Just from the front page of KO.Org (I love this):

"He caught my eye as he bucked the tide of journalists who reported talking points without question, devoted valuable hours of network time to trivia, and literally were nothing more than Talking Heads. I soon discovered Keith was pretty much the only person on MSNBC worth watching, and have become convinced he is this generations Edward R. Murrow."

Just a quick look at these two sentences shows the delusional views of the site owner. "...bucked the tide...reported talking points with out question." How many times has KO lifted a story from a blog, reported it as fact (often for days at a time), had contributors on to agree with his view, and then found out oops, it wasn't accurate.

Another. "...devoted valuable hours of network time to trivia..." Roughly a third to a half of every show is Oddball, celebrity "news," and other stories "(his)producers make (him) cover." In what way is this not "trivia?" The only part of this statement I can find to agree with is that he is not wasting "valuable hours of network time" in that his ratings are so poor the time is not valuable to the network.

"...convinced he is this generations Edward R. Murrow." Leaving aside the obvious lack of an apostrophe in the above, who, besides KO himself could honestly agree with this statement. And why is it (apart of the constant reminders of his 2 ERM awards) that this comparison keeps coming up? When has KO ever gone out in search of a story. The only time he leaves Secaucus is when he's on the road to watch a baseball game. Most would agree he does very little of his own research. He doesn't cover stories objectively; he insists on painting every story as favorable to Dems, unfavorable to Repubs. ERM would NEVER have publicly attacked a competitor, nor would he have used silly voices or childish nicknames when discussing one.

The ridiculous nature of just the front page of KO.Org was enough that I'll have to check the forums and member logs later. Now I need some antacid.

Scott wrote:

"The only part of this statement I can find to agree with is that he is not wasting "valuable hours of network time" in that his ratings are so poor the time is not valuable to the network."

ha!

Oh gee, maybe that web site needs to add Tom Brokaw, Rita Cosby, Dr. Phil, Nancy Grace, and all the rest of the phonies that YOU allow to post on THIS web site under fictious names!

People who live in glass houses...........

Sherry, we are going to have a new policy that only people who use their real names can post here...starting with you!

Not interested?

Fine.

I suppose your intellect is too limited to appreciate the difference between the owner of keitholbermann.org creating phony members and linking those members to spam sites in order to boost his google page rank and real readers of this site choosing to post comments using psuedonyms. It is the difference between fantasy (keitholbermann.org) and reality (olbermannwatch.com), a distinction that OlbyLoons are, by definition, are unable to make.

For all you clear-thinking readers, Sherry's comments provides us an interesting specimen through which to study the lunatic ravings of the OlbyLoon mind. Enjoy!

Robert, is it possible for you and your regular posters to attempt criticism without being insulting?

Robert, is it possible for you and your regular posters to attempt criticism without being insulting?

I wouldn't hold your breath.

ha

Just found this website from wickipedia..it is hilarious...Keith's spouts are so blatantly liberal biased it is laughable..serious question though? does he claim to not be liberally biased? I was laughing with a coworker about how retarded and uninformed Keith is so I googled his name..got to wickipedia..and then to this. I am sending this link to everybody.keep up the great work. His envy of Bill O' Reilly is pretty funny,

Robert Cox, you sir, are an idiot! I have pretty much refrained from being perjorative in my remarks but when you cast such aspersions upon me I am forced to respond in kind.

For your information, Sherry Starr is my moniker..It was my legitimate radio name. I am not signing on here as Oprah or Madonna or anyone famous to dupe people, such as you allow the Brokaw and Dr. Phil phonies,etc. to do

I AM Sherry Starr. That is me! At least when I use a nom de plume I don't use someone else's.

I would never stoop so low as to refer to your comments to that of "lunatic ravings." I think we know who the better person is here.

What's even funnier is that you ended one of your posts I believe with God Bless America!
I'll bet your God is very proud of you and how you act in his name!!! ("his" in lower case intentional).

