Photobucket MySpace Comment Virus Warning

Summary:
Message claims that a virus that circulates via MySpace comments can delete content in the user's PhotoBucket account and post nude images to his or her friends list (Full commentary below).

Status:
Inaccurate and misleading

Example:(Submitted, January 2008) Subject: Photobucket Virus

PHOTOBUCKET WARNING
THERE IS A VIRUS ON THE INTERNET THAT IS NOW AFFECTING YOUR PHOTOBUCKET ACCOUNT. IT STARTS OFF AS A MYSPACE COMMENT ON YOUR PAGE. THE COMMENT SAYS EXACTLY THIS :

lol have you seen these pics yet? im suprised her myspace didnt get deleted yet for posting pictures like that.

DO NOT CLICK THE LINK THAT FOLLOWS. WHAT HAPPENS IS ONCE YOU CLICK THE LINK IT CAPTURES YOUR COOKIES ON YOUR MACHINE. ONCE IT DOES THAT THE VIRUS WAITS FOR YOU TO LOG INTO YOUR PHOTOBUCKET ACCOUNT AND WILL DELETE ALL OF YOUR IMAGES AND VIDEOS IN YOUR ACCOUNT OR IT WILL POST NUDE PHOTOS ON YOUR ENTIRE FRIENDS LIST.

IF YOU SEE THIS, DO NOT OPEN THE LINK, SIMPLY DELETE THE COMMENT AND TELL YOUR FRIEND THAT THEIR ACCOUNT HAS BEEN PHISHED. LET ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS KNOW. A FEW OF MY FRIENDS HAVE HAD THIS HAPPEN ALREADY. REPOST AS: PHOTOBUCKET WARNING

Commentary:
According to this warning message, a "virus" circulating via MySpace can in turn compromise the user's Photobucket account. The message claims that clicking a link in a bogus MySpace comment allows the virus to take control of the user's Photobucket account and delete all images and videos or post nude photos to everyone on his or her friends list.

Unfortunately, the perpetrator of this garbled message has managed, through ignorance or design, to combine fact with fiction, thereby making the warning virtually useless. As discussed below, scammers have indeed used the fake comment quoted in the warning message to steal information from unwary MySpace users. However, the attack described does not target Photobucket account holders. Even if a MySpace user does fall victim to this phishing scam, there are no credible reports that indicate his or her Photobucket account will also be affected.

Rather than attempting to compromise Photobucket accounts, this attack uses the quoted comment and a number of similar variants to trick MySpace members into relinquishing their MySpace login details. Clicking links in the bogus comments opens a fake webpage designed to mirror the genuine MySpace home page, complete with login form. The scammers can collect the account details of those who login on the fake page. They then have full access to the compromised MySpace accounts and can post more bogus comments in the names of their victims.

MySpace users should be cautious of clicking on links in comments or messages, even if they appear to originate from friends. The fake MySpace webpages have .cn (Chinese) domains and the URL's do not look like normal MySpace addresses. However, while the comment phishing attack described is certainly real, claims in the message that the attack also affects Photobucket users are unfounded.

References:
MySpace Identity Theft Scams On the Rise?
Large Scale MySpace Phishing Attack
Photobucket Forums: Spoof Emails

Last updated: 3rd January 2007
First published: 3rd January 2007

from: http://www.hoax-slayer.com/photo-bucket-virus-warning.shtml

Tammy Burned Dog Email Petition

Summary:
Email petition describes a case in which a dog was deliberately and very badly burned by its owners. It asks recipients to "sign" and forward the message in the hope that the names can be used by the SPCA in the prosecution of those responsible (Full commentary below).

Status:
Describes a real case, but the petition is now hopelessly outdated and email petitions are ineffective

Example:(Submitted, November 2008)

Subject: RE: Please, Please sign this

Dear Friends & Colleagues,

I was horrified and shocked to see the article in the Daily Voice yesterday about Tammy, a dog that had been burnt so badly by her owners.

The owners wanted to punish her for jumping over the wall into the neighbours place. They fetched her and put her in her kennel and set it alight.

I am not sure how many of you have seen the pictures. As an animal lover it brought tears to my eyes because she was burnt so badly. The SPCA had to put her down.

