she good for controversy but she is cracked out weird. for her to write that about froggy just goes to show how demented a creature she/it really is. i say ban to take away another platform the crazy bat. just my two cents.

Posted by: at August 11, 2006 11:29 AM

---

There are only two options for dealing with Dr. Teh Crazyee. 1) Get a court order (seems to be ineffective and 2) Continue to report her actions to the local authorities and media.

Ignoring her is not an option. Here are some resources for option #2:

Eugene Police Department
(541) 682-5111
policedept@ci.eugene.or.us
www.ci.eugene.or.us/police/

Oregon State Police
http://egov.oregon.gov/OSP/
http://egov.oregon.gov/OSP/CID/contact_us.shtml

Lane County
Sheriff's Office
Eugene, Oregon
(541)682-4150
http://www.co.lane.or.us/Sheriff/

Lane County Law Enforcement
http://www.co.lane.or.us/DA/PoliceAgencies.htm

Register-Guard (Eugene newspaper)
Editors
http://www.registerguard.com/rga/index.php/contacts/C15/

KEZI-9 (Eugene TV station)
http://www.kezi.com/register.cfm?id=569

KMTR NewsSource 16 (Eugene TV station)
http://www.kmtr.com/contactus/

Oregon Daily Emrald (student newspaper at UofO)
Editors
http://www.dailyemerald.com/aboutus/

Posted by: Light Shined on Roaches at August 11, 2006 11:36 AM

---

Steve,

I read the original comment and figured it was Frisch.

Exposing the unhinged lady is a best for everyone and could be either fun or tedious

Posted by: DKJONES at August 11, 2006 11:52 AM

---

Deb is teh b4tsh!t kr4z3, and I can't think of a better spokesperson for the lefturds, so let her keep sticking that rhetorical magnum in her mouth.

Posted by: at August 11, 2006 11:53 AM

---

Her IP is going to change every few months depending on how her ISP structures their DHCP scope and leases. I would let it ride as "not worth the effort" unless she starts making many posts impersonating others.

You could also think of it as a free-speech matter, like B'Nai Brith Canada wanting the government to outlaw demonstrations by Hisballah supporters. Do you want knuckleheads prohibited from saying the things that make them ridiculous in the eyes of the public, or do you want it out in the open so that the level of their derangement becomes readily apparent?

It's better to have the nonsense out in the open, so that it can be seen and evaluated by saner minds.

Posted by: Chris Taylor at August 11, 2006 11:54 AM

---

This woman's capacity to reason is so weak she needs to convey her message by lapsing into nasty personal attacks. If Frisch's points are so compelling, why does she need to pose as the "enemy" to convey them?

I feel sorry for her - she is so intellectually stunted she resorts to histrionics.

Posted by: at August 11, 2006 11:57 AM

---

Deb Frisch is one dumb bitch. Don't waste your time being her censor, let her make an ass of herself and just keep exposing her for the dipshit she is.

Posted by: Matt at August 11, 2006 12:19 PM

---

I don't really think you should ban her, if you read her stuff, and follow the history, you will find she is heading for a long vacation soon. She is getting toward the end of her 15 minutes.

Posted by: Kanelin at August 11, 2006 12:22 PM

---

I agree with contacting authorities, from what I gathered when I googled her she is a WIERDO...banning her IP just means she can be sneaky ...keep us posted!

Posted by: Tanya at August 11, 2006 12:32 PM

---

I wouldn't even think about banning her. With how often people on the right side of the political spectrum get unfairly labeled as extremists who engage in disgusting acts, I can't see how stopping that same type of behaviour from the left does anything positive to expose how there are idiots on both sides.

Let Frisch be herself and let everybody know what she is. She's asking for it. I say, give it to her.

Posted by: Surecure at August 11, 2006 12:33 PM

---

I support banning.

Posted by: None at August 11, 2006 12:39 PM

---

If you ban her from your blog, you stoop to her level which is censorship when it benifits you. Free speech was gained by the very thing she opposes so let spew her anger if she wants. Any intelligent human being can see through people like her.

Posted by: Harry at August 11, 2006 12:45 PM

---

I suggest that you do not ban Deb Frisch. Instead monitor her posts and delete or censor them as appropriate. You can reserve the right to ban her later if she becomes too much of a nuisance.

