OT: Bylaw Blog Author Identified
I'm going the whole nine yards, balls to the wall -- it's all-out war on cliches until the cows come home! I pity the fool who takes the plunge and tries for his 15 minutes of fame by rolling out some tired cliche and then resting on his laurels. It's time to think outside the box, put your shoulder to the wheel, and run your best cliche up the flagpole, or else throw in the towel, fold up your tent, and call it a day. The jury is still out, and it ain't over until the fat lady sings, but I think this thread is hands down, flat out barrelling off a cliff and going to hell in a handbasket. Don't make me come back here or, for all intents and purposes, it'll be Katy bar the door, hell to pay, and a fistful of fury. And now, with this last hurrah, I'll be riding off into the sunset.
I was waiting for 'nose to the grindstone', but I guess you can't win 'em all.
I wonder if he took it out. Which would be the height of double standards. But he was too big a puss to keep the comments open, so not only a loser, but a coward too.
Orchestrated by by Loyola-Marymount's arch-rival... uh... Cal Poly? Gonzaga? Maybe Santa Clara?
Cal Poly isn't in the WCC.
Thanks for the support everyone. And a special thanks to Brian. The interview I did with him got the blog really noticed for the first time.
I wish I could do more than a +1. Good luck to you, sir. You made convoluted NCAA rules clear to the masses. Thank you.
You deserved better than this. May your Lions destroy the Pepperdine Waves.
(Seriously? the Waves? What kind of mascot is that?)
I'm sure that if your career at the bylaw blog is over you would have a welcoming home here in the Mgoblog community.
He wasn't outed as an internet personality. He was outed personally. As a result, he's going to have to be careful posting anywhere from now on. Sure he can post here anonymously or on topics unrelated to his position, but his true niche and value arise from his position and experience with compliance. Once we know it's him, he's back in the same spot.
Best of luck, Compliance Guy. I sincerely hope your blog survives -- you provided a tremendous service to the community. More importantly, though, I hope your career doesn't suffer as a result of the boneheaded decision by Cap'n Ken. Even if the Bylaw Blog goes by the wayside, I hope you'll us know how things turn out with LMU.
Best of luck sir!!!
Is someone going to identify the mysterious "Brian" that runs this blog? I heard the Freep is on the case . . . .
My favorite part of the master detective's post -- which, after visiting it, required an immediate shower -- was his explanation that he was able to figure it out "[b]ecause, as the older people in my life would say, I'm 'good with computers.'" Well, as this older person would say (who happily is not in that guy's life), he's "not so good with judgment."
Holy cliches, batman!
Dont' go to his site and add to his hits. The best part are the comments, in which he gets own right here....
Seth9 says:
What you did has no moral or ethical justification. You revealed the identity of an individual who gave valuable insight on a topic about which laypeople understand very little who did so only because of his anonymity. As a former journalist, you should understand and respect the necessity of anonymous sources, which is basically what Infante was.
-
Cap'n Ken says:
Well, if you want to go the journalism route – which makes sense – this wasn’t a source of mine, so “protecting anonymous sources” isn’t an accurate description. Why wouldn’t you look at it from the journalist perspective of investigating who is behind anonymous writing? That’s not the motivation here, but it’s a legitimate journalistic role.
-
Why wouldn’t you look at it from the journalist perspective of investigating who is behind anonymous writing? That’s not the motivation here, but it’s a legitimate journalistic role.
The purpose of journalism is to provide information to the public. You have taken away a source of information from the public. Revealing the identity of someone who posts information online that solely serves to inform the public without damaging anyone is not good journalistic practice.
-
so “protecting anonymous sources” isn’t an accurate description.
I didn’t say that you should have protect Infante’s anonymity. That would imply that you were proactively aiding him, What I said was that you shouldn’t have proactively revealed his identity. You took action that has directly led to the elimination of a valuable source of information and you deserve the vitriol you’re getting because of it.
-
Douchebags always have douchebag handles.
I don't usually do this, but never have I seen a blogger that deserved not just a whole-hearted fisking, but also a DDoS attack.
I think the worst part is how he's so smug about it in responses, which boil down to basically "Oh, this is completely defensible because .... well, I don't need a reason."
Thank you compliance guy.
Related, it would be really great if anybody here was
a member of 4chan. Fight fire with fire.
Anon is anon, and will always be anon. There is no "member".
Why do I get the feeling that this asshole is on a corner somewhere telling a group of five year olds that there is no such thing as Santa Clause?
That movie was awful.
LMU has to worry about too much negative publicity around their school. I would think this might help them a bit in the publicity department.
And after reading some of his responses in the comment section, I've come to the conclusion that cap'n ken is the most unlikeable person on the internet
Probably told to lock it down by his employer.
Where do I pick up my torch & pitchfork?