I wish more republicans would advertise on Progressive sites. I like seeing them waste money trying to convert us, and not playing to their base who just see ads for boner pills. Can I say boner pills on Blue Oregon? No? Ok, weiner pills. There, that's better. Oh and congrats Kari & Co, 5 million down, 100 million to go!

Did you mean to suggest that you prefer readers who don't comment to those who do?

No, just making the point that they exist. Many of our readers don't know that.

it is interesting that on this note Lindsey Graham has an add supporting SC's Conservative Values.

As the note says to the left of that ad, we don't control the Google ads. They're contextual, but they're often backwards. We write about George Bush all the time, which is why we end up with "Republican Dating" ads and such.

Oh, and we're especially thankful to those commenters that use their real names, or unique pseudonyms. Appropriating the real names of real people who are dead and can't defend themselves, however, is totally inappropriate.

George Seldes was a prominent muckraking journalist, but he died in 1995. The individual commenting above merely stole his identity for use in the blogosphere.

Funny, backbeat, I heard Senator Wyden at the DPO Summit, and heard just about the opposite from him. He'd even gone on air to say quite specifically that no support for attacking Iran would be forthcoming from the Senate, if he had to filibuster.

Oh I'm sure the Iran has people who are Not Nice(tm). You don't have to be deliberately naive to argue that invading them is both stupid and evil.

George Seldes was a prominent muckraking journalist, but he died in 1995.

So what if a commenter wants to identify himself or herself as Marie Antoinette? I.F. Stone? Ronald Reagan? or Evel Knievel? It's not as if anyone would believe that a dead person was commenting on BlueO from beyond the grave. If the use of the name is consistent, by a single individual, where's the problem?

Portlandia... because "George Seldes" seems deliberately selected to be ever-so-slightly obscure. Marie Antoinette? Sure - everyone knows she isn't risen from the grave. But George Seldes died in 1995.

There's absolutely no reason that this individual can't use another name, like say, "Portlandia".

I don't know about the spring town hall, but at the Iraq town hall in August, Wyden was quite dismissive of people who expressed concern over the Administration's seeming rush to war on Iran.

He repeatedly brought up that as a member of the Intelligence committee he had seen evidence linking Iran to attacks on American troops in Iraq, but seemed to conflate that with the potential for Iran being a threat to the United States, which did get him some boos. I don't know if it was some sort of misunderstanding on his part or what, but it sure didn't make him seem very forthright at the time.

Kari, I don't really see a problem with using George Seldes as a tribute. The only people who are going to know the name are the ones who know who Seldes was, and they're probably not going to think it's the original writing comments from the grave.

There's always the possibility, of course, that his name actually is George Seldes. Unlikely as it seems, I've heard of two other Darrel Plants working in the computer industry: one worked on a long-ago version of "Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing" and the other ran porno websites out of somewhere in Alaska (you don't want to know how I found out about that one).

Me & Nixon have a hard time getting on-line down here.... dial up y'know. Maybe when Karl arrives in a few weeks here he'll pitch in and we can get cabel. What? COMCAST?! Crap!

Me & Nixon have a hard time getting on-line down here.... dial up y'know. Maybe when Karl arrives in a few weeks here he'll pitch in and we can get cabel. What? COMCAST?! Crap!

Darrel --

I appreciate that thought, but I disagree. This is a long-running debate over at Onward Oregon's blog, where Fake George Seldes is a regular contributor.

I think it's especially atrocious when someone representing a bona fide nonprofit organization launches vicious personal attacks while hiding behind someone else's name.

For all I know, FGS is a friend of mine or is a well-known person in his/her real life. But we wouldn't know that, because he/she is hiding behind the good name of George Seldes.

Congrats and thanks. Both reading and posting help me work out my positions on issues and candidates. Thanks to all the contributors and those who comment (and may there be more). BlueOregon is simply invaluable!

Well, there are ways to ensure that commenters are using their real names, at least on your own site. Registration and verification of identity is time-consuming but it does lock the identity of someone posting comments to reality.

Although I have to say, unless the actual identity of someone is known to the other people in a discussion, they're still functionally anonymous. If a Joe Blow shows up in a comments thread and accuses you of being a socialist or says you're not a big-D Democrat, unless you know which Joe Blow is involved in the discussion, they could just as easily be an attorney, an employee of a nonprofit, or a psychotic off their medication. Maybe a combination of those.

Look at Digby. One of the most well-travelled liberal blogs, but most of the people who read it had no idea whether Digby was male or female until the Kos convention this year. And I still don't know what her name is (not that that would make much of a difference) or her profession.

As with so many other things, it's usually best to gauge the quality on content and track record, not who's saying it or why you think they're saying it.

Fake George is right, I should have provided a link to his vicious (and stupid) personal attacks.

Read it for yourself.

Or, if you don't want to bother, here's the short version: Fake George thinks that all biofuels are evil, and that any organization that supports biofuels is evil.

He thinks that the Oregon League of Conservation Voters and the Oregon Environmental Council - and all of their scientific advisors - are wrong on economic, social, and environmental benefits of the Oregon biofuels legislation in 2006... and he is right.

I'll quote Jonathan Poisner, OLCV's E.D.:

The anonymous Onward Oregon blogger “George Seldes” has repeatedly distorted the Oregon biofuels Legislation in a misguided assumption that it’s simply the same as national ethanol subsidies for corn. The Oregon bill promotes clean air and economic development in parts of the state that really need it — a huge win for all Oregonians. The clean air benefits, in particular, are very significant. ... I’ve talked to three separate individuals who tell me that past efforts to actually engage Seldes in a conversation about this are like talking to a brick wall, only partly because he/she insists on anonymity.

Well, there are ways to ensure that commenters are using their real names, at least on your own site. Registration and verification of identity is time-consuming but it does lock the identity of someone posting comments to reality.

Well, you can (mostly) enforce consistency - but unless you're going to insist that people register in person with valid ID, you're not going to verify identity in any real way.

We've heard a lot from our commenters about how they value the ability to be anonymous. In general, I'm OK with that - but I'll continue to call out people who abuse it.

So he thinks biofuels are evil. Does his pseudonym make any difference at all in evaluating the validity of his claims? If he was calling himself John Doe would the argument against his/my claims be any different? I can't see how.

As for "vicious (and stupid)" personal attacks, I sure don't see any from George Seldes on the post you linked to. There was "And George Seldes is to ethical blogging what George Bush is to ethical governing" but that was from you. I don't remember you being so concerned about comments here that were more personal than anything on that thread.

Sorry for the "his/my" in the previous post, I was attempting a literary effect and didn't get that edited out. Didn't mean to give the wrong impression. I love biofuels.

There is a rather tepid, slightly overwrought attack via headline on OLCV, which tends to undermine attention to the bulk of the piece (long quote from somewhere else saying nothing directly about anyone or any group in Oregon) & hence any potential persuasive value it might have.

Nothing personal I can see at all. Nothing vicious.

I don't always agree with you Kari, but nearly always your views seem reasonable, and previously, always minimally plausible. But this time I am mystified by your claims of personal viciousness. Just don't see how you get there. Can you be more explicit?

I <do> wish GS/FGS had chosen a different tack, because I'm convinced that corn-based ethanol is not a good idea, have an idea that different potential "bio" sources need to be taken individually, but beyond that don't have settled views. A more informatively persuasive approach would have helped me.