Keith is referred to on this site as deplorable.
To paraphrase the recently departed Lloyd Bentsen...You sir are no Keith Olbermann!! Before you go spouting off about that being a good thing, I can assure you it is not. You and your ilk are deplorable and need to learn some manners.
Learn how to debate without all the name-calling. I apologize for stooping (momentarily) to your level.

"You sir are no Keith Olbermann!! "

Thank God for that, Bob!

"You sir are no Keith Olbermann!!

What does it mean to not be Keith Olbermann?

It means:

1) You do not have an orange fake tan.
2) You will debate those who disagree with you.
3) You have progressed beyond the emotional age of 5, so you no longer use childish faux voices and puppet shows to express your views.
4) You are not pathologically inclined to share private information about yourself in front of a national audience to call attention to yourself
5) You acknowledge the sources from which you lift your pre-packaged stories.

Ahhhhhhhh here we go, on the personal attack again!!! I've finally come to the sad conclusion that it does no good to argue with any of you because all you want to do is make disparaging personal remarks.

I would suggest that you attackers have definitely not progressed beyond the emotional age of 3!!!!

As I've said before, Keith may actually have helped people by divulging his personal information on the show.

Admit it, you know you just LOVE his faux voices and puppet shows. They are really funny and you know it!

Oh, come off it Sherry-- "disparaging personal remarks" my ass!! I guess you don't mind it when KK refers to O Reilly as "loofah boy", do you? Look, KK has thrown down the gauntlet so, if he wants the dialogue to be a contact sport, then so be it. KK's show is utterly dependent on the "disparaging personal insult", so don't come here whining when his critics respond in like fashion. I certainly won't deny that the clear thinkers box KK around with some wry observations about his personal peccadilloes (it keeps things entertaining besides), but if you think that
"all [we] want to do is make disparaging personal remarks", you are most certainly mistaken. Day after day, there are multitudes of posts with substantive criticicms of KK, which for the most past go unaddressed by the Olby Loons, who mostly just bring their Bush hating fodder to this site rather than actually trying to defend last place Meltdown (to your credit Sherry, you at least try to defend KK, weak as your defense is).

No, Sherry the faux voices and puppet shows aren't funny, nor are they original or creative. These rants are not edgy and hip as KK wishes it were-- it's just KK's emotional diarrhea in all its ugliness. It is further evidence that KK is an unhinged and bitter partisan who can't stand that he gets his ass kicked each and every day by his superior competition.

Sherry,

Let me take your comment line by line.

- You write "you sir, are an idiot!"

I'm not an idiot. You're an idiot. So there!

- You write "Sherry Starr is my moniker" as opposed to a pseudonym.

As a good liberal, I am sure you accept everything as Wikipedia as being true so let's see how they define the word "moniker".

WIKIPEDIA says...a moniker (or "monicker") is a pseudonym, or cognomen, which one gives to oneself. The meaning is distinct from nickname, in that a nickname is generally given to one by another, and not chosen for oneself.

In other words, dopey, a moniker IS a pseudonym.

- You write "It was my legitimate radio name"

Emphasis on the word "was". This isn't radio and you aren't Sherry Star but claimed you used that pseudonym on the radio. I ran a Google search but couldn't actually find any reference to a radio host named Sherry Star although I did find a porn star named Sherry Star. I'm not going to go there.

- You wrote "I am not signing on here as Oprah or Madonna or anyone famous to dupe people, such as you allow the Brokaw and Dr. Phil phonies,etc. to do"

I don't "allow" people to comment as Brokaw or Dr. Phil or Sherry Star. People are free to comment as they see fit and if they want to use silly names that is there prerogative. Unless you believe that it is possible that Tom Brokaw or Dr. Phil are actually commenting on this site (and even I don't consider that a possibility) commenters using those pseudonyms are not "duping" anyone.

- You wrote "I AM Sherry Starr. That is me!

Says you! How do we know that you really are Sherry Star the "famous" radio personality and not Sherry Star the porn legend. For that matter, how do we know that you aren't actually Dr. Phil?

