Patterico Descends Into the Snake Pit Again
The snake pit in question is the one at Sadly, No!
For some reason, I decided to try to reason with some of the folks at Sadly, No! There are actually some people there who are relatively polite, and as I discovered who they were, I tried talking to them and ignoring the others.
But I failed at one point. I blew a gasket when one of the principals there told an outright lie about me: that I found “humorous” a comment about oral sex with a one-year-old. I couldn’t let that stand, and that’s how you get drawn in.
The fun is at three threads, here, here, and here. Go say hi.
Why I feel compelled to do this at times, I have no idea.
P.S. If you’re looking for direction, try the last link. It contains a link to a post where someone named “Tim” (there are those who call him “Tim”) said:
At least Roger has an Oscar nomination and Charles Johnson was a professional musician. But Jeff Goldstein and Security Mom? Who the fuck are those no talent jerks, and why would anybody pay them to write awful boring derivative unfunny suckass posts?
To which Jeff replied:
Incidentally, Tim? I touched your sister in her secret places. Lots.
Admirable restraint, you say? I would say so. But the Sadly, No! folks are busy making the case here that this shows Jeff was talking about molesting an underage girl.
And of course, that means I condone comments about molesting little girls, according to them.
UPDATE: I have spent a day watching people distort the record about a friend, and so I jumped in to defend him, and now I feel like I have wasted my time and just gotten angry for no reason. I feel like someone who spent a whole day fighting a bunch of poo-flinging monkeys. You can’t win, and at the end of the day they’re still jumping up and down, making their monkey noises, and flinging poo. And you wonder why you just wasted your day.
Cheers, mate! That was a right spirited flame war đ
Brad R. (c5cb1b) — 7/10/2006 @ 6:14 pmPat, I followed only the first of the links you provided, and found 191 comments. Sadly, pun intended, too many of SN’s commenters know only one adjective.
I really do wonder about that sometimes. RedState, one of the bigger conservative sites that allows comments, has a no profanity policy for comments, though some few do get through. The Lost Kos is the biggest far left site, and its commenters, like the ones I saw above, if they know more than one adjective, still use that one with much greater frequency than any other.
There are a couple of liberal sites on which I comment, because they’re small enough for the host to exercise some control over the stupid stuff, and people actually do try to have a debate of sorts; that makes them worth my time. Sadly, the bigger left wing sites seem to be worthless for any discussion above the sophomoric.
Dana (1d5902) — 7/10/2006 @ 6:27 pmWhy I feel compelled to do this at times, I have no idea.
I know what you mean Patterico. I know what you mean.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 7/10/2006 @ 6:36 pmYeah, but on the other hand, think of the years knocked off of your time in Purgatory.
Dan Collins (a0a088) — 7/10/2006 @ 6:44 pmThe Imp of the Perverse (Powerline 7/9) strikes again, and again and again.
Gbear (95d12a) — 7/10/2006 @ 6:44 pmI know what you mean Patterico. I know what you mean.
Heh. But you have to admit, Psyberian, that when people start calling you names, or misrepresenting your arguments, I will back you up. Right?
The hosts of that site won’t do that.
It’s about setting the tone.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 6:47 pmSee the P.S. I added about their new accusation: that Jeff Goldstein threatened to molest an underage girl. It’s . . . a stretch.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 6:47 pmIf anyone comes across as infantile there, its jeff, not the target of his ‘touching.’
actus (6234ee) — 7/10/2006 @ 6:58 pmYeah, but why would anyone go on a site and talk about touching somebody’s sister’s private places? What was the purpose of that? And if Jeff does that, certainly it taints everyone (including you) who may be “on his side”…. why doesn’t everyone just STFU and stop writing molestation threats against each other and stop writing stuff that sparks all that foolish talk?
rrsafety (2a564b) — 7/10/2006 @ 6:59 pmIts just a fratboy sophmoric insult. Or am I excusing this?
actus (6234ee) — 7/10/2006 @ 7:01 pmCondemning Frisch is a given. Defending Goldstein at the same time is drawing an arbitrary line deciding what is offensive and what is not. This is moral relativism whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not. In making these judgments, you balance clumsily on a tightrope, and every slight fumble is a display of hypocrisy. You did this constantly at S,N.
