AKA the one and only Jim Riley from Virginia Virtucon, who has decided to tell-all about Too Conservative’s Vince Harris and his blowing of the whistle on a blog gone bad.
KENNEY: So were you the source of the file with the IP addresses from Too Conservative posted on Velvet Elvis?
RILEY: Yes. I created this file while I was a contributor on Too Conservative earlier this year and had administrative privileges. No one hacked into the site to gain this information and I have not logged into that site since those privileges were revoked.
KENNEY: Why did you generate the file?
RILEY: When I was an administrator on Too Conservative, I kept my eyes open for any obscene or inappropriate posts as any moderator does. I saw two posts that fell into this category by virtue of the commenters’ names: “SteveChapmanWantsParrishDead” (Del. Harry Parrish) and “SteveChapmanWantsDavisDead” (U.S. Rep. Tom Davis). (Mind you, this precedes any of the Steve Chapman vs. Black Velvet Bruce Lee legal dealings.) Anyway, as any responsible moderator would do, I looked into removing such posts and banning the offending IP address from the blog.
KENNEY: So what happened next?
RILEY: I clicked on the IP address and it generated a list of all the posts made by the person using that address. That is largely the list that is on Velvet Elvis. That is when I discovered that Vincent had made those posts along with the others.
KENNEY: What did you do about that?
RILEY: I immediately e-mailed Vincent, see text below:
Monday, March 20, 2006 5:38 PM
Vince,
I’m no fan of Chapman, either, but those anon posts you did with the names “SteveChapmanWants[insert name}Dead” are over the top. If I can connect you to those posts via the IP address, then a court could easily obtain them if Chapman sued for whatever reason.
Just be careful. You’ve got a bright future ahead of you and I don’t want you to blow it. I remember being your age and doing crazy things, too, so I do understand. But you’re putting yourself out there and that makes you a target for others. You might also want to lay off doing so many anon. posts, too. I do a few here and there myself, but you earn respect when you stand out there on your own as yourself. Just a bit of constructive criticism. (That and don’t trust Connelly any further than you can throw him.)
How’s that for living up to the role that SST put me in as being Alfred to your Bruce Wayne? I think that I’m the old man on the blog at 37 (not sure if Mitch is same age, older or younger, but he’s around where I am.)
Are you going to the PWC GOP Convention on 4/1? If so, I’ll see you there.
Like many others, I can clearly see his gift, but in this case, it was also very clear to me that he needed some advice and guidance and that is the spirit in which this was offered.
KENNEY: And how did he take it?
RILEY: Obviously, he completely disregarded it. See below:
Monday, March 20, 2006 11:27 PM
Jim-
As I am sure you are finding out..many people write anonymously trashing each other..even elected officials..I am not worried in the least, and have an utter distaste for Chapman and Stewart..who both themselves come on and trash electeds..
just last night corey says sean and marty were brokeback together…
I will try to be at the convention, allthough if you’re going I might skip it as you could cover it..and Sean won’t be there…so I might boycott it
He made the comments in question on March 18, which was a Saturday. I typically don’t even log onto computers during the weekend, so I did not even see this until Monday, March 20, which is the last date for which his posts appear in this file and corresponds to the date and time of the e-mail I sent copied above. About 48 hours later, the great blog purge happened.
KENNEY: You’re essentially saying that you were “fired” for being a whistleblower?
RILEY: You could put it that way. That’s not something that’s uncommon – it happens to almost all whistleblowers and that’s why a good whistleblower attorney (click here for an example) is vital. He got caught red-handed, panicked and tried to dispose of the evidence by getting rid of all his contributors. Fortunately, I had already saved the IP search results.
KENNEY: Wow. So why didn’t you release this information right away?
RILEY: I was still hoping that I could counsel Vincent on this behind the scenes and get him to straighten up about this. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist nor have access to IP addresses to realize that didn’t happen. My only regret is that I didn’t take my own advice with regard to Vincent that I gave him with regard to Gerry Connelly.
KENNEY: How’s that?
RILEY: Well, I thought that we had buried the hatchet, but back in May, I was looking to put together something among a number of conservative Virginia blogs with regard to the June 6 Democrat primary called the D4D Project. I had included Vincent among that group. Next thing I know, there is a post up on Not Larry Sabato intended as a pre-emptive strike against it. I have it on excellent authority from someone who spoke directly with Ben Tribbett that Vincent is the one who gave him all that information.
KENNEY: I know what most folks know I believe about anonymous/pseudonymous blogging (I don’t approve of it in the vast majority of cases). Given the fact that it now appears as if Vince Harris used anonymous comments and pseudonyms to “up” his blog, what motivated you to blow the whistle on Too Conservative?
RILEY: As I admitted in my e-mail to Vincent, from time to time I may post anonymously if for some reason I cannot post under my own name (such as something related to my duties as HOA president or my job). My main problem is when he misrepresents himself in those posts, such as claiming to be a constituent in a particular House district in which he does not actually live. I also have a problem with him posting as elected officials such as Bill Bolling and Marty Nohe. The Bolling post was obviously not him, but the Nohe post even fooled me and I’ve been friends with Marty for a long time. Someone who doesn’t know Marty might not take it in the humorous way it comes across to the people who do know him. And if Marty decides to run for PWC Chairman, some op-researcher might dig that post up and use it out of context. I don’t want that to happen. I also have a problem with the level of vitriol he uses in these posts. It is just uncalled for in polite, political discourse. Especially coming from someone who is always saying how we have to build the party, be more inclusive, etc. Had Vincent not purged us, Hughes, Hirons and I were getting ready to bolt anyway.
KENNEY: You’ve held on to this for awhile Jim. Why did you release the information now?
RILEY: People have the right to know, especially the readers and commenters of TC, that someone was and is trying to manipulate them and shape their opinions. People have the right to know that Vincent was trying to set himself up as both the prosecutor (commentator) and the jury foreman (public opinion) in a sort of Alice in Wonderland court. Too Conservative under Vincent is a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is very unfortunate, because I find his new set of contributors to be very thoughtful, level-headed people with much to offer and I have great respect for them. The difference in tone and style between their posts and Vincent’s is becoming starker each day.
KENNEY: Fair enough. So here’s the big question: are you Velvet Elvis?
RILEY: Yes. No sense in denying it.
KENNEY: Why didn’t you post all of this on Virginia Virtucon?
RILEY: Because Virtucon has a different focus. It is not a blog that “watches the watchers.” It is like comparing the Heritage Foundation mission with that of Accuracy in Media. I didn’t do it as myself since I thought that the focus should be on the content of these posts by Vincent, not on who revealed it.
KENNEY: Why Elvis???
RILEY: Why not Elvis? He’s a fun, cultural icon who lives on today with conspiracy theories abound about him. Heck, check out the movie Bubba Ho-Tep and you’ll see what I mean.
That’s everything folks. Lots to talk about, so go ahead and let the comments begin…