We' reported on TPM blog spam linked to the University of Chicago and lawyers, indirectly linked with the White House.

There are finite legal resources. Not all legal professionals view their responsibilities seriously. Apparently someone who has "no time" to intelligently discuss Geneva-FISA issues does have time to do "other things".


It appears they're connected with the legal services industry and using an official legal bulletin board and ISP to look at some (questionable?) content.

Change means getting better oversight of how the lawyers are using their time: Are they really doing what they should be doing; or are they doing other things?

The key word in the title is "alleged". We don't know what other files were loaded; but we do know that someone supposedly connected with the legal services industry wasn't spending 100% of their time focusing on the legal issues confronting the nation since 2001.

Perhaps we have an answer why Congress wasn't interested in enforcing the laws of war or FISA during wartime: The lawyers were busy doing "other things".

The issue for TPM is the hypocrisy of their whining about a supposed lack of information-organization, but their refusal to provide that information despite the time they do have to access "other things."

They've spent time -- since 2004 -- belly aching about an information-organization problem, but now want something they refuse to do. Rather than spend time (not) contributing to TPM, they've (apparently) spent more time allegedly uploading porn using this Verizon pool:

bstnma.east.verizon.net

With the new TPM website, they no longer have an excuse not to do what they have demanded others do. It's not a lack of time or technical capability, but a decision to (attempt to) impose a standard on others they refuse to meet.

In 2004 the poster allegedly demanded we have a 'central' place to discuss an issue:

Joe: "WE NEED A SINGLE WEBSITE CLEARINGHOUSE TO CENTRALIZE THIS INFORMATION"

That sounds like a reasonable request. In response, he gets one on TPM. Sadly, the poster isn't satisfied. He complained it wasn't enough and wanted more:

Joe: "It is intense, and it requires organization, and focus without distraction."

Apparently the poster want an answer to the questions not yet asked; and neatly formatted on his forehead.

You'd think that once was enough. Not Joe. He decided to repeat his demand for organization, but do so in a disorganized way:

Joe: "What's needed is a single-focus national-in-scope dedicated, organized effort, not the current chaotic catch-up effort".

Rather than accept that "this is what he asked for, and what he got,"  Joe gives us this:

pseudo-sophisticated BS

As they say on Kos, one day he demands, but he's got nothing to offer:

Poster to Joe: "quit bitching and start doing"

What does Joe give us on TPM? Nothing. The TPM community should ask Joe,

To Joe: "You don't like the content? Then do it better or provide a specific suggestion. You've done neither. How's that alleged porn file on the alleged site, Joe?"

His excuse was he didn't know anything about computers:

Joe: "I don't know anything about the technical computer aspects."

The poster doesn't have that excuse on TPM where he can blog -- but refuses -- without knowing any technical skills. The poster no longer has excuses.

We don't have a clear picture why he cannot "do it better" and "provide the organization" they claim they require. Perhaps they aren't happy. They have no answer why they cannot deliver? Other than allegedly being "too busy" with porn-uploads, what is your excuse this time?

Be specific with your comments. It would be helpful if you were to provide examples, and not vague comments.

Time Sheets: Comparing File Uploads To Posts

Look at this (that means, "Google this, Joe"):

erotic.comicsplus.info/nagarya-comics/

The key is to focus on the (1) legal services file connected with (2) that website and (3) the same name.

What is going on with this file: NALBBS03.ZIP? His name is Joseph Nagarya, and he supposedly lives in Boston. He is allegedly the same person posting on TPM. He allegedly last left a comment complaining about the content.

Joe, are you saying you would rather upload porn than read this?

Or are you saying that someone with the same name, also living in Boston, posting to the legal services board isn't the same "Joe" as you?

Or are you saying that this has "nothing" to do with you, and we should read something else?