In the meantime, this would allow her illogical, unpleasant, useless, and potentially mentally unbalanced statements to do more damage to her positions than almost anything else. It also allows more evidence to be gathered for any potential legal actions by Jeff Goldstein of the blog Protein Wisdom.

Good luck with whatever course of action you choose. It's really annoying that this person has decided to pollute the conversation at this blog with her garbage.

Posted by: Jill at August 11, 2006 12:47 PM

---

I think you'd be within your rights to remove her comment, but for what it's worth, I think you should consider removing the comments section from your blog altogether. Although in principle it can be a useful tool for reasonable people to exchange ideas (and indeed disagree with one another), in practise it appears to serve mostly to allow people to ostensibly agree with you before launching into their own even more extreme, ill-reasoned, and often personal attacks. In my view, these snarky comments far outnumber reasoned, substantive contributions.

For example, take this thread. You asked simply for a vote on whether to ban Ms. Frisch's IP address. To be fair, "Chris Taylor", anonymous (11:57 AM), and "Kanelin" have done that, offering a yes or no + their reasons. However, other readers have taken this as an opportunity to write the following:

- "...show how demented a creature she/it really is"
- "the crazy bat"
- "Dr. Teh Crazyee"
- "Deb is teh b4tsh!t kr4z3"
- "...spokesperson for the lefturds"
- "Deb Frisch is one dumb bitch."

These pointless personal insults are of course not limited to your blog. It's a problem with any internet message board where mostly anonymous readers can post with impunity. Still, no respectable live forum for "reasonable debate" has time for this schoolyard nonsense (nor does it have time for comments like those by Ms. Frisch herself). Why should it be tolerated here?

As an alternative, readers could submit comments by email. Those with substantive arguments (either for or against your position), you could reprint on your blog, followed by your own response.

Posted by: A at August 11, 2006 12:56 PM

---

who the f%*k cares? i mean really man.

Posted by: jeff at August 11, 2006 01:11 PM

---

I say ban her. She's not contributing anything useful.

Posted by: J. Strong at August 11, 2006 01:21 PM

---

Why all the fuss with someone who is nuts. what she says is totally irrelevant and should be given the attention it deserves - which is none.
When you react to her you are giving her the credibility she so desperately is seeking. If she can elicit a reaction ( as is the case again), she wins. I would simply laugh at her postings and call he what she is - unhinged and not worth more than a laugh.

Posted by: gerry at August 11, 2006 01:44 PM

---

Ban the sick, perverted psycho!

Gawd, how's she keeping air pressure from crushing her skull?

Posted by: Alienated at August 11, 2006 01:56 PM

---

I don't think you should ban her. You would have a hard time making this garbage up! The best way to counter this type of nonsense is exactly what you have been doing. Let her comments condem her.
Without people like her & catnip you may think that "progressives" might be wrong but willing to hold a reasonable debate. Ironically, they accuse the right of being "hate-mongers". I have never seen as much virol as from "progressives".

Posted by: softtalk at August 11, 2006 01:58 PM

---

it's a tough call. i'd say no, wait and see what happens.

but heck. what do i know?

thanx 4 the publicity, hombre!

DF

Posted by: word warrior at August 11, 2006 02:05 PM

---

Well even you should know you're at least slightly unhinged and need help.

As well as being a vacuous boor with a talent for self-pity. The pity is well placed as anyone that makes a comment such as "I wouldn't care if someone Ramseyed your kid" really is quite pathetic.

"Word Warrior" indeed, you should get some training because you keep turning your weapons in yourself.

Posted by: Kevin at August 11, 2006 02:16 PM

---

I would suppose the question of banning comes down to what is the purpose of the ban? As you've stated you have never banned anyone yet. What would warrant this trogdolyte to be the first?

These kinds of incidents (in my mind) are best handled precisely as you have done up to now. Expose the poster to public scrutiny (as a preface or postnote, perhaps) and rational people will see it for what it's worth. "In the absence of light, darkness prevails." Let the light in.

And if it goes beyond to harassment, threats or attacks, bring in the authorities.

