Anonymous comments

Spammers re annoying, and part of the reason why I don't want anonymous comments. Too bad so many legit commenters insist on posting anonymously or adding their name only into the text body.

Here's some of the spambot crap that I get:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Is air power the ultimate power in war?":

I do not knοw whether it's just me or if everyone else encountering problems with your site. It appears as if some of the text in your posts are running off the screen. Can somebody else please comment and let me know if this is happening to them too? This may be a problem with my web browser because I'ѵe had this haρpen previously.
Αppreciate it
My homepage [advertising link]
- - - - -
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Is air power the ultimate power in war?":

What's up to every one, because I am genuinely eager of reading this website's post to be updated regularly. It carries fastidious material.
Also visit my website ; [advertising link]
- - - - -
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Arty ammunition basic load '91":

Wow! This blog looks exactly like my old one! It's on a totally different subject but it has pretty much the same layout and design. Wonderful choice of colors! [advertising link]
- - - - -
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The missing information on equipment":

I savour, cause I found just what I used to be taking a look for. You've ended my 4 day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man. Have a great day. Bye
my web site: [advertising link]
- - - - -
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Is air power the ultimate power in war?":

Whats up are using Wordpress for your blog platform? I'm new to the blog world but I'm trying to get started and create my own. Do you require any coding knowledge to make your own blog? Any help would be really appreciated!
Also visit my website ; [advertising link]
- - - - -
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Internetzensur: Wehret den Anfängen":

I dο not evеn knοw how Ι enԁеd up hеre, but Ι thought this post waѕ great. I dо not know who you arе but certaіnly you are going to а famous blogger if yοu are not alreadу ;)
My web site : [advertising link]
- - - - -

The only raison d'être for these serial liar spambots appears to be the manipulation of search engine rankings.

So to everyone who used to comment anonymously; is this the company you want to be with? 

Step 1: Simply choose "NAME/URL":

Step Two: Type your alias in the "Name" box:

Step three: Click on "Continue" button.

Step four: Normal comment in text box.

S Ortmann


  1. By URl what does it want a website, ip address, or something else?


  2. URL is not necessary, it is optional.

    You may enter one; then your name turns into a link.

  3. Thanks for the info S O

  4. I'm not familiar with the German outlook on this, but the Americans usually consider that anonymity is an important part of freedom of expression. If you aren't allowed to speak anonymously, you may decide that it's in your best interest to not speak at all. So, by restricting the ability to speak anonymously, you restrict the freedom of speech.

    I agree with you that spam is annoying, but putting up with it is a necessary evil (as much as I loathe using the concept of "necessary evil" due to the way it is always invoked by all the totalitarians/authoritarians in order to gain even more power).

  5. There's nothing un-free about taking a fantasy avatar name and stick to it.

    Many American blogs don't even enable anonymous posting and the biggest milblog (Danger Room) demands that comments be made with always the same (fantasy) identity.

    Finally, I can block you entirely without restricting your freedom of speech at all. You have no right to choose the forum for your speech.
    Think the NY Times; you have no right to get an article or comment published there. Same here.
    Faux references to human rights are annoying.

  6. Many Americans, unfortunately, don't really understand freedom of speech. The fact that many American blogs don't allow anonymous posting means just that they're restricting the right to free speech within their communities under the fallacy that "It's my blog, so it's my house and I don't care what you think of it. If you don't like it, leave."

    The result of that is that a lot of people are leaving. The Danger Room comment sections have become significantly worse since they moved from their own comment system, which allowed anonymous posting, to Disqs, which asks for a login and can track all your activity across all the websites where you comment using the same Disqs login.

    As for the NY Times, unless you toe a certain line (after all, it's a News Corp publication), you won't be posting anything there. There's no freedom of speech on the NYT.

    I'm quite saddened by the fact that you take this issue so lightly by calling this "faux references to human rights". If you are one of those people that consider that only the governments are bound by the rules of freedom of speech (those that recognize freedom of speech to begin with), but privately-owned organizations can operate like dictatorships and nobody should complain about it, then I have misjudged you. This is exactly the mechanism that many, if not all governments, use to restrict freedom of speech: in order to maintain the veneer of freedom of speech, they supposedly claim that they don't restrict it, but by various means they coopt or coerce the privatly-owned entities that control the flow of information to play ball, exercise censorship and, essentially, be the fall guys.

  7. You mischaracterise the freedom of speech.

    You have the freedom of speech of opening your own blog and write on it. You are not entitled to get your speech published on another blog.

    ALL media / publishers have the right to choose what they publish and what not.

    You're mistaken if you think your right to free speech entitles you to publish a comment wherever you want. It does not. It entitles you to publish a comment in your place, and nobody can sanction you for publishing it anywhere. It's not a privilege for unlimited access to publication channels.

  8. Then, how would you like if Blogger/Google censored your blog, just because they can? After all, you're using their publication channel and all that stands between you being and not being able to write whatever you want is a few arbitrary lines in an ToS. How about your Internet Service Provider? How about them censoring all your communications? After all, you're using their communication system and they're a privately-owned company and could draw up their own set of arbitrary rules you need to follow, or else.

    You have to apply the same principle all the time, otherwise you'll wake up someday and realize you don't like the world you're living in anymore, and that you're at fault too because it ended up that way.

  9. There's a telecommunications law
    It's a law, not a human right. It says ($41a etc) that the provider must not do what you mentioned. A well-run country regulates those of its private entities that would otherwise have considerable power.

    Concerning blogger: I save backups from time to time, and it's their right to quit their non-commercial relationship with me. I would move on and a couple befriended bloggers would tell most of my readers about the new address.

    An inflationary assertion of supposedly having fundamental rights diminishes the respect for actual human rights, and the sum of such activity is harmful.