The SPCA have removed the other 2 dogs from these people and are pressing criminal charges against them. I am therefore appealing to all animal lovers to please add your name to the petition so that the owners are given the maximum punishment befitting to them.

I have spoken with the Daily Voice, and we have an agreement that they will forward the signatures to the SPCA to use in the prosecution of these people. PLEASE, if you agree, please sign the petition and forward to as many contacts as possible.

Every 500 signatures, please return to me: [email address removed]

This will then be forwarded to the Daily Voice who in turn will forward it to the SPCA.

Thank you and regards,

Hillary

Starting new list : [74 names removed]

Commentary:

©iStockphoto.com/salihguler "Signing" and forwarding email petitions will do nothing to help the plight of abused animals

This petition email describes a horrific case in which, a dog named "Tammy", was badly burned by her owners, supposedly to "punish" her for jumping over a wall into her neighbor's yard. The message asks recipients to add their names to the petition and forward it to as many people as possible. It claims that the lists of names will be eventually forwarded to South African animal welfare organization, the SPCA. According to the message, the SPCA will use the petition as an aid in the prosecution of Tammy's owners. Supposedly, adding one's name to the email will help to ensure that those responsible for Tammy's torture will receive the "maximum punishment befitting to them".

Sadly, the case described in the email actually happened. The kennel burning incident occurred in the Western Cape province of South Africa around August, 2006. An article originally published in the Cape Times on August 25th 2006 notes:

A Parow couple are to appear in the Bellville regional court on Friday, charged with burning their dog alive.

If convicted, the pair could face fines of up to R200 000 or two years in prison.

The pitbull, named Tammy, almost died when her owners allegedly tried to set her alight in her kennel. She was so burnt so badly that the SPCA, who had rescued her and the owners' two other dogs, had to put her down.

"She was suffering immensely and there was nothing more we could do for her," said Allan Perrins of the SPCA.

Tammy had burns all over her body: on her face, legs and underbelly, but her eyes were particularly badly damaged.

However, while the incident really happened, "signing" and forwarding this email petition will do nothing whatsoever to see justice done in the case.

Firstly, the petition is now hopelessly outdated. The case has already gone to court and the perpetrator, Raymond Koegelenberg of Parow, was sentenced in late 2007 to 400 hours community service and banned from owning animals for 15 years.

Secondly, even when the case was still pending, the petition email was considered counterproductive by the SPCA. A spokesperson for SPCA parent body, the NSPCA explained the organization's position on the petition in an email to whereisthelove.co.za:

The NSPCA appreciates the sentiments of the people behind this petition. The day Tammy came in there was not a dry eye at the SPCA and it left a very dark cloud over our heads. The fact that people care and have compassion is wonderful. Nevertheless, we plead with everyone to exclude ourselves and if possible (now that this petition is whizzing through cyberspace) not to pass it on.

It could be damaging to the court case.

Calling for a maximum sentence or for punishment before a person has been tried and found guilty can be construed as perverting the course of justice. The SPCA movement was not involved in this petition but if it is sent to us and this face is revealed in Court by the defense, it truly could damage the case.

A petition cannot be used in a prosecution. Even once a person has been found guilty, it could be considered to be pressurizing a judge or magistrate if a petition is submitted, calling for a particular sentence.

Many people around the world are likely to consider community service far too light a sentence for such a crime. However, regardless of how strongly you may feel about this issue, adding your name and forwarding a petition will do nothing at all to help the plight of abused animals.

In general, email petitions are almost totally pointless. Since most such petitions do not record any verifiable details from those adding their names, they are seldom taken seriously by those in authority. The person or organization targeted by the petition has no way of knowing if the names are genuine. It would be exceptionally easy for a person to make up lists of bogus names or even copy and paste names from other sources. Moreover, as in this case, email petitions often circulate long after they could have the slightest influence on the case at hand. And quite commonly, they contain inaccurate or completely false information that renders them utterly useless from the outset. These and other problems with email petitions, mean that Internet users should think twice before adding their names to such messages. Starting or signing a genuine and well organized paper or website based petition is much, much more likely to be helpful than adding a name to a randomly forwarded email.