Posted by: the_whiteotter at August 11, 2006 02:18 PM

---

any of you dingbat wingnuts at all curious about why i am cyberstalking matthew heidt, former NAVY SEAL?

nah. didn't think so.

you guys ever use your frontal lobes?

got neurons?

Posted by: word warrior at August 11, 2006 02:21 PM

---

...OFF WITH HER HEAD!

Oh, wrong century. Well she is a bit out of synch...

Just delete her commments if they get out of wack, no sense banning, too much work.

cheers
tom

Posted by: tomax7 at August 11, 2006 02:22 PM

---

...but the real question is, is she pretty?

Posted by: tomax7 at August 11, 2006 02:24 PM

---

any of you dingbat wingnuts at all curious about why i am cyberstalking matthew heidt, former NAVY SEAL?

Becaaauuuse...you like guys in uniform? Other guesses? Anyone? Anyone at all?

Posted by: Steve Janke at August 11, 2006 02:30 PM

---

This reminds me of Saturday Night Live allowing a vote on banning Andy Kaufmann or the vote to save or boil larry the lobster.

Don't change your principles for others Steve. If your heart says don't ban anyone, then do what you did in the last post. Just keep calling her on her comments so others know what a bitch she is. to this day I refuse to go looking at any blog she is part of or site she runs (if she even does so) because I won't give her an ounce of my time other than reading about her on other sites.

You are above a mess like her.

Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at August 11, 2006 02:58 PM

---

My vote: ban her and forget about her. In internet time, she is so yesterday. And it ain't like crazy is teh new black.

My guess: she is making a very unscholarly attempt at egging someone from a class of people she finds repugant to do something frischy. She's antagonizing frischian behavior. One lonely Frischy she be; all by herself without no buddy.

Wouldn't you expect an expert in decision science to be more masterful at manipulation?

Posted by: w3 at August 11, 2006 03:05 PM

---

Ban her - she can go paste her crazy thoughts elsewhere.

Posted by: GM at August 11, 2006 03:13 PM

---

trust only mulder.

i don't agree with your words but we are on the same page vis-a-vis fox.

http://debfrisch.com/archives/2006/07/y_donchu_luv_me.html

http://debfrisch.com/archives/2006/07/ufo_mulder_scul.html

i was trolling pajamas media because they stalked me big time last month.

if youse guyz are relatively tame rightwingnuts, we might could get along.

Posted by: word warrior at August 11, 2006 03:20 PM

---

On the other hand...

Weigh her desire to be your first ban with your desire to be a ban-free site and decide which is more important to you. Factor in whether you will be moderating her comments and how much time you want to spend removing them if ... strike that... when they spiral.

The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, Sun Tzu wrote. You can impose yours on her, or she can impose hers on you.

At this point, she's rushing in the door you left open but you can forestall what she wants most: to be banned.

Tough decision.

Posted by: w3 at August 11, 2006 03:23 PM

---

Hey Steve Janke, you wanker, the only person you should ban is yourself!

Posted by: Ryan at August 11, 2006 03:56 PM

---

Okay ... maybe this thought exercise will help clarify matters a little:

Think of this blog as your house, and all commenters are guests at a party. You want to encourage good conversation among the guests, and let them discuss some of the points you make, but at the same time you're aware that some guests are going to do some very rude things, which will alarm or disgust your other guests.

Based on what she's posted so far on your blog (and it's your blog we're talking about, not Protein Wisdom), would you allow Deb Frisch to be a houseguest at your home?

Once you answer that question, you'll have a better idea of what you'll do.

Posted by: PhantomObserver at August 11, 2006 04:01 PM

---

Interesting analogy, Phantom Observer, but I'll take one step back. I first have to decide whether my blog is like my house, as you've suggested, or is it like a coffee shop that I manage.

Posted by: Steve Janke at August 11, 2006 04:04 PM

---

Don't ban her, don't delete her comments. She's just confessed to stalking someone (Heidt), and is in the midst of legal proceedings regarding stalking someone else. Allow her comments to stand unaltered. They have evidentiary value.

