charlie the Censor? Or did Tara know who I was, but just forget?

  655. John Ammon says:

    @Ken – Either are valid hypothesis.

  656. Ann says:

    @Ken – FTR, I think you look smashing in that pope hat ;)

  657. Ken says:

    Is it my imagination, or did she put lipstick on that pig?

    Plus, I think that pig's been working out.

  658. Hughhh says:

    Anyone for haiku?

    Tara Carreon
    Not too good at internets
    Photoshop is hard

    Kenneth "Popehat" White
    Miter wearing pig of death
    Hiding in plain sight

  659. Chris R. says:

    Wait so her problem with Ken is mainly based around "you are not guilty until convicted?" Isn't that the basis of the whole legal system in the US? Innocent until proven guilty? :-(

  660. @ Chris R – well, that and he's so secretive about his identity, don't you know. Oh, and she seems to have a problem with his looks – a boat very evidently missed by some hundreds of misguided women on Regretsy alone. Either they or she must be short on discernment, I guess. As to that… has she looked at Charles lately? You really have to wonder about the eye of the beholder. From where I stand, that is – to coin a phrase – SOME PIG.

    (NB I was going to link the Regretsy episode, but last time I posted a link it got spam-trapped. Easy to find, though – it appears in the Ravelympics post.)

  661. John Ammon says:

    @Hughhh – Those were so funny I shared them with my wife… reminded me of the Haiku that Kyle wrote about Cartman on South Park :P

  662. Shannon Lynch says:

    Charlie: Freedom of my speech, censor yours. I'm innocent of all crimes but you are all guilty until proven innocent.

    We are in backwards America if Charlie is correct

  663. Jess says:

    W. Ross – "SMISH: Social Media-Induced Self Hate.”

    That is great. Geez I think I just tonsil snorted my martini :-)

    I submit that both CC and TC suffer from a severe case of SMISH

    And RE TC’s statement " There was no way he was going to get out of doing that, while he had ME as a wife.” Right – so now we know who has been driving CC to do all this silly stuff. And “I don't let my husband bend over and take it in the ass from no sadist Internet punks!” Well I hate to tell her but CC has already bent over and been “rapeutationed”

  664. Thorne says:

    @ Jess

    Self-inflicted "rapeutation", at that.

    Or would that make it "masturtation"??

    ;)

  665. John Ammon says:

    Masturtation is quite a bit less offensive :P and far more true.

  666. Ann says:

    Does anyone else feel like they've heard his proposed DSM-IV diagnosis names used as sexual euphemisms on Jersey Shore?

  667. Ken says:

    As usual, she keeps changing the posts. She now grasps the existence of co-bloggers, but still doesn't know what "via" means. Plus she has now seized on the FTC disclosure in the about page and lacks the mental capacity to understand that it's satirical:

    And here's Ken's FTC disclosure. He has a relationship with the publishing industry, probably Penguin who is suing us. He's probably getting paid by them to do their dirty work against us. Penguin is dirty through and through.

    She is truly a disturbed person.

  668. Ken says:

    Besides this Popehat "author" Patrick, who listed Robert Anton Wilson as one of his favorite writers — "Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea, Illuminatus! More than anything else on this list, Wilson and Shea's satire of conspiracy theory, with a touch of Arthur Clarke, H. P. Lovecraft, and James Joyce, made me the paranoiac that I am today" — another "author" at Popehat.com is named Via Angus. Angus was a Celtic God who discovered the fountain of youth. That indicates that at least several of the authors at Popehat.com are of an Illuminati persuasion. Which means the whole lot is, as far as I'm concerned. How else could they get along with each other? On their "About" page, they indicate that this may very well be so by saying: "Naturally, the views of one author do not necessarily reflect the views of any other. Indeed, sometimes acrimonious arguments break out in comments, though these may in fact be fake altercations, staged for our own amusement at the reader's expense."

  669. John Ammon says:

    @Ken: I keep trying to visualize all of these statements and sentences entering TC's mind and being rearranged and reconstructed into a series of thoughts that somehow validate her own paranoia… It's quite beautiful (if not terribly frightening) in my mind.

    Also, how has she not figured out the "Via" thing at this point ಠ_ಠ for serious.

