Help Hugo Save Dumb Fatties

[Since it appears that this was the result of a hack instead of an Alas, a Blog-type situation, I'm removing Hugo's last name from this post so that this post won't show up in Google searches for him.  I'm also placing it below-the-fold.  That's probably obvious though, isn't it?]

Chris Clarke, Ilyka Damen, BFP, et al. have repeatedly demonstrated the failings of Hugo's tepid defense of a tired feminism.  No one needs me to recount the festivities.  But I want to pick up on something Chris wrote—in response to something Rich wrote—about the intent behind calling someone envious:

I’m in the general group of writers charged with being envious of other bloggers' "success," and yet some of the people making those accusations know full well I repudiated exactly that kind of "success" in the last year.

The same cannot be said of Hugo.  It is apparent to anyone with Firefox what constitutes success for him:

Having trouble reading that?  Let me highlight it for you:

Hugo has a sound reason to start fights, to pick scabs, to hold and periodically renew grudges:

Fat people can't spell. 

He cares enough not to insult them directly—they're already fat, after all.  What would happen to their self-esteem were Hugo to remind them they're also illiterate?  So he kindly hides his concern in the for obese idiots in the header of his blog.  When their sagging asses and bulging guts click on his site, they might not see evidence of his concern, but he hopes his message of Phentermine Love penetrates the folds and flaps of flab and communes with the thin person buried deep within. 

Ignoring him would undermine his ability to peddle his kindness.  It would be a tacit admission that you hate fat people (literate or otherwise).  So please, by all means, continue to take him seriously, continue to engage him as if his motives were as stated, lest you reveal yourself to hate the fatties Hugo so desperately wants to help.

Comments

[Scott K]

Looks like typical keyword-flooding to me, in an obnoxious and skill-free way.

[SEK]

But doesn't it smack of zombie-esque desperation?

READERS. REEEEEEEEEEADERS. NEED READERS. SPAM. SPAAAAAAAAAAAM. NEED SPAM. EAT SPAM. LOVE SPAM. AND READERS. REEEEEEEEEEEADERS.

[Chris Clarke]

oh. my. god.

[george]

Looks like his code was hacked, rather than intentionally altered to attract readers.

[Karl Steel]

Scott, I can't help but think you're wading into something again.

[Sisyphus]

Oh good ---- it's been months since he waded into something (as opposed to being struck down by the full force of a bureaucracy). I'll get the popcorn and wait for the entertainment.

I forget --- Scott, does this mean you're close to finishing some writing or you're stuck on some writing?

[SEK]

Karl, I don't think I am. If George is right and Hugo was hacked, I'll pull this down. But as it currently stands, it looks like someone's exploiting feminist controversy to make a buck. (And before we think it's not hacktastic, remember that Alas, a Blog eventually admitted to capitalizing on its Online Presence. I'd rather not think that's what's happened, but I can't be sure. But if Schwyzer tells me he's been hacked, I'll pull this. I don't want to tar someone for something s/he can't control.)

(Plus, when I saw this same invidious code a few months back, I sent Schwyzer an email alerting him to the hack. He never responded. Then, when someone linked to him again, I pointed it out, emailed him, and he never responded. I can't find the comment I made at Adam's place, but it was a while back, and that was around the third time I contacted him about this. I can only conclude that 1) he thinks I'm a nobody not worth responding to, 2) he knows he's right and that I should slink into some corner, or 3) he's deliberately ignored me for months and months, which proves that I'm envious, and, um, many other things that reflect poorly on me.)

[SEK]

Sisyphus, this means nothing, meta-speaking. It's pure annoyance about internet protocol. That said, I'm doing fine, all things considered. Crying too much, yes, but who wouldn't be? And progressing, you know, because I want to finish by March.

(But mostly crying ... especially at feeding time. Where is my evil bitch who thwaps all interlopers? Oh, yeah, that's right TEARS.)

[george]

(I don't know Schwyzer, and I haven't read him. So don't take my comments as a defense of his position in this ongoing argument.)

It seems extremely unlikely that his blog code was not hacked. In altering WordPress layouts, a blog owner (or her/his blog designer) can sometimes leave certain files universally "writable" (it's a Unix thing), making them much easier to edit but unfortunately vulnerable to this sort of exploit.

There are many forum/blog posts online about this problem with WordPress.

I first read about the problem here.

Google "wordpress spam injection" or "wordpress.net.in" for more discussion.

Note, also, that the links change. I just looked at the html on Schwyzer's blog again, and found links for anxiety and impotence meds instead of weight loss meds. It's not hard for a hacker to write code that will dynamically generate such spam links from an external database.

[va]

I hope the beautiful destruction wraught by LSU tonight bucked [no pun intended] you up, Scott.

[Meep]

Hack'd. You can read something into that, but MySQL injections are zomg easy and any site is vulnerable.

