I am perfectly willing to refrain from making fun of peoples’ weight (while Anonymous’ comment didn’t use the word “fat,” it did imply Mr. Turk was well fed). I will also refrain from making unfounded derogatory comments about anyone’s mental health or sexual behavior. The latter, of course, is precisely what Mr. Turk is doing. It is hypocritical of him to complain about someone calling him fat while he calls others paranoid fetishists.

What’s it going to be, Mr. Turk? Nice or nasty?

As for the plagiarism engine he created and put on the web in May of 2005, he acknowledges it went “horribly wrong” the minute people began to use it.

So what did he do? Sometime within the next four months, he put it on the “agenda to be revised,” and left it up to the next guy to take care of. Is that kind of back-burner, pass-the-buck approach consistent with the behavior of someone that is horrified at a mistake he made?

And how does any of this square with the fact that a very similar plagiarism engine went up on the Unity 08 site, despite (or because of?) the fact that Mr. Turk (still horrified at his terrible, terrible mistake of two years ago?) was on the Unity 08 leadership team?

Well, Mr. Turk?

If you did something other than post your paranoid conspiracy theory ramblings, perhaps you’d get asked to participate in more meaningful activities.

unless it’s in his last paragraph. Maybe he thinks being a jerk will prove his manhood and get people to respect him.

On of the advantages of anonymity is it forces people to focus on what you say instead making extraneous personal attacks. Ah, but this must frustrate poor Michael Turk. Still he keeps trying. He has 1) insulted my family (an ad hominem attack) 2) falsely claimed I said he was “fat” (straw man fallacy) and now 3) casts aspersions on my manhood (another ad hom)

Oh, and as far as Jim is concerned, he now thinks Jim’s criticism of his cut and paste spam campaign for the GOP website is an example of a personal sexual fetish. Michael Turk should be so lucky. Jim has been writing those things for ages–it’s only recently the Michael Turk name has surfaced in connection with the project. Oh, well, like the song says, even a sad love is better than no love at all.

But we did find out something. Michael Turk’s fridge was filled by paychecks. Who he works for is still secret, so we can’t draw any conclusions about his real motives for volunteering his free labor for Unity08 and the National Presidential Caucus. But here’s a clue. On another thread Michael Turk writes:

you could make a legitimate argument that I’ve spent a fair amount of my professional life screwing Democrat candidates

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/09/20/fred-thompson-asks-supporters-to-write-for-themselves/#comment-309411

Now, why would someone who wants to “screw Democrat candidates” volunteer his free time to both Unity08 and the National Presidential Caucus? And who does he really work for?

I got involved with Unity08 because I thought their idea would make an interesting social experiment. Could a candidate be picked purely by the people? Would a fusion ticket work? Could an online primary succeed while still protecting the integrity of one-person-one-vote?

When I read what they were doing, I sent a note to the webmaster and told them I’d be glad to help if they wanted it. They called me back and we talked at length by phone. My background with running a state party, my online experience, and my political resume were a good fit for the Rules Committee. I have had to qualify candidates for ballot access and I’ve built sophisticated online tools. they felt my participation in the Committee would help, and I was happy to help.

No, I never took a dime. Yes, I have a day job and a steady income. Like any other American, I’m allowed to work for one entity and volunteer for another. If you’re questioning that right, I can’t help you.

Directly addressing the letter tool, I created and launched the tool in May of 2005. I wasn’t happy with the way it worked and planned to address that. Like any large-scale development environment, we had a development road map for things we wanted to build/fix. At the time I left the RNC in September 2005, it was on the agenda to be revised. The guy that took my place left it as is (and it remains to this day).

The tool in question provided sample text, but did not go far enough in dissuading people from simply sending it. It should have been more strident in making that point, or not provided the sample copy. Either would have been better.

To the point that I attributed the weight comment to Jim, I have updated my post to clarify that. When I wrote the post, it was not my intention to make that implication. After reading his comments here, and seeing that it could be interpreted that way, I felt it was important to note that Jim has always been polite – even if I don’t get his hang up on me.

Finally,to Jim’s comment, I require an account on the site to comment as an effort to cut down on comment spam. It also prevents problems with annoying readers who refuse to come out from behind the moniker of “anonymous”. Hiding behind anonymity while being a jackass is not something I approve of. Be a man and use your name if your going to be a jerk – at least people would respect you.

And the GOP is still using the same tired excuses?

Oi!

We expected people to pick the sample passages, copy them to the letter, and then rewrite as they saw fit. We specifically didn’t use the standard “form letter” approach that was very popular in online advocacy because we were trying to avoid telling people what to say.

Is that the way it happened Jim? I’m sure you’ve still got the mirror archive for the GOP website. Is that what Turk really did? Avoided telling people what to say? Didn’t use a standard form letter approach? You’ve been tracking all this. When did he start the campaign on the GOP website? When did he take it down? Is it believable to think that Turk’s letter writing campaign for the GOP was like some 9/11 monster that “went horribly wrong” against all reasonable expectations?

We have already seen 1)Michael Turk made a snarky comment about Jim

If you did something other than post your paranoid conspiracy theory ramblings, perhaps you’d get asked to participate in more meaningful activities.

which he has yet to explain or defend 2) Michael Turk, while reserving to himself the right to made disparaging and untrue comments about others, has cast himself in the role of the victim, falsely claimed that I have made disparaging comments about him. At the same time he makes insulting remarks about my family. 3)Michael Turk, at the same time he has invented remarks that I did not make, has turned around and on his own blog attributed those remarks to one of the writers of this website.

Three lies.

What else is Michael Turk lying about?

Is he lying about his letter writing campaign that, like 9/11, he says unexpectedly went “horribly wrong”?

Is he lying about who paid him to do work for Unity08?

Is he lying about his part time work for Thompson?

How does he live? Seriously. It looks to me like he has the Al Capone problem. No legal income. Yet he volunteers for all of these organizations out the goodness of his heart. And we have seen in points 1, 2, and 3, exactly how good his heart is.

Now go over to his website and look at his picture. Does he look like a volunteer who is unpaid by Unity 08 and only marginally paid by the Thompson campaign? If it’s like he says it is, Turk should look like he just got out of the Peace Corps. But he doesn’t. And now he says he’s fat. And his website refers to the size of his waistline. So if he’s “fat” now, as he describes himself, the picture he’s using for his profile must be out of date. Follow the money. How did the food get in his refrigerator? Food stamps? The local church mission pantry?

How did Unity08 get the free use of Michael Turk’s services?