  670. Mark says:

    TC/CC like to invent diseases; how about a real one now?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Querulous_paranoia

  671. Valerie says:

    @ "the author" / "Patrick" / "Via Angus" / "Ken" / Illuminatus master / celtic god of youth (lucky you :) )

    Wow. This is beyond weapons grade crazy, its apocalyptic doomsday Dr. Strangelove crazy at this point.

    Also, new rule – you don't get to create your own religion if you are too lazy or stoopid to click on a link to tell you what Via Angus means. Here's a hint, Tara, Via = "way" in Latin or "by way of" in English. Click on the shiny link & the rest will become apparent.

  672. Chris R. says:

    Ken, she obviously has figured out you are a clone of Steve Jobs. Look at her last post.

  673. Thorne says:

    By Jeebus, the sheer amount of "Here's Your Sign"s Jeff Foxworthy could hand Tara would be epic in its scope.

  674. Roxy says:

    I guess Ann did all that work on the ipsum for nothing. I can just go and refresh her site from time to time, it always changes yet stays the same cray cray.

  675. BeeKay says:

    (to be pedantic, "Here's Your Sign" is Bill Engvall's schtick, not Foxworthy's, though they have performed together.)

  676. W Ross says:

    I don't know what to say at this point. I think I'm addicted to Tara Carreon. Give them a reality show

  677. John Ammon says:

    Keeping Up With The Carreons?

  678. Chris R. says:

    Carreons Gonna Carry On, new on MTV2

  679. John Ammon says:

    Carreon My Wayward Son, new on VH1

  680. W Ross says:

    Now I'm certainly no doctor, and Internet diagnosis are notoriously inaccurate, but I'm starting to think she might just suffer from the hurt that comes from the butt.

  681. Thorne says:

    @ BeeKay

    That's right.
    Total brain fart on my part.

  682. Hughhh says:

    @Ken, Tara has now edited her fourth-most-recent post, as she's now figured out what "via Angus" means.

    … another "author" at Popehat.com is named Via Angus …
    Also a quick FYI, and this may be intentional, but the heading above the "Visit the Popehat Forum!" link now links to the informative "Via Angus" YouTube video.

  683. Hughhh says:

    Grr argh, can someone fix my /blockquote tag pretty please..? How embarrassment.

  684. Mikey says:

    Hi, I've been lurking for the past month or so after following a link about the Funny Junk debacle. I love the site and wanted to make a couple comments.
    First (unfortunately), I may be forced to sue you for traumatic brain injury and severe emotional distress unless you IMMEDIATELY place appropriate warnings on all links leading to Carreon family websites. I mean really, I have a friggin MA in psychology, but trying to follow her "thoughts" made me feel like I was 10 again watching the tunnel scene in Willie Wonka! Oh, and just noting her personal post count vs the total forum postings, that's all her isn't it? Just yelling at the walls. wow.

    The other thing is I feel y'all are being selfish. If you were truly giving people, you would have already started a petition to get Tara and Charlie their own reality show. Share the wonder with the entire world!

  685. Chris R. says:

    Carreon and On and On and On, new of Spike

  686. Chris R. says:

    of = on. Just so you know.

  687. Smorz says:

    @Chris R. – So long as on /= of it clears things up:)

    TC on the other hand is hopeless.

  688. M. says:

    I think calling it a "reality" show would be ignoring the elephant in the room.

  689. A Bored Network Engineer says:

    98.174.248.228 appears to belong to the ISP 'Cox' who have a point of presence in Tuscon. Given the format of its reverse DNS name of the ISP it suggest a residental or business broadband line. Some business grade ISPs will allocate a small block of IP's to customers usually for making external servers avaliable on the internet which appears to be the case here. (My experience suggests ISP's would usually offer 1,2,4 or 8 IP's for a single small customer.)

    Now i did some digging and found two interesting things, the first is I found some old cached records suggesting that the following domains were historically run from the address 98.147.248.229

    american-buddha.com
    nakedbuddha.com
    furrychiclets.com
    http://www.furrychiclets.com
    charlescarreon.com
    joey-ramone.org

    looking at the A records for those domains it looks like AB.com and CC.com are now hosted by an external party. I dug deeper and found out that there is still an apache server running on 98.174.248.229 which currently hosts ashlandfreepress.com run by Mr Carreon himself.

    Long story short, 98.174.248.228 and 98.174.248.229 is Charles Carreon.

