Mister Kitty? Is a slut. I think that's why. Or maybe because he nearly died this summer. Next time, ask Monty to do that while your guys are boarding... (pssst, I also brought them cookies not long ago...)

Ooh cookies good idea! That did remind me that I have to call and see if I can board the Swifty over MLK weekend.

I love that Monty too! He has the perfect personality for an office cat.

Toilet Terror vs. Toilet~ma. Which will win?

I'm putting my money on the ~ma.

My office is scary-quiet this week. Now would be a good time to reformat ugly tables.

Is it morally wrong to participate in a group effort to overload the server of a site that you find reprehensible?

I don’t know from morals, but the original post seemed fine to me. A link was posted. The person posting the link encouraged people to view it for malicious reasons, but meh.

Though I have filed that away for future viral marketing schemes.

Further down, where they’re getting into orchestrated DOS attacks, I probably wouldn’t say “immoral,” but I would say “illegal and idiotic.” I don’t know what exactly they think they’re accomplishing, honestly.

It does remind me of an ethically murky scheme someone had a while back. Let me see if I can find it.

Kat! Hey, I'm so sorry that I missed you and lori! Sounds like you had a great time!

We did, Liese. We're sorry we missed you too.

No work for me, but I'm organizing papers and files. My life, she is full up of the glamourousness.

Is it morally wrong to participate in a group effort to overload the server of a site that you find reprehensible?

I don't think it's immoral or illegal (if your part in the DOS is simply downloading their largest file repeatedly), but I may be wrong about the illegal part.

In fact, one person in the comments at Digg says that it's an assault on free speech to make the WBC have to pay extra for their bandwidth by overloading it, but I disagree. Hitting them in the pocketbook (as long as you're not the government) seems like a perfectly valid and reasonable way to express your dislike of their message. It's not that much different from an organized boycott of a company that expresses ideas you strongly disagree with.

Free speech means they're free to say whatever they want. It doesn't mean they shouldn't have to pay money for it (provided you're not the government)

It's my fault. I got your note, but I'd spaced that it was the day you were traveling, and by the time I got it, the SO already had the car all day. I meant to bring him with me, I wanted him to meet you. I should have just called to let you know why not, but phone fear! So, my apologies.

We'll get together yet, another time.

Hitting them in the pocketbook (as long as you're not the government) seems like a perfectly valid and reasonable way to express your dislike of their message. It's not that much different from an organized boycott of a company that expresses ideas you strongly disagree with.

Except that in this case it seems more likely to push up their Google rankings than to crash their server. I'd rather ignore them entirely than risk a scheme like this backfiring.

I wish my vet had an office kitty. When I was there for the first (and so far, only) time, they did have one of their patients/boarders out playing in the office--a great big boxer who was very curious about all of the animals being brought in for checkups and he was also a big "pet me, everyone!" slut.

Speaking of, my brother's two Malamutes were hanging out on their deck when I went over to his house yesterday (Kip was giving me a ride to the airport), and they lovelovelove getting attention. Of course, I was wearing a black knit shirt that had to be thoroughly lint-brushed afterwards, but I couldn't resist wrestling/scratching those two big goofballs.

I'm with Jessica. Taking part in the effort means I'd have to go to Phelps's Web site. Which just ain't gonna happen.

Doesn't help that diggs's site wouldn't respond on my browser, causing both that window and the b.org window to close.