Posted by: Phil Smith at August 11, 2006 04:24 PM

---

evidentiary value, indeed!

i think we've got a consensus, monsieur janke!

pleasure to meet you, folks.

deborah frisch, ph.d.
eugene, or, u$a

Posted by: word warrior at August 11, 2006 04:29 PM

---

word wimp decides that because Heidt wrote an eulogy that described the bravery of a SEAL in circumstances that she has trouble grasping,ie.. what's a SEAL doing on dry land. He talks about bravery and him doing his job. Words people, she's wigging out about somebodies words. Sadly the blogosphere has become an excellent area to "let your hair down" and say what you want. However, when someone writes positive things about the life of someone who died honourably, they are definitely not writng hate.

Word weanie you need to move on.

Posted by: Fergy at August 11, 2006 04:38 PM

---

WOOOHOOO!!! I finally got through Steve:

Imagine following the thread and trying to post and not being able to.

happy, happy

fergy

Posted by: Fergy at August 11, 2006 04:41 PM

---

any of you dingbat wingnuts at all curious about why i am cyberstalking matthew heidt, former NAVY SEAL?

Uh, 'cause you're set on revenge for perceived slights *and* you're bat-shit crazy?

Just a thought.

Posted by: Meg Q at August 11, 2006 04:43 PM

---

Same rule as always - don't feed the troll.

There are simply too many ways around a ban for it to be effective, and it would just challenge her to come back and stir things up some more.

Posted by: Whoevr at August 11, 2006 04:55 PM

---

I have always been one for freedom of speech as it cuts both ways, now we know who she is what she represents. Its better to know were she stands than have her lurking in the shadows. Her tendency is to act in anonymity which is the cowards way. Let her post comments so all can judge her thoughts.

Posted by: Vern Lucas at August 11, 2006 06:36 PM

---

I think that the site and the people that post on it are a reasonably mature bunch that can probably ignore it that's what it takes or engage in polite discourse if that's what it takes, just as you can.

As pointed out earlier, what's the "Never banned anybody" worth to you.

Regards,
Pat

Posted by: Pat at August 11, 2006 07:37 PM

---

I saw the comment in question and found it disturbing at the time, not because it was obviously someone's idea of a sick joke but because it didn't make much sense and wasn't pertinent to the discussion.

It can take awhile but if you do not acknowledge, name or respond to this troll, it will go away. If this isn't histrionic personality disorder, it's a darned good imitation.

Posted by: Selma at August 11, 2006 08:22 PM

---

I say "No" to banning. All conservative bloggers should allow these nutbars to be seen in all their natural glory (tongue firmly in cheek) I know it hurts to read some of their crap, but it is essential to "know thy enemy" so to speak.
My 2 bits worth, anyways.

Posted by: Dave at August 11, 2006 11:46 PM

---

...yes but, is she still pretty?

Posted by: tomax7 at August 11, 2006 11:52 PM

---

Yes.

Posted by: backhoe at August 12, 2006 02:01 AM

---

Don't ban her. Allows her comments to "create a hanging rope" that she can uses to hang herself. In other words: let her comments make a big fool out of herself.

Posted by: Crazy Dan at August 12, 2006 02:31 AM

---

No don't ban her. She does, however, deserve relentless mocking. I've found the "warrior" doesn't like having her own words back tossed back at her.
-----
From Inside Higher Ed---

“I play a dangerous game by being a professor and also having a very rabid left-wing blog and also posting nasty inflammatory comments on other people’s blogs,�

"(I'm viewed as)...a lunatic lefty in academia who deserves to be verbally attacked, abused and mocked.�
------
Of course, that's now - used to work in academia.

-----
The Arizona Daily Star-

"Trolling is a type of Internet behavior where you post inflammatory comments on blogs when you know they disagree with the blogger and their minions," Frisch said.

And one of her funniest quotes-

"I like to play with fire. I'm a left-wing Rush Limbaugh. I'm a writer and I like to fight with words. I'm a word warrior."

.....While she still hopes to fill the need for "edgy lefties," Frisch said the entire debacle has taught her where to draw the line.

She'll continue to write inflammatory comments, but she'll stay away from personal attacks.
"I don't want to get anywhere near that line again," Frisch said.
-----
Yes, she's learned where to draw the line.(!!!)

Posted by: Robert in Calgary at August 12, 2006 10:17 AM

---

Nothing is ever gained by ignoring people like this. But nothing is gained by giving them a platform either. I would do option 2) by Light Shined on Roaches and report her. But I would also ban her. Nothing is to be gained by giving her a platform.

