My title is sarcastic, of course. Far from working together as a team, you have Robert Spencer burning bridges with old colleagues whom he previously praised (e.g., Diana West, Baron Bodissey, Andrew Bostom, Hugh Fitzgerald -- the last two belatedly welcomed back to the Jihad Watch family after years of wintry exclusion; though Jihad Watch seems to have been strangely Bostomless after a brief splash of a reunion in the spring of 2013) (The only name of those listed above I don't link is Baron Bodissey -- only because I learned of Spencer's ruthless anathematization of him from Bodissey himself; Bodissey wouldn't say why Spencer did this, only that in his estimation it was over a minor matter that had nothing to do with the problem of Islam. And Bodissey added that he was afraid of divulging the details, because Spencer threatened him with something which Bodissey wouldn't tell me. How many others in the Counter-Jihad mainstream has Spencer treated this shabbily? We peons, we Great Unwashed, we hoi ochloi of the Counter-Jihad civilians may never know what goes on behind the closed doors and back rooms of the Gentlemen's Agreement among the Counter-Jihad Luminaries & Elites...)
Another way the Counter-Jihad Community shoots itself in the foot is by banning useful contributors like me -- as Jihad Watch did from their comments sections recently, after one or more of the lynch-mob-cum-high-school-clique, the Rabbit Pack (Angemon, Champ, Mirren, gravenimage, JayBoo, Wellington, PRCS, Western Canadian, and dumbledoresarmy) persuaded Robert Spencer's site tech person "marc" to ban me. In a private communication with an acquaintance of marc's who lives in London, marc told that acquaintance that he decided to go ahead and ban me in order to protect "Robert's friends" -- i.e., the aforementioned Rabbit Pack. I know this, because that acquaintance told me, as he is a regular in my chat room at Paltalk.
The reader will notice the name of one of the Rabbit Pack, "dumbledoresarmy" (about whom I've written a few times before). Well, just this morning, as I was sipping the last of my strong cup of coffee, I noticed a comment by dumbledoresarmy in a recent comments thread at Jihad Watch attached to a report about the London stabbing. In one comment, dumbledoresarmy had alluded pertinently to the Theo Van Gogh assassination in 2004 and linked to an old comments section from Jihad Watch of 2004. Then another commenter, one "Alvin", noted that he can't see any comments when he clicked on the link dumbledoresarmy had provided. At that point, dumbledoresarmy responded:
-
Kay
sorry about that. ‘Alvin’ just mentioned not seeing any comments on that archived article about Theo Van Gogh.
it’s really odd, because there were *heaps* of really interesting and excellent comments attached to the article. Luckily I *saved* them all when I was first exploring the archives, ages ago (having discovered jihadwatch late in 2006, I went and *read the archives* and at that stage every posted article had its complete quota of comments firmly attached. And everything I thought interesting, I *copied and saved* on my own computer, in masses of e-clippings files). And the sample comments I put up here were from the relevant clippings file.
But perhaps the older threads and earliest lots of comments have now been LOST?? – failed to ‘roll over’, or something, as the site has changed its security regs? That would be sad, because many of them were good and added extra info, and Spencer’s friend Hugh Fitzgerald put a *lot* of effort into comments at the coalface, especially in the earlier years of jihadwatch. I’d hate to think they’ve all gone down the ‘memory hole’.
Shoutout to ‘marc’, Mr Spencer’s tech adviser/ IT Mr Fixit – **what HAPPENED to the archived Comments threads? Did they all get lost, somewhere along the way?”
1) First, ascertain the date of the Jihad Watch article in question.
2) Go to the "Wayback Machine" -- a comprehensive archive of the Internet.
3) Paste in the Jihad Watch URL into their search box.
4) From there, go to the month and year from #1.
5) The Wayback Machine will display Jihad Watch recovery pages by months -- but usually only a few days out of a given month are accessible. But this is not as bad as it seems. All one has to do, if your date is not highlighted on the Wayback Machine month squares for Jihad Watch, is select a date near it -- select a date that is later in time (i.e., more recent) because when you open a Jihad Watch page from yesteryear, you'll notice that the articles above are more recent than the articles below. Once you select an article that may be, say a week later than the one you want, just scroll downwards until you find the right title. The comments thread should be there, intact as it always was.
Let's try it now, with the article dumbledoresarmy suppled: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/11/theo-van-gogh-maker-of-submission-shot-dead-in-amsterdam
We can see that the title is "Theo Van Gogh, maker of Submission, shot dead in Amsterdam" and that the posting date is November 2, 2004.
Now we go to the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20060301000000*/https://www.jihadwatch.org/
We select the year, 2004.
We look for November... we see that, as expected, the precise day, November 2, is not available. So now we select a date more recent -- the nearest one is November 4. It happens to take us to an article at the end of November 3. No matter. All we need to do is keep scrolling downwards until we find the precise article we're looking for -- "Theo Van Gogh, maker of Submission, shot dead in Amsterdam".
Interestingly, one finds that the story is at "Dhimmi Watch" -- which formerly, was an adjunct website attached to Jihad Watch, but on a separate stream. Fortunately, Spencer posted a note in the Jihad Watch stream we are browsing indicating this, with a link. We click on that link, and voilà! -- we are there. And all of the comments which dumbledoresarmy mentioned, and whose sudden absence she worried over, are there, preserved as if in amber.
You're welcome.
She can also thank the lynch-mob-cum-high-school clique she belongs to for the fact that I was unable to impart this useful information to her (and for the likely fact that she will never see this).