- You wrote "At least when I use a nom de plume I don't use someone else's."

The always reliable Wikipedia says..."a nom de plume is a pseudonym adopted by an author."

You said Sherry Star was your "radio name" so it can't be a nom de plume unless you never were a radio personality using the name Sherry Star and only use the Sherry Star to author comments at Olbermann Watch. In the case, Sherry Star is not a moniker so one way or the author you are lying.

In conclusion let me reiterate that America is the best country in the world and if you don't love it then leave it. Amen and God Bless America.

Love and Kisses

Taylor Hicks

Well Mr. Cox you just proved your total idiocy!! (Gee, somebody actually had the nerve to speak out against you and you can't take it). "You're an idiot. So there!" Ha! Spoken like a real 2 year old! I'm surprised you didn't say nanny nanny boo boo.

America, love it or leave it? How about love it or fix it?!!!! I don't understand your comment about Love it or Leave it. Where in the hell did that come from? Oh I forgot...your idiotic mind! See, you have reduced me to your deplorable childish games.

Do you really think that you would find EVERY radio DJ in the country, past and present on Google? How ridiculous!!

I am NOT Sherry Star, porn star and I wouldn't even know that a person of that name WAS a porn star. However, I see that you are quite well informed on that sleazy aspect of our culture! No surprise there!!

Hank you're a total idiot too. And this latest pic of Keith as a horse's ass is way over the line.

That said, adios to all of you. This site is like a train wreck where we don't want to look but find ourselves drawn to it. It was fun for awhile but the nastiness is way beneath me. I am a much better person than any of you are here on this site.

My only regret in leaving this site is that there will be no one to stand up for Keith. But then again, how many people actually read these posts? You criticize the Olbermann fan site as having the same people contributing when your site is guilty of the same. The same old drivel from the same old people.

I wonder about people like you who can have so much venom for someone they don't even know.

Anyway I leave you to your idiocy, your stupidity, your nastiness, your pettiness, your misguided political views, and your all around creepiness!!!

Say what you want about me because I won't be back to read any more of your nasty posts.

This IS Sherry Starr, former radio DJ and unabashed fan of the enormously talented, witty, intelligent, handsome and charming KEITH OLBERMANN!!

nanny nanny boo boo

Why is it that every time Sherry writes on her about the personal attacks, she has to resort to calling everyone who posts here names like idiot, or use phrases like "your idiocy, your stupidity, your nastiness, your pettiness, your misguided political views, and your all around creepiness!!!"? Why is it that she posts about the "vitriol" on the Factor, saying she watches KO to get away from that? Could it be another case of "It's ok for me and my guy, just not you and yours?" I think there's a word for that kind of thinking, starts with an h, I just can't think of it...something like hippo kit, oh yeah, hypocrit.

Sherry, I'm going to have to ask you to replace the keyboard I just covered in Diet Coke. Thanks for all the laughs, they really help to break up the work day. I will truly miss you.

Best Regards :)

I've noticed that conservatives are extremly paranoid (mostly the internet ones). They want to act like everyone is against them--the media, wikipedia, the judicial system, everyone! It worked so well for Republcians when the Democrats had the House for over 4 decades--they couldn't get any laws passed because the Democrats were in control, and now they have control and all they can look to blame now is the media.

A side note. Many posters here resort to name calling and think they've won a debate. The difference between what SherryStar did was (although I don't think calling someone an idiot adds to the debate) call someone a name and then explain why (in this case it might even work--if someone isn't understanding her point). It isn't a personal attack just to be a personal attack. Look at her post and compare it to what is done, in terms of name calling, in the main posts.

I am responding in my role as a Moderator on KO.org to these wild and unfounded charges.

First of all, it is true that robots can and do register on keitholbermann.org, but that is because the system that was established is fairly permissive. The only way to completely block robots from registering would be to switch to a "moderator-approved" registration system (where a request for membership is approved by one of the moderators/administrators before they can post). Such a system reduces traffic flow and is a disincentive for people to visit.