  690. ChimpZilla says:

    M: Can't that be said for most "reality" shows though? If most reality shows reflected most people's reality, I'd be more terrified of this world and the direction it's headed, than I already am…

  691. nlp says:

    Which Oliver Wendall Holmes do you want? The doctor or the Supreme Court Justice? You could make a valid point for either.

  692. M. says:

    @ChimpZilla: That's precisely why I don't watch reality TV.

  693. S. Weasel says:

    I'm still devastated to learn Ken isn't an adorable little boy.

    Boo. The avatars, they lie.

  694. John Ammon says:

    @S. Weasel: Does that mean you're not really an adorable weasel adorned with spectacles? o_O

  695. Ken says:

    another "author" at Popehat.com is named Angus. His favorite book is Carl Jung's "Answer to Job,"

    Ms. Carreon's voyage of discovery has reached the point where she now understands the meaning of the common word "via." However, she still things Angus is a Popehat author. Apparently she thinks so because Patrick linked to him. She thinks so even thought the link takes you to Angus' web site – a different web site with a different name. She thinks so even though there aren't any posts here by Angus and he's not listed as a Popehat author. It's not clear to me if she believes that anyone we link to, or anyone we identify as a source for a story or idea, is by definition a Popehat author. That would mean we have an awful lot of authors. Actually, since we've linked her and her husband, it would make them Popehat authors.

    Still, one step at a time, right?

  696. Ken says:

    Also, she's now edited earlier posts to attack two firms I used to work for and the judge I used to clerk for. She also hates defense lawyers, because they defend white collar criminals, which she apparently defines to include people accused of sex crimes. She doesn't like people accused of crimes being defended, and she doesn't like the sort of clients that hire big law firms being defended. She apparently only approves of THE PEOPLE being represented. It's not clear if anyone can see or hear THE PEOPLE other than her.

  697. Nibor says:

    @Ken, you actually sugesting that you think there is any merrit/logic/sanity in what she is publishing ??????

    hmmm, do you need the phone number of my shrink, or do the ones close to you have enough influence on you to bring you back to our side of reality ?

    Or is it time to sound the alarms (popesignal?) that we are losing you ?

    note to self: maybe he is only making fun of it, naaayyyy ;-)

  698. Nibor says:

    @Ken If I got my fackts right, she herself worked for some lawfirm(s) when they lived in LA way back, when CC was getting his law degree and his first interns (that is what you call it over there if I'm right).

    So maybe these firms didn't hire CC or her and this is old pain.

  699. @S. Weasel, @ John Ammon… no, they don't! The avatars, they tell the true. Ken is an adorable little boy. (I of course absolutely am a two-headed imperial eagle wearing mismatched socks. I was about to confess my puzzlement over what M. looks like, but then I looked more closely and suddenly realized that, duh, she put de lime in de coconut; I trust she drink it all up and den she feel better.)

  700. Valerie says:

    Yeah, one thing I think lawyers get unfairly criticized for is taking on unsavory clients.

    The thing is, that is kind of the foundation of our system. You couldn't give people a fair trial if THE PEOPLE (the prosecution) got to just got to shit all over the defendant who had no expertise in the law.

    The right to an attorney is fundamental to our legal system (6th amendment, as I recollect) and if lawyers only represented nice little old ladies accused of shoplifting cat food, the system wouldn't really work.

    I don't like white-collar criminals or sex offenders, but they are innocent till proven guilty, and until they are convicted I accept that they have the same rights as me, you, or the Carreons.

    Yet another example in TC's "thought" process where nobody's rights matter unless their last name is Carreon.

  701. Valerie says:

    I assume the unedited posts are cashed somewhere so TC can't pull a Stalin and just edit out the parts of old posts that make her look stoopid?

  702. Nibor says:

    @Valerie but she does, all the time, editing, reediting, rereediting, etc. when ever she finds something that only makes her look stoopid and not a total cray cray lunatic.

  703. M. says:

    @Tsarina of Tsocks: All day every day! ;)

  704. @Valerie – wait a minute… there are parts of old posts that don't???

  705. Valerie says:

    @ Tsarina I guess it is a matter of degree. Stupid is thinking that its a good idea to diss people with popular websites & chat with yourself in your own forum about cray-cray.

    Stoopid is when you reveal that you #1, don't understand a basic English word like via, #2 can't find the most basic information on someone like Ken, & #3 don't understand the concept of linking to another site that you don't necessarily own.