For more information about the worthlessness of email petitions, see:
Are Email Petitions Useful?

References:
SPCA
Tammy B the burned pitbull – owner pleads guilty
Couple charged after dog burnt in kennel
South Africa: Community Service for Setting Dog Alight
WhereIsTheLove? Tammy
Jail EVIL owners

from:http://www.hoax-slayer.com/tammy-burned-dog-petition.shtml

When In Doubt About the Cop Trying to Pull You Over, Drive to Safety or Call #77 or #677 on Your Cell Phone-Partly Truth!

eRumor
The story of a young college woman who was suspicious about an unmarked patrol car attempting to pull her over. She remembered her parents' advice to proceed to a safe or populated place before stopping and also contacted the authorities on her cell by by using #77. Other patrol cars were sent to her location, the person in the unmarked car was arrested and turned out to be a convicted rapist.
Some Canadian versions of the story say the number to call is #677.
eTruth
Whether this particular story is real, we don't know, but the information it conveys is apparently sound.

TruthOrFiction.com talked with law enforcement agencies on both the East and West Coasts. The consensus was that if you are suspicious about a patrol car wanting to pull you over, especially in an isolated area or at night, it's prudent to proceed to a place where would feel safer.

The problem is that the law says you are to obey an officer who says to pull over so if you do decide to continue, do so in a way that makes it clear you are not trying to evade him or her.

If you have a cell phone, call your local emergency number, usually 911, and you can be connected to a dispatcher who can help decide whether the car attempting to pull you over is legitimate.

Also, as happens in this eRumor, you can inform the dispatcher that it is your intention to comply, but only after you get to the next off ramp, gas station, populated areas, etc.

We've received numerous emails asking about the #77 procedure described in the eRumor.

Even though 911 is the most common number to use in an emergency, there are many states that have established other numbers as well for cell phone users, especially to report highway emergencies.

The #77 number is one of them. Some states use *77 or even #55.

The story that suggests using #677 is a Canadian version of this eRumor that inserted the numbers for reaching the Ontario Provincial Police in Ontario.

One of the reasons, according to a cell company we spoke with, is that the 911 calls from a cell phone go to different kinds of agencies depending on where the phone call is being made.

In some areas, dialing 911 on a cell phone may go to a city or county emergency dispatcher. In other areas, the call may go to a state highway law enforcement agency such as the highway patrol or state troopers.

In the states with the "77" numbers, cell phone users will usually get connected directly with a highway law enforcement agency.

For that reason, you will frequently see signs posted along some freeways, expressways, or toll ways suggesting use of a number other than 911 if you're using a cell phone.

A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:
I never even knew about this #77 feature!
This actually happened to one of my dearest
new friend's daughter.
Her daughter, Lauren, is 19yrs old and a
sophomore in college. This
happened to her over the Christmas/New Year's
holiday break. It was the
Saturday before New Year's and it was about 1PM in
the afternoon. Lauren
was driving from here, Winchester, to visit a
friend in Warrenton. For
those of you who are familiar with the area, she
was taking50 East towards
Middleburg and then was going to cut over to 66 via
17.Those of you who
aren't familiar with this area - 50 East is a main
road (55mph and two
lanes each side with a big median separating East
and West lanes), but is
somewhat secluded, meaning mostly residents along
the road, rather than
commercial businesses. Lauren was actually
following behind a state police
car shortly after she left Winchester and was going
just over 65mph since
she was following behind him.
An UNMARKED police car pulled up behind her
and put his lights on. My
friend and her husband have 4 children (highschool
and college age) and
have always told them never to pull over for an
unmarked car on the side of
the road, but rather wait until they get to a gas
station, etc. So Lauren
had actually listened to her parents advice, and
promptly called #77 on her
cell phone to tell the dispatcher that she would
not pull over right away.
She proceeded to tell the dispatcher that there
were 2 police cars, one
unmarked behind her and one marked in front of her.
The dispatcher checked
if there were 2 police cars where she was. There
wasn't and she was
connected to the policeman in front of her and he
told her to keep driving,
remain calm and that he had back-up already on the
way.Ten mins later 4
cop cars surrounded her and the unmarked car behind
her.One policeman went
to her side and the others surrounded the car
behind.They pulled the guy
from the car and tackled him to the
ground..........the man was a convicted
rapist and wanted for other crimes.
Thank God Lauren listened to her parents! She
was shaken up, but
fine. I never knew that bit of advice, but
especially for a woman alone in
a car, you should not pull over for an unmarked car
in a secluded area. In
fact, even a marked car after dark should follow
you to a populated area.
Apparently police have to respect your right to
keep going to
a"safe" place. You obviously need to make some
signals that you acknowledge
them (i.e. put on your hazard lights) or call #77
like Lauren did. I am so
thankful that my friend was just sitting at our
book club meeting telling
us this scary story, rather than us at her house
consoling her!
Be safe and pass this on to your friends.
Awareness is everything!