We are measured by the company we keep. Comments are a large part of any blog, in fact it might be argued the largest part.

Posted by: John Crittenden at August 12, 2006 12:16 PM

---

Steve,
I'd suggest that you turn that around a bit. Instead of banning her, how about modifying her posts with a headline identifying that post as hers. Maybe something like "Caution: Lunatic Raving" or "Point and stare, people, point and stare" You could call it the "Frisched Amendment"...

Posted by: Another Sean at August 12, 2006 01:03 PM

---

Ban her.

Posted by: Brad in Waterloo at August 12, 2006 02:52 PM

---

No ban. The lies and BS provide for endless humor pointing to the falacy of the "progessive left".

Posted by: Skul at August 12, 2006 03:02 PM

---

I just spent the last hour or so reading up on the whole GoldFrisch blogger war from about a month back, and actually, I'm starting to admire Ms. Frisch. Sure, she crossed a line, got inexcusably nasty, etc. etc. No excuses on her behalf; she herself regrets getting personal. On the other hand, her lasting error turned out to be using her real name, which some people exploited and really got personal by demanding that she be fired. Now, the things she said were offensive (to Mr. Goldstein and his family, not necessarily to me), but not qualitatively different from the hate and slander and viciousness that pollutes the average blog comment section, nor apparently were they any worse than the sort of Very Bad Things that people emailed into the U of A Psych Dept. If she had posted anonymously, it would never have blown up in the way it did.

Still, I love that people seem to think that she's some kind of psycho, when it's really quite obvious that her whole persona is an intentional act designed precisely to piss off far-right bloggers. The key is that for her, it's just an amusement, while for her "enemies," it's all so very serious. Reading her blog entries as well as her comments on others' sites, I think she's actually rather smart about what she's trying to do, which is to find right-wing echo chambers and basically goose them. I have to say, she's quite successfully at it. Think about it: this thread and the previous one have garnered a combined 94 comments (95, including this one), which is far more than average, and was your most widely read topic ever (thanks to Digg). And really, there was no substance here at all. She posted a single inflammatory comment, everybody here blew up over it, and now has got you seriously second-guessing your long-standing blog policies. Mission accomplished, and then some! She obviously gets her kicks from stirring those on the far right into a mouth-foaming rage (and frankly, I get some of my kicks from watching that foaming rage play itself out), but even she couldn't in her wildest have hope for this level of response.

To Ms. Frisch, if you're still able to access this site, I say: Salut!

Posted by: A at August 12, 2006 09:57 PM

---

Yeah, well, what I saw here had nothing to do with the new religious fervour about 'left' or 'right', which is really just 'us' and 'them' in a new suit. It was a nonsensical comment which in all likelihood would have been ignored, as it was when posted.

It's very apparent that it is a game but it doesn't look like one that anyone can win. Maybe it's an experiment, maybe somebody is examining the sphere to try to figure out what kind of people read blogs, for example. Of course, it would be merely observational, not that there's anything wrong with that.

The reason there are so many posts is that the blogger asked for input. This blog has lots of regulars. It's not the troll, it's the blogger who generated the comments by asking an interesting question.

Posted by: Selma at August 12, 2006 11:51 PM

---

Mock me, you limp-lobed rightwing dingbats who think you are smart but are really dumb-as-doorposts!

Moque away, mes amigos!

Posted by: word warrior at August 13, 2006 10:29 AM

---

To Ms. Frisch, if you're still able to access this site, I say: Salut!

Salut to you, too, A!

You are very close to understanding the method behind my madness - mazel tov!

My first post at lipid stupidity was about the war. I was looking to fight about the war, dubya, eekernomics, etc. I landed in a sort of sort porn/snuff film/dungeons and dragons section of the blogosphere I didn't know existed. I threw a match into what a thought was a barbecue pit and got ephing towering inferno.

i quit a job i didn't want and left a town (tucson, az) I'd been wanting to leave to return to my 5 acre ranch in eugene.

i am trying to parlay my fifteen minutes of infamy into a gig as a leftwing o'reilly. stephen colbert's sidekick sort of thing. that's where i'm going with this.

most lefties are all kumbaya and peaceful. i'm a lefty who likes to verbally tussle with the most rabid righties. tough gig, but someone's gotta do it.

peace,

df

Posted by: word warrior at August 13, 2006 10:34 AM

---

I'll give you the same advice I gave Jeff Goldstein the first day she showed up on his blog. Ban her now and save yourself, and her, future trouble.

