When you ignore a university study but claim that spam caught in your personal spam filter has the slightest bit of relevance you contradict your claim that “As an engineer, I have been trained to consider facts in my analyses, not innuendo.” The denials by Paul supporters such as yourself are clearly based upon bias towards the candidate and not any consideration of facts.

(1) there has been zero computer forensic evidence presented that the CNBC poll was hacked;

(2) s/w used to send spam email is different than that which could be used to post comments to web blogs or to hack on-line polls. So the CNBC issue raised in the UAB press release is extraneous “red herring” data.

As an engineer, I have been trained to consider facts in my analyses, not innuendo. Maybe that doesn’t apply at UAB.

Gary Warner’s address bounced, but I got an “out of office’ reply from UAB president Carol Garrison. No reply yet from 4 people in PR dept. & one on UAB Conflict of Interest Review Board.

As an aside, while I do not doubt that UAB’s spam filters have caught the email messages they discuss, of the 523 spam emails caught in my Yahoo account Inbox over the past 2 days, a grand total of zero mention Ron Paul.

The reaction of Paul supporters is to deny everything and attack those who report anything which might be negative about Paul. In this case it isn’t even a criticism of Paul himself as this is assumed to be the work of Paul supporters as opposed to the campaign itself. It would be far smarter to admit that some Paul supporters are abusive. Of course the problem here is that many Paul supporters who post on blogs do not even understand that their activities are abusive and reflect badly on the campaign.

It would be smarter for the Paul supporters to attempt to police their own and for the Paul campaign to attempt to get his supporters to cease abusive activity. In 2003 we had similar problems from some of the Dean supporters. While the more responsible supporters and the campaign cannot put an end to all such activity, they can make an effort. When Joe Trippi and the more responsible Dean supporters made an effort to reduce abusive on line activities from their supporters it did reduce the problem.

If Paul supporters are going to resort to denials they should at least be smart enough to get their stories straight. So far here, and on some pro-Paul blogs, there have been a wide variety of denials, some of which are mutually exclusive. Denials include:

This never occurred
This occurred but there was nothing wrong with it
It occurred but was done by opponents of Paul to discredit him.

Conspiracies mean something quite different than friends getting together to accomplish something.

As for what’s wrong–1) Voters expect their candidate to be sane. 2) People who do not appear sane generally do not help their candidate. Of course this is a bit of a different situation as the candidate appears to have the same problem.

John Howard,

It is rather risky for Paul supporters to call others crazies as it only reminds people of how crazy those in the Paul cult are.

“Spamming means one sender sending to many receivers”

And that is exactly what is under investigation

“anti-Paul cult loonies have put on their tin-foil hats ”

Again, bad move in using terms such as cult, loonies, or tin foil hats since it only reminds people of how much this applies to Ron Paul and his supporters.

“sending to one nutcase blogger ads up to spam.”

That is not what is being charged, but such denials are typical whenever anything comes up about Paul. Such claims may work in the echo chamber of Paul supporters, but they don’t fool anyone else.

“Not a word of this silly blog is provable or worth proving.”

Such denials of what has been demonstrated only further undermines the already limited credibility of Paul supporters.

Not a word of this silly blog is provable or worth proving. I do agree, though, that we Ron Paul supporters are a scary bunch. After all, there are so many of us.

No Ron Paul spam has ever appeared in my mailbox, as yet. And I get several hundred spam msgs per day @ my Yahoo address. But, not one of them have mentioned Ron Paul. (Ron Jeremy, maybe!) LOL

It seems very likely to be a false-flag spamming.

1) All of the emails are addressed to “Scott” even when the email is addressed to cody@mydomain

2) The spelling and grammar is atrocious. Not at all what one has come to expect from the Paul camp.

3) The formatting is horrible as well. It is painful to read, all bunched together, and without decent paragraph breaks

4) The very first point is: “unless you want your children to have human implant RFID chips” Which really isn’t an issue that Dr. Paul is pushing.

5) some of the earlier messages referenced a video (not youtube) that is no longer available. A real Ron Paul supporter would have referenced a youtube video – there are plenty of nice ones that truly highlight Dr. Paul’s accomplishments and qualifications.

Later,
Kevin Houston

If you read the post before jumping in to defend Paul, you’d see that I did distinguish between spam email and blog comments. The two are related tactics from the Paul supporters.

Clarence,

When Paul spam blog comments by inventing defenses like this, it really only acts to discredit Paul supporters further. Paul and his supporters do a good enough job of looking like a bunch of nuts. There’s no need for anyone to plot against him like this.