Three bad games

Today was a football disaster

First, the drudge report headline says it all: Huskers suffer worst home loss since ’58
Nebraska 14, Oklahoma State 45

Second, the Big 12 South humiliates the Big 12 North
#6 Oklahoma 41, #11 Missouri 31

Third, #2 California, my sentimental favorite, had a chance to become number one, after
#1 LSU 37, #17 Kentuck 31
But it was not to be
Oregon State 31, #2 California #28

And as I’m writing this, Auburn, the team that beat us in the Cotton Bowl last year, survived Arkansas and somehow stays in the Top 25.
#22 Auburn 9, Arkansas 7


The Blog of M’Gath analyzes Dozier Internet Law, P.C., crazy copyrighted see-and-dee

Gary McGath, who doesn’t pronounce the “c” in The Blog of M’Gath, is the latest online journalist to cover the Dozier Internet Law public-relations disaster.

Everything that Gary writes is so good is is hard to know what to excerpt. I hope he doesn’t mind a longer-than-usual blockquote, simply because everything is so well done:

Direct Buy, not liking the fact that was letting people post their complaints about it, had Dozier Internet Law, P.C., send a cease and desist letter (PDF) demanding that the reports be removed, as well as demanding unspecified compensation.

The letter claims that the following are “defamatory statements”:

  • “Direct Buy Nightmare” —;
  • * “all scams are posted uncensored!” —;
  • * “You are reporting the following SCAM” —; and
  • * “Recently, we noticed a sudden influx of 4 and 5 star ratings for the Direct Buy
    program … We don’t know if Direct Buy is behind this or not. But we do have our suspicious given the fact that the reviews came from the SAME LOCATION, say the same thing, and highlight points that most customers wouldn’t be concerned with.” —

The letter doesn’t deny the specific scamming activity which Direct Buy is accused of, yet it categorically states that the last claim is “utterly false and without merit.” How does Dozier know that there was no such influx from a single location? Does he have access to the site’s logs?

Just by the way, Dozier Internet Law presumably would regard me as a “letter pirate” for having quoted the above text.

(Perhaps the reason I like Gary’s post is so much is that we think the same — my reaction was pretty similar in my first post, DirectBuy and Dozier Internet Law SLAPPS Infomercial

OODA Alpha, Part II: Dual Processing Systems

Dual processing theory proposes that the mind is composed of two systems — one speedy, effortless, and unconscious and the other slow, effortful, and open to introspection (Evans, 2003). The former system, known as implicit processing (Evans & Over, 1996), tacit knowing (Polanyi, 1966/1983); or System 1 (Stanovich, 1999), is the style of thinking common to humans and animals. The latter system, known as explicit processing (Roeber, 1993), or System 2 (Stanovich & West, 2000), is slow, has limited cognitive capacity and is apparently unique to humans.

Neither system is more powerful than the other. While some research emphasizes the role of System 1 (Oaksford & Chater, 2001; Oaksford & Wakefield, 2003) or System 2 (Weisberg 1986, 1993, 2006), experimental tests cast doubt on hypotheses that place particularly great emphasis on implicit (Oberauer, Weidenfeld, & Hornig, 2004) or explicit (Jung-Beeman, 2004) processing. Research now focuses on how these systems work together (Verschueren, Schaeken, & d’Ydewalle, 2005). System 2 can override and control System 1 (Evans, Handley, & Harper, 2001), though this ability undergoes degenerative development (Gilinsky & Judd, 1994). Similarly, System 1 can inform (Boyd, 1987a; Kunda, 1990; Lodge & Taber, 2005, Taber & Lodge, 2006) or suppress (Western, et al., 2006 ) System 2 activity.

Dual processing theory is used in linguistics (Wray, 2002), memory research (Humphreys, et al., 2000), marketing (Darke, 2007), political science (Morris, et al., 2003), and social psychology (Chaiken & Trope, 1999). Dual processing theory is foreshadowed by earlier research on attitudes. The broad concept attitude is composed of three sub-concepts: behavioral attitudes, affective attitudes, and cognitive attitudes (Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960; Triandis, 1971). Within the OODA taxonomy, behavioral attitudes correspond to Actions, Cognitive attitudes correspond to Decisions, and affective attitudes correspond to Orientations. In particular, the OODA tactic of disorientation explains the odd history other unexpected pattern of cognitive or affective attitudes controlling behavioral attitudes.

Educational psychology lags behind other fields in embracing dual processing theory. While pioneering work foreshadowed modern dual processing theory by examining how different hemispheres of the brain dominate cognition (Dean, 1984). However, other than research on conceptual change (Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993; Dole & Sinatra, 1998; Gregorie, 2003; Sinatra, 2005), little work has been done with dual processing theory in the field. [1] .To fill this gap, the OODA dual-processing model, an integral part of strategical theory (Osinga, 2007) that is already applied to education in a military context (Vandergriff, 2001, 2002, 2006) is proposed. Indeed, the OODA model itself was developed by a former instructor (Coram, 2002 ; Osinga, 2007).

[1] Another concept termed dual processing (see Mayer & Moreno, 1998) or the dual-channel assumption (Mayer & Moreno, 2003), where visual and audio input is processed separately from each other ), is a vital and natural part of the working memory (Baddeley, 1992) and cognitive load (Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller, 1999) research programs , but is not the same concept as the “dual processing” model discussed elsewhere in this article

OODA Alpha, a tdaxp series
1. Abstract
2. Dual Processing Systems
3. The OODA Loop
4. Decision
5. Orientation
6. A Theory of Mind
7. Reorientation
8. Disorientation
9. Education
10. Instruction
11. Student Interaction
12. Creativity
13. Conclusion
14. Bibliography

More links on Dozier Law Firm’s DirectBuy scandal

One of the hardest things about following the John Dozier scandal (well, the latest scandal, with DirectBuy — I’ve only done one post each on their handling of the SecureComputer and CuppyCoffee suits is the scale of the blogosphere’s response.

Besides Sean’s summary of DirectBuy’s malfeasance, a whole slew of blogs picked up the Ars Technica summary:

Blue’s News
Corporate critics feel the stinging lash of DMCA misuse.

Digg, Electronics Almanace, and Technology Owl:
Two recent cases show that companies aren’t always fans of criticism, and some will file misguided DMCA notices and defamation cases to scrub it from the Internet.

Techno Blogo
…a company called DirectBuy (perhaps you’ve seen their infomercials on TV) accused the owner of of defaming it by allowing critical postings that label the company a “scam” or a “nightmare.”…

That’s it for now!

Does Dozier Internet Law produce good results for clients? The SecureComputer case may provide an answer…

I Hate Linux has a fascinating article, which was also featured on the Jim River Report, on Dozier Internet Law…. before their meltdown on the DirectBuy threats, before they so damaged Cuppy’s Coffee’s reputation that CC needed to higher a P.R. firm…. there was Secure Computer, LLC.

The case featured all the usual nonsense from Dozier. Just like they publiclly squabble with blogs while DirectBuy’s reputation suffers, they issued press releases in the SecureComputer case. In separate suits, Microsoft and the State of Washington sued Secure Computer,” so Secure Computer made the mistake of contracting Dozier Internet Law.

If you’ve been reading this blog over the past few days, you know what a mistake that is.

Secure Computer’s nightwmare continues, as the Microsoft case drags on. But SecureComputer already had to pull its product from the market and pay one million dollars to the State of Washington.

In a discussion forum on this blog, former Dozier law firm employees complained about the bad working environment at the company. With victories like SecureComputer, Cuppy’s Coffee, and DirectBuy under their belt, no wonder Dozier employees are not happy!