Look what I discovered in a Yahoo search for my name: Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy. It needs some editing, but there are lots of footnotes. Thank you, Rob Smith, who wrote the whole thing about six weeks ago. I had no part in it and didn't know about it until just now.

Unfortunately, about eight links higher on Yahoo there is a scraped version of my deleted Wikipedia bio. I guess the two cancel each other out.

Boys and girls, mark my words: You cannot win on the Internet.

Regardless of slant or sources, the Smith piece is insanely incoherent and sloppily written. It's hard to even piece together a narrative from it, and it veers into the Essjay thing as if it were just the end of the Brandt saga.

Well, okay, it needs lots of editing. But it still has 138 footnotes. The scraped bio has only 31 footnotes.

I poked through the footnotes too... I see about two dozen that are truly germane to your case. Maybe a few more of the Chip Berlet ones that I tossed out at first glance.

Planning on building a coherent account? One maybe reviewed for clarity by an outside source?

I'd be willing to have a look at it and give you my outsider opinion. I might disapprove of your site, but I disapprove more of Wikipedia not allowing living people down past a certain level of celebrity to opt out of having articles on their site.

More to the point, you can't be invisible (especially if you're an actor in the nascent dramas of the Internet).

To paraphrase Seng-Ts'an, be not concerned with winning and losing. The obsession with winning is the neurosis of our time.

I think that Conservapedia's predictable take on Berlet as a hard-line leftist sort of plays into Berlet's hands.

Well.....*I* think Conservapedia is a complete joke in any case.

Did you know that Andrew Schlafly appeared on The Colbert Report a few months ago,
and was billed as the head of the Conservative Bible Project,
an attempt to "remove the liberal bias" from the Bible?

Even though Andy had previously appeared on the show as "founder of Conservapedia",
they failed to mention Conservapedia in the second interview....

Even Colbert uses Andy as the butt of (more than one) joke.
And Andy, desperate to get publicity -- ANY publicity -- cheerfully allows himself to be shat upon.

Thank you for the kind words, Mr. Brandt.

Yes, perhaps the article does need some editing and cleanup, and I'd welcome anyone who wishes to help out come over to CP. Somey once said,
so it does need to be preserved as perhaps the definitive account of the Essjay scandal. And the fact remains BLP was created to "deal with the Daniel Brandt situation."

The New York Times today had an article about Google's problems in Germany, and I thought back to Daniel Brandt posting in WR about the early days of GoogleWatch, how Brandt was virtually alone in expressing concern over Google invading privacy, and was branded "internet public enemy number one" for doing so. Amazing how things turn out.

To be fair that's true of everybody who appears on Colbert. But it's not so bad, as everybody understands that Colbert only plays the idiot-boy game, so whatever he says can be disavowed on both sides. He's insinceriously serious. It's Jon Stewart who is seriously insincere.

So... This isn't about the bloke from the Cure? Somey will be disappointed!