Second, "killing" robots is more difficult than the people at this site seem to realize. In order to "ban" a robot, three steps must be taken: that robot's username, e-mail address and IP address much each be targeted individualy and then eliminated in separate actions. Robots that post messages to KO.org are eliminated as soon as they are detected. But it is a time-consuming process, even with multiple moderators working on it.

As for the charge that the Site Admin is responsible for the deluge of robots, it is reckless in the extreme for you to make such wild and unsubstantiated charges without so much as a wisp of fact. You base your entire argument on circumstantial evidence and coincidence - in other words, you are full of sound and fury, yet signify nothing.

As always I remain,
Trekkie
Moderator, Keitholbermann.org forums

Since Non brought up Wikipedia in relation to presumed conservative paranoia, I thought I'd add my $.02. I checked the Kenneth Blackwell entry, and something caught my eye that harkened back to an earlier Bob Cox post.

On the Wiki entry, under the heading "Involvement in the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy", it mentions "Keith Olbermann has interviewed Blackwell regarding the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy." This brought back to mind Bob's theory of Wiki being the pet project of Olbermanniacs. If Mr. Blackwell's media appearances were relevant to the topic, why no mention of his appearances on CNN, PBS, OR Fox News? All those appearances were also in reference to the "2004 presidential election controversy?" In fact, if you review the history, you'll see that reference was once made to other reporters questioning him on the "controversy." and once the KO reference was changed to "Many journalists have". Both times it was edited to remove reference to others. The second was reverted by "Zen-Master" due to an anonymous poster editing the entry. Called it "vandalism." (In fairness there were other edits, all of them in my opinion NPOV in contrast to the overall tone of the entry.)

Maybe Bob was on to something. Hmmm...not paranoia, I just think something smells in Denmark. Or St.Petersburg, FL.

So what do we have here? Why it’s a board moderator at ko.org admitting that they have fake members at their board—“robots” as they choose to call them. But how exactly do “robots” confirm membership by email as is required by the system in place at KeithOlbermann.org? My those must be some sophisticated robots you have there at Ko.org. But thanks Trekkie for confirming what I reported: the vast majority of your registered “users” are fake. And your true membership numbers are less than 20, not the 300 plus you so proudly proclaim. I find it deeply ironic that you all claim to admire Olbermann for his honesty and his integrity but choose to perpetuate a lie because it’s too “difficult” to “ban” them. Wait, you’re actually all just like Olbermann: twisting facts and making statements you know are false in hopes that someone will actually believe it. So you have multiple moderatos working on that robot problem huh? So why then do the membership numbers continue to grow every day with not a single one of these “members” posting? I don’t see those numbers diminishing: only increasing. Could it be that it’s just too tempting to watching those registration numbers grow and that it’s tempting to lie about how many members you actually have because the truth is decidedly unimpressive? Olbermann must be so proud to call you fans: you’re just like him. But hey-at least you didn't try to claim I was a scientologist.

I knew this would happen. You twist my words to fit your pre-concieved conceptions and dismiss everything else as irrelevant.

I thought this was a level-playing field?

Trekkie

How is quoting you "twisting"? You're using trumped up registration numbers and by your own admission, you have fake registrants at that site. You also admitted it was "difficult" to delete those members and claimed that even with multiple moderators it was too much to do. That might fly if there was evidence that your membership numbers had gone down and there was evidence at your site that you had at least attempted to stem the tide of "robots" as you call them but I don't see a single name that has been deleted from your site's claimed registered membership list. You might want to spend more time actually moderating your board instead of claiming you've been misquoted.

Robots are eliminated quite simply. After hitting submit, the message is seen in preview form with the question "are you a human" and a yes/no toggle switch. qed.

I think the bot/KO relationship is a symbiotic relationship, much like the orange parasites on Keith's face are to Olby's flabby corpus.

I just checked. 40 new registrations in the past two days. Not a single one has posted on your board.

And I'm going to quote you word for word here since you feel I've "twisted" your statements.

