Settling Accounts

The poster featured on this page abuses the right of anonymity in a such a way that we could all lose it. His antics are such that not only has he almost single-handedly destroyed a website that some of us have been following for more than a decade, but that he is contributing heavily to that school of thought that insists only people who have been positively identified are entitled to post on the Internet – simply because by identifying them it is made easier to silence and control them.

No matter what the subject under discussion, no matter who has posted the article, no matter what their credentials, his first question is always “Does the OP believe that the US Government orchestrated the 911 Attacks?“. Those who answer anything other than “yes” he will immediately dismiss as cranks, idiots, liars, and shills, before he inevitably identifies them as “Jews”, in the pay of the Mossad. People such as John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, Julian Assange – you name them, and if they don’t agree with him on 911, he hates them.

He is hardly alone in that, but recently he has started posting under a plethora of multiple identities to give the false impression that his views are popular. In any thread he will hi-jack it and crash the discussion into whatever convenient piece of unmelted steel he can find to demolish. Frequently an article with have ten or more comments, each and every poster of which is abused by him multiple times under different IDs, and he then engages in long-winded mealy-mouthed conversations in which he minces words with himself. As if to establish that people who do not follow him are in the minority.

One appreciates that webmasters have their work cut-out containing the spam of such imbeciles, but when they start giving such posters a platform to the detriment of honest contributors capable of checking their facts and expressing opinions on topics other than imaginary Jewish conspiracies, one feels the need to post a rebuttal on a platform that precludes censorship or harrassment.

Bill Duke on the 911 Nuclear Attack

Introducing Mr William Duke and his various aliases (WMD, Bill Duke, meh, to name a few of them). Not the famous American actor, rather an anonymous online bully who is continually telling people that a certain Gospodin Khalezov’s downloadable PDF (linked below) on the “nuclear attacks of 911” is “given away for free” and that they must read all 1,100 turgid pages of it. This is an outright lie from Duke, designed to portray Khalezov as an innocent whistle-blower with nothing but the welfare of the people in mind. A lie constructed to lend otherwise absent weight to Duke’s own pathetic theories about what really happened on 911. A lie that insults the intelligence of every person Duke – if that really is his name – tells it to.

On Khalezov’s own homepage, the very URL Duke is spamming no less, there is a rebuttal denying that the file is for free and gives myriad methods for making payment. In the author’s own words “the book was not actually “free”, but merely “free to download”, and this was stated clearly in its text“, Khalezov says. He adds, possibly with freeloaders in mind, “only a very few people have appreciated this step of mine“.

Bill Duke, clearly, is not one of those few. Not only does he deny that Khalezov has written his material in order to earn money from it, but Duke also encourages others to freeload on Khalezov’s intellectual property (such that it is) in the same way he has.

On this page we will collect screen-shots whenever we see Duke lying about this, and post a link to the people he is trying to dupe with his lies. We do this because whenever he is challanged on any other forum he will immediately report the person, falsely claiming harrassment and he will spam moderators with false reports until there is nobody left on the Internet apart from himself and those who agree with his drivel – which would make the Internet a very lonely place for him. If only he would just ease back a little and accept that he isn’t the only person on the Internet, that it wasn’t created just for him, and that if people disagree with him it does not follow that they are stupid, lying, or, as he frequently claims, only doing so because they are being paid for it (which ties in nicely with his ‘Truthers don’t do it for money’ line).

Fortunately, even complaint-spammers such as “Duke” can no longer hide behind their anonymity and expect to get away with this, since those he is harassing can also do the same and re-issue challenges to him even as he claps himself on the back thinking he’s had us banned. We may use Tor, Internet cafes, free wi-fi, or any number of open proxies. Duke’s only defence from this, other than being honest with people – first and foremost with himself – will be to restrict himself to only those sites which require positive identification to post. Sites from which spammers and whiners, who freeload off other people’s hard work and insult the intelligence of everybody who disagrees with them, will very quickly find themselves banned.

This page isn’t a crusade for truth, or a campaign to clean up the Internet. It is a response to harrassment received. We accept that free speech allows people to make asses of themselves or otherwise espouse obnoxious opinions. We accept that, so long as the rest of us retain the right of rebuttal. This page, then, is simply to make the point that if your only tactics in a discussion are to call those who provide rebuttals to even your most onerous errors “shills”, “liars”, and “idiots”, and to attempt to have banned anybody you cannot silence with verbal abuse and unsubtantiated insinuations, then you too will suffer the consequences. Because if you are free to behave in such a manner, then those who are subjected to your bullying are similarly free to choose the time and manner of their response.

Let’s move on to the examples where we may suffer a sample of the full Duke experience in his own ill-considered words, a section of the page liable to grow into a sub-site of it’s own so long as Duke persists in his unreasonable wreaking of formerly decent websites in his childish attempts to always have it his own way. Henceforth we focus our attention on just a tiny fraction of his voluminous output, confident that these are representative examples of the deluge he spews daily onto the web.

a thick black line

Example 1 – “It’s far too complicated for me to explain, don’t bother me now

After promoting this Khalezov book and incessently hectoring people to read it by making almost 100 seperate comments to a single article all saying the same thing, Duke then responds to a legitimate question asked by somebody who is interested not by giving them a respectful answer, but by admonishing them that “it’s far too complicated to explain“. Then he insults the person by telling him that even talking to people who haven’t already read the book he is trying to get them to read is a “waste of his time“.