from:TruthOrFiction.com

Don't buy Gas from Petro Express Because It Belongs to Controversial Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez-Fiction!

eRumor:
The eRumor warns not to buy gas from Petro Express because it's just another name for Citgo, the oil company owned by Hugo Chavez, the controversial anti-American president of Venezuela.
eTruth:
It is not true that Petro Express is owned by Hugo Chavez or Venezuela. It is an American-owned company that has been headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina but was purchased in 2007 by The Pantry, a convenience store chain in the southeastern United States.

Petro Express sold Citgo gas in the past but phased it out.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has drawn the ire of Americans for his open opposition to the United States. His most dramatic display was during a fiery speech before the United Nations in September of 2006 in which he called president Bush "the devil" and suggested that the United Nations should move elsewhere, perhaps Jerusalem.

Because of Chavez's hatred of the United States, many American motorists have called for a boycott of Citgo, was founded as an American company but is now owned by Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of Venezuela.

A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:

I had to forward this, because Chavez is starting to feel the

loss of revenue from his holdings. He OWNS CITGO

This is a very important move that everyone should be aware.

ANNOUNCED JUST RECENTLY, CITGO, BEING AWARE THAT

SALES ARE DOWN DUE TO U.S.

(CUSTOMERS NOT WANTING TO BUY FROM "CHAVEZ"),

HAVE STARTED TO CHANGE

THE NAME OF SOME OF THEIR STORES, TO: "PETRO EXPRESS"

DO NOT BUY FROM "PETRO EXPRESS"

"PETRO EXPRESS" IS ALSO 100% OWNED BY "CHAVEZ"

KEEP THIS MEMO GOING SO EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT IS

HAPPENING.

Hugo Chavez insulted our president.

Hugo Chavez insulted our country.

Hugo Chavez insulted our military.

Hugo Chavez insulted our history.

He said we are a curse on the planet and that we endanger the very survival of humankind. He said that the countries of the world must unite against us.

He hates the United States and everything about us.

Except our money, of course. Our money makes him rich. And it gives him the power to spread anti-American hatred around the globe. His entire regime is built on American money.

So I think we should stop giving it to him.

I think it has become the patriotic duty of all Americans to avoid sending another dime into Hugo Chavez s particular Third World hellhole. He has called us his enemy. That makes him our enemy.

And we don t do business with our enemies.

We boycott them.

Remember this word: Citgo. That s the brand of gasoline you will never buy again. That s the brand of gasoline you will talk your friends into never buying again.

Because Citgo equals Chavez and Chavez equals hatred of America. And it s time for real Americans to stop buying Citgo.

Here s the background.

Hugo Chavez is the dictator of Venezuela. Venezuela would be just another crap-in-a-hole banana farm if it weren t for oil. Oil that is brought to the American market by the Venezuelan government through its subsidiary, Citgo gasoline.

The predecessor to Citgo was started in America by an American in 1910. It took the name Citgo in 1965, and was bought by Occidental Petroleum in 1982. Occidental was a company most noted for its ties to the Soviet Union and Al Gore s dad. Occidental turned around the next year and sold Citgo to the company that owns the 7-11 convenience stores.

So far, so good.

But it turned dirty in 1986 when the convenience store company sold half of Citgo to something called Petroleos de Venezuela. In 1990, Petroleos de Venezuela bought the other half and owned Citgo lock, stock and barrel.