  706. Fair enough. And studip is taking pride in ferreting out "obscure" facts that are actually unhidden in plain sight. Wow, what a piece of detective work, for instance, discovering Ken's Seekrit Identity. She may actually have had to read the bio on his law firm's web site to do that, or follow a link from this one… hell, maybe it even required some use of that little-known tool the internet search engine. No wonder she's so impressed with her own investigative chops.

  707. Missiletoe says:

    Love the author link on the side now that says "Via Angus". I enjoyed watching the video it linked to of the angus cows.

  708. John Ammon says:

    That Angus link is awesome… so Via Angus is a blogging cow with huge nuts?

  709. Gal says:

    OK, hold up.

    And Judge Richard Gadbois, who he clerked with, is considered to be a real sonofabitch. I heard he once put two lawyers in leg chains and paraded them around the courtroom because they lied to him about being admitted in the Central District of California when they were just San Diego lawyers.

    IANAL, and I don't really expect anyone to do anything about it, but isn't that Libel?

  710. Ken says:

    The Angus link wasn't me. One of my funnier co-bloggers.

    IANAL, and I don't really expect anyone to do anything about it, but isn't that Libel?

    Judge Gadbois passed away in 1996. Generally there's no cause of action for defamation of the dead.

    For what it's worth, Judge Gadbois was a human being like me, meaning he had flaws like anyone else. But he was the sort of judge who got Christmas cards from people he had sent to prison, because he treated them with respect. I have no memory of the leg-irons incident, and no idea whether it happened. But I would not be at all surprised if a federal judge took a lawyer into custody for a lie about being admitted. Don't lie to federal judges.

  711. Gal says:

    I have to say, Ken Doesn't look as bad as TC claims, but Angus looks delicious.

  712. Ken says:

    Wait — looks like she was referring to this incident in which Judge Gadbois sanctioned two lawyers when he discovered mid-trial that they had not applied to be admitted to the Central District, and threatened one with leg irons if he applied for admission without disclosing he had been sanctioned. Sounds rather dramatically different, doesn't it?

    The 9th Circuit overturned him. The leg irons comment is over the top, though not (in my experience) notably so for a federal judge. The monetary sanctions? Eh. The 9th Circuit found them inappropriate. But you have to be pretty stupid or careless to launch into a trial without getting admitted to the bar of the court you're practicing in.

  713. Anita says:

    So Tara got her facts wrong? Color me surprised!

  714. mojo says:

    "Pig in a Popehat": Possible Pun?

  715. Chris R. says:

    Ken, it's not like she can distinguish tone. She thinks everything said online is 100% non-parody, meant to be truth and probably reads everything as all caps even thought it wasn't written that way.

    This is how a normal person reads a sentence:
    If that's your opinion we should just glue your mouth shut.

    This is how a Tara reads a sentence:
    WE ARE GOING TO GLUE YOUR MOUTH SHUT IF YOU SHARE YOUR OPINION!!!!

    However I am not sure if her brain translates the actual sentence into wingdings or not.

  716. Robert says:

    No end in sight to this awesome craziness.
    Cancelled my HBO.

    PS… Can someone get aliens involved in her posts? I'd like to hear an x-filesy, Roswelly plot arc please.

  717. Now she apparently fantasizes about kidnapping Ken and forcing him to ingest Wisdom Plants and listen to Charles Carreon.

    Which may be the only way either of them could make sense.

    *Popcorn*

  718. Valerie says:

    Check out her new stuff. Its high quality.

  719. Ken says:

    I'm pretty sure that kidnapping for purposes of indoctrinating someone in Ralph Nader lore violates the Geneva Conventions.

  720. Chris R. says:

    Some how I don't feel like she could plan a successful kidnapping. However please if you are reading this, don't try to prove me wrong.

  721. Luke says:

    Looks like she deleted a post somewhere too.

    Interesting that she still believes FJ and Charles were in the right to send the initial letter, even though Charles said it was a mistake.

  722. Roxy says:

    @Luke: It's like Chris Rock says, women don't need something like "sense" to make an argument.

  723. Valerie says:

    Ok, here goes, I am about to apply some TC Logic and see what I come up with:

    Tara on giving to charities:

    "You're predating on the gambling crowd, just like Glenn Beck predated on the right-wing Republicans in the Goldline scam. They didn't know what fucking hit them. It was just Glenn Beck, their hero!"