You will have to at some point anyway. Her history long before she showed up there was one of seeking out a forum that tolerated her and then ramping up the offensive commenting until she crosses the line. Avoid that. It doesn't matter that she will crow about having been banned in other forums as some sort of progressive red badge of courage. She will do that anyway once she eventually forces you to ban her.

She isn't going to be functioning online long enough to play many IP shifting games. She is a mentally ill person losing more control by the minute. I don't see any other outcome for her at this point except augering in in some spectacular way. Whatever the nature of that event is going to leave everyone aware of it a lot more disturbed and queasy than now. It's not pleasant to see a human being in the sort of progressive deterioration she exhibits. There's a fascination about it, but it's not conducive to maintaining good nature in the observer.

Last point. You are juggling whether to enforce the conduct of your commenters as analagous to a house guest at a party or coffee shop patrons. In both instances you do have the obligation of providing a venue where other guests or patrons can enjoy themselevs without being verbally assaulted without substance far beyond the boundaries of spirited debate. That's coming next in the ramp up. It's already started.

Posted by: Just Passing Through at August 13, 2006 11:44 AM

---

Why are you feeding her disease by giving her the publicity?

I'm probably going to drop you from my "Canadian Blogs" daily run. You've been getting weird lately.

Posted by: djb at August 13, 2006 05:18 PM

---

I just spent the last hour or so reading up on the whole GoldFrisch blogger war from about a month back, and actually, I'm starting to admire Ms. Frisch.

One whole hour, huh? Well no wonder you admire her. You can't possibly have read all the hate she has spewed in only an hour.

Don't enable her, A. You're really just encouraging her to spiral faster than she... hey wait a minute! You sly dog.

Posted by: w3 at August 13, 2006 07:26 PM

---

what w3 said - you fan that spiral, hombre!

Posted by: word warrior at August 13, 2006 08:59 PM

---

Deb Frisch has all the common sense of a crackpipe dalmation.

Make that crackpipe chihuahua.

Posted by: sulla at August 13, 2006 10:58 PM

---

word warrior: I've been to Arizona (not Tucson specifically). A bit too arid for my tastes. I hear Oregon is lovely and green. Must be nice to be so close to the Pacific.

I too share many left-leaning views, and though I'm also not of "all kumbaya and peaceful" stock, Nader nevertheless sits to my left. Still, I think I've an idea of what you're up to, and I say, go get'um! We may have different methods, but we're both aiming in the same direction.

w3: What can I tell ya? I read quickly, and have a fast internet connection.

Posted by: A at August 13, 2006 11:54 PM

---

A: Thanks for feeding the troll. Gee, the OTHER leftist on the board supports someone who threatens a 2-year old child. Coinkydink? I THINK NOT.

Posted by: Not A Leftist at August 14, 2006 06:51 AM

---

A,

Fantastic. Read Remembrance of Things Past in the original french and give me a synopsis by... oh... 11:00 AM EST.

Posted by: w3 at August 14, 2006 08:16 AM

---

Not to worry W3, "A" is just a liar and ww is a fraud. Changed my mind however, just ban the fraud.

Posted by: Skul at August 14, 2006 08:08 PM

---

Steve, the policy I follow at my blog is simple: only exceptionally over-the-top comments merit a ban, and even then a well-meant apology sent via e-mail removes the ban. I give people a lot of leeway to express themselves, even if they insult me or my views. After all, what's freedom of speech for?

However, this person isn't going to send you an apology no matter what you do. My vote? Go with the Golden Rule of Troll Response: don't respond at all. She just wants attention. The best course of action in this situation would have been to simply ban her and not say a word about it. Having this vote is really only giving her more attention, and that's exactly what she wants.

Posted by: Dante at August 14, 2006 08:47 PM

---

...but but, is she still pretty?

Posted by: tomax7 at August 16, 2006 09:50 PM

---