What is Petroleos de Venezuela? It is the Venezuelan government. It is not a private company, it is a nationalized industry, much like the industries of Cuba, the Soviet Union and other communist countries.

So Citgo is Petroleos de Venezuela, and Petroleos de Venezuela is Venezuela, and Venezuela is Hugo Chavez, and Hugo Chavez is our enemy.

Therefore Citgo is our enemy.

And every dollar you spend on Citgo gasoline is a dollar that cuts America s throat. I m not saying that, Hugo Chavez is saying that. At the United Nations and at the conference of unaligned nations, Hugo Chavez said Venezuela would support and lead those nations that wanted to rise up against the United States.

That means he s going to bankroll the people who hate you and your country.

Or rather, that means he s going to use your gas money to bankroll the people who hate you and your country.

If you keep buying Citgo gasoline.

So let s draw the line. Let the Citgo boycott begin now. And let it end when Hugo Chavez is rotting in hell.

Anything less is first cousin to treason.

Some will complain that Americans distribute Citgo gasoline and will be hurt by a boycott. Others will say that Americans own and are employed by the convenience stores and gas stations that sell Citgo gasoline and that they also will be hurt by a boycott.

Tough luck.

I know many fine people who make their living from Citgo gasoline, and I will be sorry if this boycott hurts them. But I owe my country first, and must be loyal to it before I am loyal to my friends. There are other brands of gasoline, and I will gladly go back to familiar convenience stores and gas stations when they begin carrying a brand of gasoline that doesn t enrich a regime that threatens the safety and freedom of my children.

This isn t a Republican issue or a Democratic issue, this is an American issue. Hugo Chavez has gotten up and told us what he thinks of us. He has told us by his words and deeds that he hates us and that he wants to tear us down.

He is our enemy. And I will not give aid and comfort to the enemy.

I will not buy Citgo gasoline.

And you must not either.

Together we must tell as many people as we can. We must use the power of free speech and the power of the free market to kick this little tyrant where it counts.

We must change our habits if we are accustomed to buying Citgo gasoline. We must find new service stations and convenience stores. We must change our ways.

Or this man is going to bury us with our own money. He is going to use the wealth we give him to buy the knife that slits our throats and destroys our country.

Be an American, boycott Citgo.

from: truthorfiction.com

Columnist Maureen Dowd Says Obama's Internet Donations are Mostly From Foreign Sources-Fiction!

eRumor:
An alleged New York Times column by Maureen Dowd quotes Obama campaign sources as saying that Obama's record-breaking fund-raising on the Internet has been from foreigners, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China, and that the campaign is not paying attention to whether any donations violate the law.
eTruth:
This email is a hoax.

Dowd told Sam Stein of the Huffington Post that when she saw the email she "got to the second line and knew it wasn't me."

There were other clues that it was not authentic. The email claimed that it was a June 29 column In the New York Times by Dowd, but her column on that date was about Hillary Clinton supporters, not Barack Obama.

A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet: Obama is raising campaign money handy over fist - Big Time!


This is incredible. No wonder Obama is being so generous in helping Hillary with her campaign debts. I am greatly surprised, almost shocked, that this liberal journalist would write this column. Doesn't she know she could be killed? She's brave!

By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: June 29, 2008

Go to Columnist Page »

OBAMA’S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING

Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obama’s campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obama’s internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history – and this was all from the internet campaign.

What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can’t be broken and no ethics that prevail.

Obama’s internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.

Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.

Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were “programmed” by a very sophisticated user.

While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers. The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia , Iran , and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia .

Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.

It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws.

It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.

This is a shocking revelation.

We have been concerned about the legality of “bundling” contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.

I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.

If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?

I believe the Obama campaign’s internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.

from:truthorfiction.com

Thirty Three U.S. Senators Voted Against Making English the Official Language of the United States-Truth! But Misleading!

eRumor:
The forwarded email is in the form of a letter from "Colonel Harry Riley USA ret" criticizing 33 Senators for voting against making English the official language of the U.S.
eTruth:
The vote was in May, 2006 in the United States Senate and was for The Comprehensive Immigration and Reform Act of 2007.

An amendment to the bill was added just days before the vote that would have declared English as the official language of the United States and, among other things, would mean that the government would not have to provide services in any language other than English. One of the purposes of the amendment was to "promote the patriotic integration of prospective U.S. citizens."

