Of course she was. I can’t believe you thought she wouldn’t be. She’s an idiot.

Left by Preston on April 18th, 2006 at 9:14 am

Like the students at UC Santa Cruz who destroyed the recruitment display of US Army recruiters last week (and then slashed their tires and threw rocks at their SUV)?

I never expect the Liberal world of academia to punish Liberal campus activists — no matter what they do or how far they go to suppress the rights of others.

This case is refreshing because it defied my expectations (only partly — until/unless the students who were involved are also punished, I’m only partly-pleasantly surprised).

Left by Robbie on April 18th, 2006 at 9:23 am

I’m sure they’ll receive plenty of punishment since that rocket scientist Michelle Malkin distributed their home phone numbers to any lunatic that chooses to call them at 4 in the morning.

Left by Preston on April 18th, 2006 at 11:29 am

Preston — you do know that the home phone numbers that Michelle Malkin posted were part of the SAW student’s own press release (the one that said “for immediate release”), right?

And you do know that Lefty sites like IndyMedia, InfoShop, and ORead Daily also published the exact same contact info that Michelle Malkin did, right?

Here’s a quick tip for those Lefty kids at UCSC — if you don’t want your personal contact info published on the Web, don’t attach it to your press releases.

Michelle didn’t post anything that those damn kids didn’t put out into the public sector themselves.

There are plenty of legitimate issues with which to disagree with Michelle — this isn’t one of them.

Left by Robbie on April 18th, 2006 at 1:09 pm

Michelle didn’t post anything that those damn kids didn’t put out into the public sector themselves.

They asked her to take down the information and she not only refused but she reposted it. Regardless of your opinion on their acts, their naivete need not be punished with an action that could personally endanger them.

Speaking from my side of the aisle I can vouch for the fact when an individual puts up personal contact information they are lambasted until they remove that information. It doesn’t take a Rhodes Scholar or the Pope to understand that such an action is irresponsible.

Here are a sampling of the death threats they have received following Malkin’s advertisement of their personal contact information:
http://saw.revolt.org/node/51
I’m particularly fond of FUCK YOU WANKERS!!! SUPPORT WAR!! FUCK IRAQ Uh, I was of the understanding that we were on the side of the Iraqi people…

Left by Preston on April 18th, 2006 at 2:08 pm

According to Malkin, she has not been asked to take the contact info down by any of the people who’s contact info she did post.

My favorite over-reaction to her posting publicly-available info:

From: outorsafe@adelphia.net outorsafe@adelphia.net
Mailed-By: adelphia.net
Date: Apr 17, 2006 6:31

you miserable cunt… too bad your parents were not killed in a war…

Left by Robbie on April 18th, 2006 at 2:20 pm

Well they seem to disagree:
Submitted by studentsagainstwar on Mon, 04/17/2006 - 11:47pm. What part of “WE ASKED HER TO REMOVE IT AFTER RECEIVING DEATH THREATS AND SHE SAID NO” is unclear to you?

Regardless of what the students asked for I think it is clearly beyond the limits of acceptable behavior to post personal phone numbers on the internet. It should take about 2 months of reading blogs for that sink in.

Your claim that these numbers were in the ‘public domain’ is also a stretch. The numbers were found on a press release which, typically, goes to the press and not to people liable to call your house to make threats to your life…

Anyway, that’s enough from me on this topic- I’m not sure why Malkin has such a large readership when half of her schtick is simply to vilify one unknown and powerless group after another. But I’ll keep reading to make sure some traitorous, liberal outpost isn’t organizing at the Misty Acres Senior Center in Kalamazoo, Michigan…

Left by Preston on April 18th, 2006 at 2:32 pm

For the record I’ll agree with the obvious point that outorsafe@adelphia.net’s comment to Malkin was quite vile. To his credit, he managed to evoke that level of disgust without the threat of a pickaxe to the skull.

Left by Preston on April 18th, 2006 at 2:37 pm

They released their press release knowing it would be published on the internet. In fact, it is still up on various Indymedia websites.

What is egregious is when the leftards hacked into the Protest Warriors computers and published private information of the members and refused to take it down.

Left by 2 on April 18th, 2006 at 3:21 pm

All the while “Imadinnerjacket” threatens to blow us off the face of the map. (Will not take credit for that hilarious name).

What’s it going to take for us to be a UNITED States of America again? What would our founding fathers think of us?

Left by dianne on April 18th, 2006 at 5:41 pm

They released their press release knowing it would be published on the internet.