"The only way to completely block robots from registering would be to switch to a "moderator-approved" registration system (where a request for membership is approved by one of the moderators/administrators before they can post). Such a system reduces traffic flow and is a disincentive for people to visit."

Anyone can read a message board without registering as a user. How is preventing "robots" as you call them from registering going to prevent anyone from reading your board or going to your website? Are the robots that powerful that they'll put up a force field to prevent anyone else from visitng your little site? Maybe you've watched a bit too much Star Trek.

Sorry but you've just confirmed once again what I already know. Deleting those users would delete the links to your spam sites, reduce your Google page ranking, and make it very easy for anyone to see the truth: only 40 total posters ever and less than half of that number are "regular" posters. Although how regular Olbermann apologists are is still highly debatable.

Trekkie,

I'd be fascinated to know why you would willingly tolerate spammers adding "members" and spam links to your site. If this site is going to be so imporant for KO fans then why not treat them with a little respect and do whatever is necessary to prevent spammers from turning your site into an online pharmacy and porn shop.

Instead of claiming that you are "helpless" to do anything about the "robots" why don't you shut down the ability to register for a day, delete all the "robot memberships" (as you claim them to be) and whittle down your membership to real people. Once that is done you can switch back to open registration. Then we can all watch what happens. I think there are some folks here who would be more than happy to help you maintain the site so that it accurately reflects the paltry membership of your site.

BTW, I wouldn't be complaining too loudly about Brandon's post. He gave your site more attention from real people in the first hour the post went up than you get in a month. Remember, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

419. No, that's not the latest number of hits scored by some baseball star but the number of registrants at KO.org. And while no reply here to my blog entry or to Bob's fine suggestion they eliminate these robots, but at ko.org there is this almost incomprehensible post from Michael where he claims he's only had to delete two robot names (apparently he believes all the rest are legit). Yes, that's right, there are 400 people registered there who never, ever want to post. They just signed up for the kick of it!

Here's his "explanation":
"We have a 3 tiered defense against Bots. Obviously they are not smart enough to validate themselves without human assistance. I pity the boards who don't require that feature or allow anonymous posting--they get slammed! If they can't get registered I could care less about them. If someone gives them "a leg up" and human assists the bots in registering, we kill the post immediately, then go and delete the member, and usually also block the ip address. This has only happened twice so far."

Since none of these fictious members has posted, I have no idea what Michael is talking about when he claims he "kills" their posts. And as the registration sites clearly reveal, there has been no deletion of fake members whatsoever at that board. It's pretty easy to find them: there the ones with the links to all the drug and porno sites beside them. But apparently Michael and his many administrators just aren't able to figure out which ones they might be and persist in their mass delusion that they are "legitimate" members. Ha!

Bob, there are also a few posts at ko.org about Olbermannwatch, including a suggestion by Michael that the posters at Olbermannwatch are actually all just one person: you! He goes on to complain about how there are no statistics to be found at owatch.com. Apparently forgetting there's a great tool ranking site at Alexa.com which shows that this site ranks #722,669 overall in the number of hits. Ko.org meanwhile can only muster 1,424,072 and that's after it's numerous links to spam link pages and its whoring of itself on wikipeda (#16 overall at Alexa).

If that was the best I could do for my site despite all my pimping and whoring, I wouldn't dare open my mouth to question the legitimate rankings of another webpage. But perhaps that's why they've been so deadly silent here: they know they were faced with proof of their lies and manipulations and there's no refuting it whatsoever so they merely attack Bob and Olbermannwatch at their own little board where apparently the kool-aid has been passed out in mass quantities. These people are an embarrassment to Keith Olbermann and that's really saying something.

422. That's the latest number. And the latest link? To a site on "sex with animals". Classy.

It's 9 AM EDT and already 11 people have joined today. And every one of their websites link to mortgage, drugs, online gambling, or mother daughter sex. Wouldn't take much work to dump all 11 of those "members." Unless you didn't want to.

This comment thread is now closed.