The bill was defeated by a vote of 61 to 34 with 4 not voting.

So it isn't accurate to say that the "no" votes of the Senators was about making English the official language of the United States. Their opposition could have been to other aspects of the legislation.

A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:

33 Senators Voted Against English as America's Official Language June 6, 2007
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 23:35:23 -0500,

"Colonel Harry Riley USA ret" wrote:

Senators,

Your vote against an amendment to the Immigration Bill 1348, to make English America's official language is astounding. On D-Day no less when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock character and principles of America. I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens.

I don't much care where you come from, what your religion is, whether you're black, white or some other color, male or female, democrat, republican or independent, but I do care when you're a United States Senator, representing citizens of America and vote against English as the official language of the United States.

Your vote reflects betrayal, political surrender, violates your pledge of allegiance, dishonors historical principle, rejects patriotism, borders on traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United States Senator... impeachment, recall, or other appropriate action is warranted.

Worse, 4 of you voting against English as America's official language are presidential candidates: Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd, and Senator Obama.

Those 4 Senators vying to lead America but won't or don't have the courage to cast a vote in favor of English as America's official language when 91% of American citizens want English officially designated as our language.

This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators have disgraced themselves as political hacks... unworthy as Senators and certainly unqualified to serve as President of the United States.

If America is as angry as I am, you will realize a back-lash so stunning it will literally rock you out of your panties... and preferably, totally out of the United States Senate.

The entire immigration bill is a farce... your action only confirms this really isn't about America; it's about self-serving politics... despicable at best.
"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~ anonymous
The following senators voted against making English the official language of America:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE) Wants to be President?
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY) Wants to be President?
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT) Wants to be President?
Domenici (R-NM) Coward, protecting his Senate seat...
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI) Not unusual for him
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA) Wanted to be President
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT) Disappointment here.....
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL) Wants to be President?
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV) Senate Majority Leader
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-M)
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged."
~ President Abraham Lincoln " Amen "

Open Letter to UFC about Bad Decisions

Dear Dana White:

On Saturday night, Matt Hamill was robbed in London. The split decision in Hamill’s UFC 75 fight against Michael Bisping, a Brit fighting in his home country, was atrocious. Hamill clearly won the first two rounds on strikes and takedowns, while Bisping’s punches landed on Hamill’s arms. Hamill did seem to lose the third round; although, one judge even gave him the third, probably based upon his takedowns. This is not something about which reasonable people can disagree. Matt Hamill won that fight.

The decision was a complete shocker. In fact, one could hear a whole lot of boos and whistles from the crowd after it was announced. This was the same partisan crowd that had wildly cheered Bisping before and throughout the fight. Many of these British fans must have thought the decision was bad too.

Bad decisions happen. You are lucky that they have actually been rare in the UFC. When a decision in a fight or a boxing match is bad, viewers feel the injustice. The same thing happens when an umpire makes a bad call in baseball, or a referee makes a bad call in a football game. Often, the only justice that a viewer may ever receive is the fact that an announcer agrees and justifies those feelings.

On Saturday night, your announcers had been making comments throughout the fight implying that they thought Hamill was winning. But, when the decision was announced, they failed to address in any way the boos from the crowd or whether they thought a bad decision had been made. The writers on your website did not even mention the fact that the decision was controversial.

In other sports, announcers and writers are independent journalists. They are not usually hired by fight promoters or the owners of sports leagues or teams. Even when announcers do have such conflicts, they still retain the latitude to express their opinions. Have you heard Teddy Atlas announce a boxing match on ESPN? He lets you know exactly how he feels about bad decisions, bad judges, and even bad state commissions.

Here are a few suggestions to rectify this injustice. First, set up a rematch between Hamill and Bisping that takes place in the United States. Second, insist on experienced, fair judges in all fights. Think about whether this includes Cecil Peoples, who has been involved in some controversial decisions. Finally, allow and encourage your announcers and writers to disagree and debate decisions. This will not weaken your organization in any way. On the contrary, being open and honest and fair will only make the UFC even stronger as the premiere mixed martial arts organization.