    Ready? Ok tinfoil thinking cap is on, F-word & frivolous rape references set to maximum.

    +Glen Beck was a rapist hero of the fucking Republican party, who, as a fucking mainstream political party of rapists, must necessarily be pawns of the mother fucking Illuminati.

    +Glen Beck wrote a fucking book "inspired by Thomas Paine."

    +Tara's fucking reeducation camp begins with reading Thomas Paine.

    +Thus, Tara's fucking reeducation camp begins with reading Glenn Beck's fucking book.

    +Thus, Tara is a hero of the fucking Republican rapist party.

    +Thus, Tara is part of the mother-fucking, raping Illuminati conspiracy.

    +Thus, Tara rapes & conspires against her-fucking-self.

    OMG THE CONSPIRACY IS A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE! WE ARE SURELY FUCKING DOOMED (TO AN ETERNITY OF RAPEUTATION)!

    This is your brain on Carreon. Any questions?

  724. Grifter says:

    "Making wild, nonsensical, and possibly recursive conspiracy theories isn't normal.

    But on TC it is."

  725. Satirical Tara Carreon says:

    ALL OF YOU LITTLE MONSTERS ARE WORSE THAN RUPERT MURDOCK. (And don't say I got that from Lady Gaga. I was Lady Gaga before Madonna was Lady Gaga. She stole that from me.) If Ralph Nader was here, he'd punch your lights out, and then put you in jail forever.

    @VIAANGUS I Know you're out there, Viaangus. That's a centurion name if I ever heard one, and the Illuminati is from Rome. HUH, CURIOUS.

    @Ken You're not even an Asian child, and that probably makes you a rapist, most likely. Clearly that is a picture of a child you abducted in order to train into another Illuminati member by making him read Al Capp cartoons. You work in a Law Firm that represents people in legal difficulties (AKA CRIMINALS AND OR HATE-CRIMERS.) Also, I don't find you to my sexual liking, and that's presumably important to the date for some reason. But your pole will not come near this hole. Just know that you could have had me, and you ruined it.

    @MarcRenandStimpyDazza You suggested Charles should hit me and sell my body, and worse you stopped sending us a Christmas Card. We white out all our Christmas Cards and then resell them in packs on E-Bay. Now we only have a pack of 11, and who's going to want that? In conclusion, you're a misogynist and probably work for the Disney Company.

    @Matthew Inman You think you're just so clever and handsome, don't you? So deliciously, naughtily adorable, with your Dennis from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia face and your little pile of money that could buy so many domain names… Just alpha-maleing around the Internet with so many friends and making so much money… Just using that tight little bottom to seduce all the girls into following you to Budhist hell… so decadent… like the forbidden fruit of the Internet just waiting for an older woman to teach you the ways of love… What was I writing about now?

    In conclusion you are all guilty of crimes against the people's library, and I sentence you all to $500 pain and suffering. Please remit directly to Charles' email address, because Kickstarter refuses to host "Fund my life" projects no matter how many times I try to tell them that my forum is a digital library.

    Yours in Christ,
    Satirical Tara Carreon

  726. Mike K says:

    I've been busy reading other things (a webcomic), so I'm a bit behind.

    Other than wondering about their sanity in thinking that being untrained and inexperienced in mental health issues (other than their own) qualifies them to determine certain things are symptoms of an unrecognized illness, I'm disappointed that Charles has changed the "Hate eMails" post (still hilarious that my computer recognizes that capitalization as incorrect) page from pictures to text copies. I imagine the dozens of images were too hard on his server, but still they seemed more real as images.

    I'm also mildly disappointed that my email wasn't hateful or thought provoking enough to be included, although he wrote a moderate length response to it.

  727. Grifter says:

    @Mike K:

    Which comic?

  728. Chris R. says:

    @satirical Tara, wow that's creepy spot on. You should guest blog on satirical Charles' blog.

  729. Nibor says:

    That would be funny as h… Satirical Charles and Tara on one site just to srcew everything up just a little more.

    So Pleeeaaaassssss Satritcal Tara C. Pleeeaaaasssss do make contact with Satirical Charles, he wil probably give you an entire section on his blog to get you word out :-) :-) :-) Pleeeeeeaaaassssssss ;-)

  730. Satirical Tara Carreon says:

    @ChrisR Take it with my blessings. My hate-filled, bile spewing, angry blessings.