Arrogant Response

It’s like he’s trying to put you off reading it. If there were prizes handed out for Most Pompous Response on the Internet, or Worst Salesman of the Year, this would surely be a contender. For both. In the former case at least, up against some stiff competition. It’s like a bible-thumper, telling you that there is only one book you should read, and abusing those heathens and unbelievers who haven’t. Most people who are promoting a book would at least have the courtesy, if not the salesmanship, to respond to questions about it in a more civil tone, perhaps even to summarize or precis those parts the prospective reader expresses interest in. But not this guy. Go read the book, now, or he won’t talk to you anymore – which is the best reason yet for not reading the turgid “book” he is so ineptly trying to promote.

a thick black line

Example 2 – “I don’t want you reading anything that makes me look bad

Internet Loon

No Bill, these are “truth and facts” and I will present them in the manner of my own choosing, not yours. These are Kalezov’s own words. They are on his homepage. Have you even looked at it?

khalezov "book not free"

Try to actually back up your claims for once instead of accusing everybody else of lying every time you are challenged. You claim to be a mature man. Please try to act like one.

a thick black line

Example 3 – “I’m hitting the report button on you

Internet Loon

Sure enough, two minutes later, the rebuttal to Duke’s abusive comment has gone….

Internet Loon

It was a test. You failed it, bill, and now you learned a lesson about screenshots. I guess this also provides a rather neat rebuttal to the point you made in example 2. Now we see why people who disagree with you “cannot present the truth on…” don’t we?

Why don’t you try to be a little bit more creative, a little bit more tolerant, rather than spamming the report button and ending every comment by screaming abuse at people? Why don’t you present your version of the truth here on the and level the playing field? The truth stands by itself, even when presented by a weakling like me. Use the comment form. You know how it works.

a thick black line

Example 4 – Mission Accomplished?

Internet Loon

It seems even Bill is having trouble getting his message out these days. As always his response is to discuss it with himself. Perhaps he might like to post his comments here, as we invited him to do above.

Give the other guys a break, Bill. You’re being too disruptive, and I haven’t even started yet. Let’s make this page be between the two of us, mano-a-mano.

a thick black line

Example 5 – In search of new victims

Not content with monopolising a single website, this Duke character moved over to (CD) at the weekend, attempting to disrupt the discussion there as well. He created a new account just yesterday (16-02-14), made a comment imploring everybody to go watch some conspiracy video on YouTube and he got downvoted. Since creating new accounts solely for the purpose of advertising links is widely regarded as spamming it is hardly surprising this lack of etiquette was downvoted. The comment was duly replaced by the familiar administrative notice that, “this comment has been deleted“.

A few hours later he’s back, incensed about being downvoted and deleted. How dare they! Unable to contain himself he posts the same information all over again, and then again. Characteristically he replies to himself before anybody else can even get a downvote, let alone a word, in:

Internet Loon

Take a closer look at that. He is replying to somebody called “Stone” and he ends his comment with the promise “I will not reply, Stone…do not bother“. Minutes later, presumably angry at Stone’s marathon compliance, Duke replies to himself quoting one of Stone’s previous comments for good measure. One that he has already replied to, naturally. Ever in character he’s self-responding to call the respondee a liar. Pretty much the same as he did the first time, but with added URL-spam.

Liar, Liar!

Will his next reply-selfie be that Mr Stone’s pants are on fire?

Duke’s new CD account is unlikey to still be active this time next week. He’s already got form around there. It’s not the first time he has had an account on CD and his accounts don’t tend to last very long, and it’s not hard to see why. Back in 2012 he was making the absurd claim that he has already been banned from CD “for life more then once”.

Internet Loon

We presume by that he meant twice, and the next time CD bans him “for life” he’ll get to keep the match ball. The self-referential irony of his final sentence is outstandng.

a thick black line

Update 19-Feb
Duke’s new CD account is unlikey to still be active this time next week— The Skankworks, 17th Feb. 2014

Sure enough….

Banned from CD

A blast from the past.

a thick black line

Update 25-Feb
Example 7 – Pure Class

Duke surpasses himself here by not only replying to his own comment, but misquoting himself in the process:

Internet Loon

Back in the old days, before web browsers, we used to communicate on Usenet. Initially it was mainly post-graduate students and many of the posts made sense. Then, as more and more people started coming online we got to see many like Duke. But on Usenet, which was mainly accessed from Unix systems, one could place the posting addresses of people like Duke in a .killfile, and you would never again see their comments.

Many like him would get killfiled by entire groups. They would carry on posting all the same, totally unaware that nobody other than themselves ever got to read their drivel. Sadly, this is a feature that most web-forums have largely left out, preferring to simply ban abusers. That couldn’t be done on Usenet since it was, unlike webpages, a truly open forum administered by everybody and nobody. Web moderators who hit with the ban-stick remove the possibility of self-policing that we used to enjoy, and has the downside of forcing abusive posters to seek out other places to disrupt. Thus our comment boards are continually cluttered by drivelish paranoid spamming of the sort we’ve witnessed here.

The self-censorship of Usenet was a better system. These guys usually didn’t realise that they were killfiled, that nobody could see their posts anymore, and there was thus no incentive for them to move on and seek out new places to call people arses.

a thick black line

Are you being bullied by an Internet loon? Do you wish you could settle accounts? If so the will be happy to post your rebuttals.