[sharon]

A Wordpress site of mine got hacked last year after the host managed to hand over a bunch of passwords to some spammers (thanks for nothing, Dreamhost). The spammers as I recall added their bilge to the main index.php file in a way that could be difficult to spot if you were using a standard WP theme (I wasn't, and it was immediately obvious something was wrong). And it wasn't enough to edit the file, they'd just keep coming back until you changed your ftp passwords. So let's just say I'm sympathetic to the hacking theory.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Oh, way to go, Scott. Of course I can't help clicking on something you link to -- so now I can see that Chris Clarke has been going off on me on his blog. For some year-old comment that he disliked. Oh, I can bet that isn't it, let's see what a search on "ilyka" turns up: yep,I'm called a jerk du jour in that one.

If anyone not in Chris' claque wants to actually read my old comment, they can see that Chris misrepresents it; it's about the presumption that political blogs should be about writing, rather than about organization or even just broadcasting propaganda to an audience, if you want to look at it least sympathetically. And writers who dismiss organization as "concern with ranking" -- well, envy or cluelessness, it's your pick. Chris, you're blogwarring and being sarcastic, all as you denounce blogwarring and being sarcastic. Leave me out of it, OK?

Oh, and you know what? Ilyka doing her best to encourage inter-group hostilities around Gilliard's death was a classic provocateur move. I know that you don't like hearing that, but there it is. I said that she was acting like a provocateur, and she was.

[Karl Steel]

Scott: by 'wading into it' I didn't mean you were wrong. I'm not making any judgment on that, just yet, since from the comments here, so far, it looks as if it could go either way. It's that this is just the sort of thing that can end in a Hello Kitty post.

Of course I love a good shouty thread, so, yeah, uh, bring it on.

[sly civilian]

up until recently, my site was one of the finest resources available on bestiality.

took forever to find all the places they'd stuck the links in my template. every time i thought i'd fixed it...the google hits kept coming.

the url strings that people used to find my site made me want to puke.

i laugh at hugo with the best of them, but this isn't likely his fault.

[Chris Clarke]

Rich, you're right about people being able to decide for themselves about what your old comment means. Pissed me off as stupidly insulting and still does, when I bother to think about it. But generally, when I don't need an example of that kind of thing, I just consider the source and move on. And I'd just as soon, honestly, not have anything to do with you directly, so I suppose I'll find other examples of such things.

And I would just move on now and ignore you, except that you've repeated your slander against my friend, and I just want to note (apologizing to SEK for the derail) that you made that statement as she was being followed from blog to blog by a reactionary who was literally trying to provoke fights about her politics regardless of the topic of her comment in each thread he subsequently visited. What's more, you made it in response to lighthearted banter between her and SEK. You helped to silence her for a long time last year, Rich. You helped silence someone whose voice is far more important and persuasive than yours will ever be, someone who is actually doing the online organizing you laud instead of just browbeating people Puchalsky-style for doing it wrong.

In sum; bite me. And stop fucking jacketing my friends.

Apologies again, SEK, for the unpleasant derail, but my one regret about my part in all that shit last year is that I didn't respond to that as forcefully as it deserved, as decency and loyalty deserved.

[piny]

Oh, and you know what? Ilyka doing her best to encourage inter-group hostilities around Gilliard's death was a classic provocateur move. I know that you don't like hearing that, but there it is. I said that she was acting like a provocateur, and she was.

You know, for someone complaining about "year-old comments..."

I read the comment and the thread. I think that the point about not casting aspersions on the motivations of A-list bloggers is a reasonable one. I'd dispute it, given the way that progressive "side-issue" real-world organizing is also treated. However, your point and subsequent complaint about unfair assumptions are destroyed by "sour grapes." If you think writing-blogs and GOTV-blogs shouldn't be conflated because their keepers have some views in common, that's one thing. On the other hand, when you say that Chris is just jellus, then you are saying that Chris is just jellus.

[piny]

I just want to note

She was also having to deal with a lot of people who didn't know her assuming that she was a reformed reactionary who, uh, still hated progressives. Some combination of convert's zeal and provocateuristining that was so nefarious that it made sense only to Ilyka.

But ANYWAY. Sorry to assist the derail!

I don't think Hugo had anything to do with this; I think it is spam. And I don't know why you want to give him another opportunity to apologize for existing, Scott. I think that's really irresponsible.

[k8]

I strongly suspect this is a hack. Currently, there have been some attacks on blogspot sites - I recently ran across one that was flooded with X-rated links. They definitely weren't placed there by the owner of the blog. There's an article about it here: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/12/blogspot_blogs_help_spread_sto.html

[Chris Clarke]

Clarifying point for Piny, and then I really WILL STFU: Wouldn't have cared if it was me being called just jellus. I am just jellus. Fact was, it was CRN commenter EBW, Eric Brunner-Williams, co-owner of Wampum and driving force behind the Koufax Awards, someone who's put hundreds of unpaid hours and thousands of unreimbursed dollars into building progressive blogosphere community only to have the A-listers ignore his work and his writing (some of the absolute best on the net, on Native topics and much else as well) when the Koufices were over for the year, who was accused of being just jellus.