Their comments suggest this isn’t true.

What is egregious is when the leftards hacked into the Protest Warriors computers and published private information of the members

That is also indefensible.

Dianne: many of the Founders were pretty naive about party politics- understandable since they hadn’t seen democratic nation before. In my opinion they (and you) were unnecessarily distrustful of partisanship as well. Of course character assassination and general thugery can test that permissiveness but a good healthy debate is good for our country (if messy).

Left by Preston on April 18th, 2006 at 8:40 pm

2-

I’m not familiar with the situation but I would in no way defend liberals who hack into computers in order to reveal home addresses of private citizens. It is particularly egregious in my opinion however when the offense is not perpetrated by anonymous thugs but by someone who is aiming for mainstream credibility as an editorialist.

(Perhaps even more outrageous than a male-prostitute in the White House press corps or journalists secretly on the payroll of the government)

Left by Preston on April 18th, 2006 at 8:54 pm

Their comments suggest this isn’t true.

Who’s “they?” And why else have a press release? And how did so many leftard websites get it and publish it if it was not meant for dissemination?

What is egregious is when the leftards hacked into the Protest Warriors computers and published private information of the members

That is also indefensible.

No, it’s indefensible, not also indefensible. Malkin did not hack into someone computer. Malkin did not publish information that was not already made public in a press release.

I’m not familiar with the situation but I would in no way defend liberals who hack into computers in order to reveal home addresses of private citizens. It is particularly egregious in my opinion however when the offense is not perpetrated by anonymous thugs but by someone who is aiming for mainstream credibility as an editorialist.

As usual, Preston, every argument you make is such a stretch it is garbage. It makes no difference if the person who hacks into a computer and publishes private info is anonymous or as you so euphemistically put it: “someone who is aiming for mainstream credibility as an editorialist.” And once again, Malkin did not hack into a computer or publish private information so stop with the bullshit anologies.

(Perhaps even more outrageous than a male-prostitute in the White House press corps or journalists secretly on the payroll of the government)

Thanks for proving you are indeed smoking crack.

Left by 2 on April 18th, 2006 at 9:22 pm

Who’s “they?” And why else have a press release?

‘They’ are the aforementioned writers who claim to have asked Malkin to remove the private information from her website.

Press releases go to the press- not to people likely to make threats upon one’s life.

Lord, didn’t I say I was through with this utterly irrelevant topic?

So, how are things in Iraq? Afghanistan? Anyone making more money than they were in 1999? (or if we want to keep it irrelevant I’m sure there’s some angle of the OJ trial that was never discussed…)

Left by Preston on April 18th, 2006 at 9:32 pm

I’m making more than I was in 1999. But not quite what I was making in 2000. But that was a pre-IPO software startup in an artificially-induced, venture capital market, e-commerce startup economy.

Left by Robbie on April 18th, 2006 at 10:24 pm

I wonder how much we’ll all be making 10 years from now when there are 50 MILLION MORE people in this country. Wish I had the transcript from Tucker Carlson’s show last night. This guy from this org called Numbers predicts that figure based on McCain Kennedy bill which not only allows illegals already here to get green card, but allows them to send for their EXTENDED FAMILIES and does virtually nothing for border enforcement! Let’s see what our salaries and TAXES are then! That 50 million figure is based on those already here illegally plus the extended families that will come and the illegals that will continue to come with lax border security. Boy I can’t wait for our glorious lawmakers to return from their 4TH vacation this year and get back to work on our open border policies!

Left by dianne on April 19th, 2006 at 5:50 am

I suspect the amount of money we bring home in 10 years will have much more to do with global economic trends and whether or not future trillion-dollar tax breaks go to the top 1% or to the middle class than the effects of immigration.

Across the entire labor force, the effect of illegal immigrants was zero, because the presence of uneducated immigrants actually increased the earnings of more educated workers, including high school graduates. For instance, higher-skilled workers could hire foreigners at low wages to mow their lawns and care for their children, freeing time for these workers to earn more. And businesses that exist because of the availability of cheap labor might also need to employ managers.

Mr. Katz agreed that the impact was modest, and it might fall further if changes in trade flows were taken into account — specifically, that without illegal immigrants, some products now made in the United States would likely be imported.
http://tinyurl.com/o92fg

That said, Congress sure does seem to vacation a lot.

