Wait, Over 20,000 Blocked Accounts at LGF?

A recent battle that appeared in the Lizardoid Twitterwarrior Theatre got teh Johnson a little defensive about the number of banned netizens on LGF. One of CJ’s responses got past me, but our BRC Engineer #6 caught it, and made an excellent point:

Late last year, we updated our list of confirmed blocked accounts to 16,027. But this revelation, if true(*), means that we are still missing thousands more. It’s just some simple math.

See, a couple years back, we verified that there were 35,578 total user accounts registered (since it was implemented in 2004, and of course there’d be a few more by now). If there’s about 15,000 still active (or more accurately, not banned), that means that there’s roughly 20,000 that have been banned, or about 4,000 more than we’ve confirmed.

That’s quite a number.

An interesting corollary is that with CJ’s spin and deflection, he’s not disputing that our numbers were at least in the ballpark. In fact, in the prior tweet, he attempted to justify these huge numbers:

This is a real howler, for a couple reasons. First, since CJ doesn’t venture outside his own virtual castle, it’d be pretty tough for him to know what “many other sites” do. I’ve never run across it. And why would they? Second, the data the BRC gathered on a previous expedition does not show a nice, even, phasing out of old accounts “automatically”. On the contrary, we found that about 10,000 disappeared virtually overnight:



It’s possible that CJ has implemented something like this recently, but that looks like an obliteration done manually. So given the context and our experience, we’re gonna throw out a fat BS on that tweet as well. I mean, he claims these things but offers up no evidence or examples, and it’s completely contrary to what is found when someone decides to fact check him. *And there’s certainly little reason to take him at his word, the guy who swore up an down he’d never uttered “Saint Pancake“.

On 16 March 2003 Rachel Corrie ate it. Less than a year later, Charles was already back pedalling.

Is it too late to post this? Nah. It’s still March 16th in Culver City.
St Pancake 2004

Charles’ Comment 167 WAS a lie (as proven years later by the BRC) which put his immediate spazdefense comments in question. Comment 168 indicates that he knows he deleted a comment once he became aware of it yet he doesn’t recall it. Regarding Comment 169: remember when Charles denied sending the LGF Flying Monkeys to astroturf the Amazon reviews of Pam Geller’s book? Yeah, like that never happened. (In fact, it never happened twice.) Does anyone really believe Comment 169?

Alouette tonka-corrie

NAZIS! [Updated]

Hoft Tea Party 1

Only behind the fevered forehead of Charles Johnson (nestled in the damp darkness somewhere between his blank black bead-button eyes and his Magical Jazzy Ponytail scrunchie) could this photo be construed as a Pro Nazi Rally, but that’s precisely what he claimed while trying to smear Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit.  What exactly is Hoft guilty of? Pulling a Breitbart.

Hoft responded to false accusations by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) that Tea Partiers are a bunch of neo-nazis by offering a reward for proof. Jazzy went scooters.

Hoft Tea Party 2

Okay. So radical grampas and grammas and mommies and daddies are neonazis for wanting to prevent the IRS from becoming a US version of Germany’s SS.  Got it.  So what was Hoft’s “Monumental Fail” that Mr.#Rumpswab refers to? An honest clarification of obvious intent, caught by a Wonkette reader. Original version:
Hoft Wonkette 1
Revised version:
Hoft Wonkette 2

Hunh. That’s a “Monumental Fail” according to someone who is notorious for editing and deleting his own words and those of other years after they were posted on LGF,  who claimed he had nothing to do with nicknaming Rachel Corrie “St. Pancake”, who couldn’t identify the State Flags of either Tennessee or Ohio, who can’t tell the difference between a menu board and a laptop, who lied about Brevik’s Manifesto, who honestly claimed Anthony Weiner’s PeniePix as his own, who claimed George Zimmerman wasn’t injured by Trayvon Martin, who supports planting racist comments on rival blogs, who doesn’t know the definition of the word “bogus” or how to pronounce the word “milieu” and who’s been reduced to licking the fetid rump-pus-infections of a blogger known as Wonkette for liberal street cred.

Chuck, you’re a mess.

Update:  The inane attack on Hoft continues. Here’s the pertinent part of the DSCC Request For Donations:

DSCC Tea Party Nazis 2

The unspoken insinuation is undeniably clear:
The Tea Party is a radical group comprised of neo-nazis.

Jim Hoft’s offer of a reward was poorly worded, but his intent was also undeniably clear:
Prove that the Tea Party supports National Socialism or STFU.
[Update: Added “St. Pancake” to the list of lies, h/t Swamprat.]