Andrew Orlowski, looking like The Picture of Dorian Gray
I know, it seems puerile to blog about one's comments being rejected from other blogs or forums, not that this happens to me very often, mind you. After all, their blog/forum, their rules. Right?
This one is rather poignant, and deserves some attention.
For those of you who read the The Register, you'll no doubt be aware of a long-term contributor called Andrew Orlowski. To describe Orlowski as having somewhat right-wing tendencies would be, frankly, a bit of an understatement. His politics and opinions are highly offensive to anyone with even a modicum of common decency, which may be why, for the entire duration of his 11 year tenure at The Register, he conspicuously remained the only contributor to completely disable comments in his articles.
One of the best things about the Internet is the fact that not only is it a tremendous source of information, but it also provides us with a very fine-grained control over that information. For example, unlike broadcast and print media, we can automatically filter out adverts and other nasties, using indispensable software like AdBlock Plus and NoScript.
But there's another type of "nasty" that isn't so easy to filter out ... media hacks with an unsavoury political bent (putting it politely).
Take El Reg for example. Most of its articles are informative, entertaining and have a decidedly liberal leaning, but there are a few exceptions, most of which seem to be penned by a particularly unpleasant character by the name of Andrew Orlowski.
As of two days ago, the UK Advertising Standards Authority's powers now extend to the Web:
From 1 March, advertising regulators will be able to punish companies that publish misleading claims on their own websites or on social networking sites.
The Advertising Standards Authority says it will police rogue online advertisers through complaints from the public.
Its chief executive Guy Parker tells BBC Radio 5 live Breakfast's Rachel Burden that it is necessary to ensure "advertising is legal, decent and truthful".
What would be the most damning evidence Wikileaks could use against the US government, as an "insurance policy" against Julian Assange's assassination, and/or Wikileaks being shut down?
My guess: absolute proof that the US government was complicit (or worse) in the 9/11 attacks.
At the very least, I'd be very surprised if there weren't some heavily damaging documents, in some way related to 9/11.