Left by preston on April 19th, 2006 at 6:10 am

A lot of statements have been made but I have not seen them come directly from the three people involved. Malkin originally linked to an indymedia website that had posted the press release. At least 4 indymedia website published the press release. I see now they have removed the names and contact info. But what they still haven’t removed almost two years later and after repeated demands are the names and personal info that was obtained illegally from the Protest Warriors servers.

And again, press releases are published to the internet. If they don’t want people reading them and using the contact information, they shouldn’t publish them to the internet. Luckly, I copied the names of Sam Aranke (714 458-2471 saranke@ucsc.edu), David Zlutnick (805 698-6228 dzlutnic@ucsc.edu) and Janine Ramona (707 496-3530 jgcarmon@ucsc.edu) because I haven’t yet had time to get a hold of them and tell them there actions are despicable and criminal and as a taxpayer, I am intend to urge the federal government to stop funding UCSC. Demonstrating is one thing but the students were committing criminal acts.

And if you truly thought this topic was irrelevant you wouldn’t have used so many sleezy arguments pretending to address it.

Left by 2 on April 19th, 2006 at 9:40 am

Pretty classy, 2.

Yes, it is a pretty irrelevant topic: while our country is at war and we’re running 400 billion dollar deficits among other issues we’re debating the actions of 3 students at a college you’d never heard of before. Who cares?

It’s the same technique the right uses constantly: war’s going badly? Whoa- look over there- there are some idiots in California doing something objectionable! Even though these individuals are accountable to no one but themselves. Michelle Malkin’s entire site seems to be dedicated to gawking at the stupid actions of private individuals rather than looking at the stupid actions of elected officials and people with power- it’s simply a technique to divert attention from issues that matter.

But I praise you for absorbing the techniques so well. For instance, Michelle Malkin is criticized for being a jackass by posting the addresses of private individuals and you counter with anonymous hackers who have done the same thing. Unfortunately, neither I or anyone else have the ability to hold anonymous hackers accountable for their actions- we can both complain about it but it won’t change a thing. However, when we complain about elected officials we might just get our way (pretending for a second that we found a topic on which we agreed).

Left by Preston on April 19th, 2006 at 11:52 am

Who cares?

You do. Who made you the arbitrator of what will be discussed on this or Malkin’s blog or who determines what is relevant or not? You are either a 1) control freak; 2) a totalitarian; or 3) the one trying to obscure the issues by demanding people discuss what you want to discuss all the time.

The people criticizing Malkin are the jackasses. And yes, there is a difference between one who obtains personal info by hacking into computers and publishing it on the internet and those who by their own volition post information and invite people to contact them, but whine when people use it to criticize them.

Now excuse me while I send off some more emails to Sam, Dave, and Jan. lol!

Left by 2 on April 19th, 2006 at 12:48 pm

3) the one trying to obscure the issues by demanding people discuss what you want to discuss all the time.

Jeeze, 2, you sound a little sensitive.

FYI-

When you’re harassing those students you might want to skirt around this:

California Penal Code section 422: THREATS
Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety . . .

Left by Preston on April 19th, 2006 at 1:45 pm

Jeeze, 2, you sound a little sensitive.

Project much? Uh, you are the one freaking out because you can’t control what people post about.

When you’re harassing those students you might want to skirt around this:

Ah, yes! People demand free speech but if any one dare talk back to them, it’s labeled harassment. Again, you project too much.

California Penal Code section 422: THREATS

What a waste of your time. Only leftards have to be told threatening people with death/bodily injury is against the law. I am not a leftard, thank God.

Left by 2 on April 19th, 2006 at 2:41 pm

Only leftards have to be told threatening people with death/bodily injury is against the law.

Maybe you didn’t read the link above:
You will pay for your seditious activities. It is only a matter of
time…We are retired military snipers & we are watching you…

We’re coming to get you and when we do we’ll hurt you..REAL BAD!

Left by Preston on April 19th, 2006 at 3:29 pm

Ok- one last thing before I go on vacation.

http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp

See ya.

Left by Preston on April 19th, 2006 at 5:03 pm

Maybe you didn’t read the link above:

Didn’t have to. You addressed your cheap shot at me. Where’s your proof that I either harassed or criminally threatened anyone, let alone that I would be unfamiliar with pc422a? lol! As far as the so called threats you quoted — did you verify that they were actually made as opposed to made-up by leftards? Nah, I didn’t think so.

Left by 2 on April 19th, 2006 at 5:28 pm

Enjoy your vacation, Preston.

Left by Robbie on April 19th, 2006 at 10:03 pm