Let's review the files (that means, "google this, Joe"):

File 1: RPT 2087 11-09-93 -- A legal report

File 2: NALBBS03.ZIP  -- A zip file

File 3: CAA01K30.RPT -- A report

To look at something really scary, google this:

comicsplus.info/nagarya

The matching email extension (That means, "Google this, Joe") shows the posting times:

jnagarya2

Notice the name and file match this website:

ctl.ncsc.dni.us

This site is the same legal industry "Joe" in Boston is indirectly connected:

National Center for State Courts-Court Technology Laboratory

You want us to believe that someone posting with (1) the same name the same file to both a (2) comic book site and a (3) court site is (4) a different person? That defies reason.

Here's what the TPM community needs to hear. Why is this "not worthy" of consideration; but this comment is [emphasis added]:

Joe: "Im not a supporter of conspiracy theories -- in fact, I consider them a baneful fog which tend to obscure the very truths the conspirabunkers claim to want to expose. And tend to be self-discrediting because so rife with internal inconsistencies and contradictions"

[especially when someone named "Joe" complains about "BS", but allegedly uploads files to a porn site]

Joe: ". . . and two often making claims for evidence which are actually contrary to the evidence cited.

"But there is one question which needs clear and direct answer: Where was NORAD? Since the Eisenhower administration, it has been a matter of routine that, should an aircraft deviate from its proper course, NORAD _immediately_ launches military interceptor planes."

Why can't we ask the question, "Where was the University of Chicago in all this blog spam on TPM?" Apparently, only "joe" is allowed to ask questions, but not others.

Joe: "That obviously didnt happen on 9/11. Why is that the fact?"

Speaking of condescending:

Joe: "And-not-so-by-the-way: the condescending tone adopted by professional journalists when reporting on these issues is contrary to 1 claims of objectivity, 2 ethics, and 3 any desire to maintain credibility for such professional journalists. Which latter has no small role in perpetuating the very conspiracy theories at which they routinely/knee-jerk scoff."

Let's reconsider what Joe might be really saying, which fits within the "transformitive" exception to the copyright rule:

[rewritten with text deleted and added to incorporate the above information allegedly linked to Joe]

Juno Alleged Online Porn "Technical Support"

For weeks I've been attempting to identify, address, and resolve access various problems files on my alleged porn-connected drive with the Juno software. All "responses" to my efforts from Junothe owners of the alleged porn-connected site "Technical Support" are the same: prewritten canned "solutions" which do not address the problems, do not resolve the problems -- but are repeated over and over and over and over and over again, often by the same person.

I want my porn-connected files. In my office. On my desk. Now. I do not want to hear your excuses. I want the files. Now. Now. Now.

Nothing gets through the heads of those who send the "solutions" -- most absurd of which is to change one's diap-up number. If one dials-up, and is online when the problem occurs, then the dail-up number is working, therefore not the problem.

If I had a real computer in Boston with my Verizon account, I could download this alleged porn-connected content faster.

The fundamental problem is clear: no questions are asked about the problems, so as perhaps to help pinpoint and clarify them. Instead, a "guess" at a "solution" is made, based upon an unquestioned and -- as it invariably turns out -- irrelevant assumption, and then that "solution" is sent. Complaints that one "solution" doesn't work, or is irrelevant to the issue, do not get a reasonable response or effort; instead, one gets yet another "solution" which has already been tried and shown to have nothing whatever to do with the problem, or its solution. That's the sum total of Juno "Technical Support": canned "responses" which do not apply.

The relevant issue is the alleged online files at the alleged online porn site.  The one with my name. Mine. Mine. Mine.

"Solutions" which do not address the problem, thus do not work, are not soultions; they are at best a waste of time. Thus, in effect, Juno does not have "Technical Support," despite holding out that promise to the customer; all they do is tell one not to do that which one is already not doing, to do that which one is already doing, or missing the point entirely.

And no amount of complaint about such absurity has any effect -- one only receives yet another irrelevant "solution".

I want porn-connected content, not slow downloads to my Verizon-connected account.

Anyone who considers signing up for the Juno "service" is verging on insane, so should instead sign up with a mental health professional.

Joseph J. N
Boston, MA