  731. Satirical Tara Carreon says:

    Made contact with my loving husband, and also sent him my thoughts about this: http://rapeutation.com/2012/07/28/charity-fraud/ Krishna willing he will publish them to the Internet, which is kind of like being a celebrity, when you think about it.

    I don't think about it, though.

  732. Mike K says:

    Grifter, I started reading The Order of the Stick on Monday. Friday night I got caught up. I probably have an addictive personality, which means that once I decided it was good I had to read all of it at the expense of doing other things ;)

  733. Myk says:

    @Ken – I'm a little puzzled by TC's claim that she worked at {insert various legal firms here} – am I misreading, or does she imply that she and/or Chucky worked with you by association? Were you scarred {emotionally/physically/sexually} by the experience? If you can't remember, maybe you've suppressed the memory. Or maybe our Illuminati bretheren conveniently erased your mind. MIB posse reprezentin', and all that.

  734. Grifter says:

    @Mike K: That's exactly what I do every time I find a new one I like.

  735. Valerie says:

    Johnjacobjinglehimersmit. His name is my name to. That is all.

  736. flip says:

    I have been busy elsewhere so I have no doubt people will have moved on from this thread … but I'm posting this anyway.

    @W Ross

    Just wanted to say: you're awesome. The lulz you provided are great!

    And for all the comments on copyright: thanks. I've just been having this argument on another site and share much the same opinion/frustration as you.

    Do you have a blog I could follow?

    @Ben

    You seem to think that copyright only has to do with the initial creation. In your example in this comment, people pay another person to create a work. The issue is that copyright may remain the originator's (and not the clients). If the clients then go and distribute the work without further permission/royalties from the originator, then that's a copyright breach.

    You really need to read up on copyrights because your comments suggest a lot of misunderstandings as to what it does and how it works.

    Additionally, attempting to put a mathematical model on it doesn't work, because countries have different laws (not least of which includes the Berne Convention which makes copyright laws in one country applicable in another), fair use (or not) clauses, public domain/expiry, precedents, and not to mention that a creator can pick and choose how, where and when to apply various levels of copyright/creative commons. There's too many variables to do a mathematical equation with.

    By the way, in my country they also take into consideration a "moral" copyright. That is, they look at it from the perspective that a creator has a right to their work and a right to do what they want with it, and if that will is not followed by others then that's considered a breach.

    IANAL but a well-read (on this topic) artist.

    @John (also here)

    Big thumbs up! I am the same.

    @Will

    any more you should be able to walk into an unlocked house and watch their cable (which is the proper analogy – nothing is stolen, but do you really want strangers in your house using your stuff?).

    Thank you for this analogy. It's a perfect example and I hope you won't mind if I use it myself in the future :)

  1. July 9, 2012

    [...] As promised, here's the photo of $211,223 in cash we raised for charity – The Oatmeal Also: The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part X: Philanthropy > Douchebaggery | Popehat [...]

  2. July 10, 2012

    [...] him out of work while raising money for charity as an attack against him.Guess what? Last week, Charles Carreon kind of dropped the lawsuit. Technically, it doesn't exist anymore. However, the way he dissolved it means that he can [...]

  3. July 11, 2012

    [...] Here's Popehat's take on the seeming ending to the story (go there for bonus Carreon Craziness. Seems the Carreons have been inspired to start a new website. I will neither link to nor name said site because they are ridiculous.) Popehat also has some advice for people sending takedown notices  without poking the wasp's nest that is the internet.  [...]

  4. July 12, 2012

    [...] Boing has a Flickr slideshow with more pictures, and Popehat has a lovely closing remarks. Heck, there was even a mention–and earlier even an image in the homepage–at [...]

  5. July 12, 2012

    [...] Color me skeptical that an actual DOS attack has occurred, considering the previous charge of 'cybervandalism' Charles Carreon alleged, consisting largely of someone clicking "remind me of my password" and subsequently not getting a password.  Assuming Mrs. Carreon is referring to their new site, "Rapeutation.com", perhaps it went down under the load of visitors arriving on the scene of that trainwreck to gawk at the insensitivity of comparing sexual assault and criticism. The site did receive, after all, considerable media attention. [...]

  6. July 12, 2012

    [...] to this discussion, Courtney, a regular Popehat commenter, brought up instances of harassment of innocent people by internet mobs, citing the very recent case of Anita [...]