A reference was made to a comment made by Frisch that perception is defined by context. I hope you have learned from your little sojourn that often the exact opposite is true. I can joke all day long; if I offend or disgust you, it ceases to be joking whether I say it is or not. Until he cleans up his act (which I don’t believe anyone expects or demands) or something physical or truly illegal actually happens to him (which I would honestly fear if I constantly said such inflammatory things as Jeff, in jest or no – and no, that was not a threat), the little shit and his buddies have no right whatsoever to wave the morality flag at his detractors.
dgbellak (8f1e68) — 7/10/2006 @ 7:03 pmThat’s why I never bother going to any of those sites. They are nothing but playgrounds for a very small group of mouth-breathers whose only mission is to throw turds at each other. It’s just a waste of time. And you know you can’t reason with them, so why bother commenting?
Bill Schumm (33ab73) — 7/10/2006 @ 7:03 pmRE post #12–ignorance can be cured, but stupid is forever–and you gave Patterico some good advice. Leave those sites alone.
Mike Myers (290636) — 7/10/2006 @ 7:12 pmPatrick
Feeling guilty about something? Maybe a lot. Thought bantering with irredeemables might buy you a little penance. Next time, check into one of those monastic orders that promotes self-flagellation or scourging. It makes a lot more productive than visiting one of those pits.
Remember what Sam Clemeons said.
MaDr (d28110) — 7/10/2006 @ 7:39 pmError Will Robinson –
Sulpherous pits
Clemens
MaDr (d28110) — 7/10/2006 @ 7:40 pmBut you have to admit, Psyberian, that when people start calling you names, or misrepresenting your arguments, I will back you up. Right?
Thatâs true. You and Angry Clam both have been good about that. Still itâs rare that I want to swim against a current stronger than what awaits me here.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 7/10/2006 @ 7:43 pmYeah…riiight. Saying you’ve touched someone’s sister’s “secret places” isn’t suggestive of pedophilia. Ookay…no doubt your upcoming book also contains a chapter on how asking a hooker to shave her pubes and dress up and talk like a 7 year-old doesn’t suggest anything either…
Pastor Maker (58120e) — 7/10/2006 @ 7:51 pmI often wondered how those wonderful, loving, liberal people came up with their name. I assumed it went something like this:
Do we have brains? Sadly, No!
Do we have morals? Sadly, No!
Do we care? Sadly, No!
That must be wrong, because given the depths they plumb, they’re happy about these things.
I’ve heard of the site before, but yesterday was my first visit there. I can’t say I’ll ever make that mistake again.
Ellie Dee (6f0bc0) — 7/10/2006 @ 7:54 pmIf anyone can come across as braid-dead, it’s actus.
N. O'Brain (83656b) — 7/10/2006 @ 7:55 pmPastor Maker,
But you see, Jeff was only suggesting such things so that it could later be denied having said anything of the kind. That’s what makes him witty and sophisticated. Rape and pedophilia are quite urbane, if you can make ambiguous the details defining them as such.
dgbellak (8f1e68) — 7/10/2006 @ 7:58 pmPatterico,
Look on memorial day weekend on PW,if you’re still interested. See the “Oh, my!” post and the post immediately prior to that one. There are 12 pages of comments.
The inflamatory comment was made about a week prior to Memorial Day. I remember before going to dinner with my husband that people were commenting about lit crit on Metacomments, and after dinner I checked the blogs and all hell had broken loose.
——————————-
I think the following is the last exchange about lit crit on Protein Wisdom that we had before things went down hill. This is in the comments of the May 22 post on PW in the post: “I think SOMEBODY needs a little more frozen strawberry and a little less rumâŚ
————————
What I have been amazed by is Geoduck, who continually attempts to engage in reasoned debate on this site, while pretending not to notice that Thersites is behaving like a child on metacomments.
Geoduck and Phila. Both present themselves as reasonable and engaged on this site. Then scurry back to Thersites site and report in a condescending manner that the folks here just arenât up to snuff. Thersites agrees and they all break out the virtual brie and crackers and have a good laugh at the paste eaters expense. Sophmores.
Told you Jeff – Thersites issued an amused challenge that was nothing more than posturing to the hoi poloi on his site. He never expected he would be taken up on it. He is out of his depth and knows it and isnât going to engage you in any substantial way.
Be done with him. The best way to handle pompous bombastic asswipes is to look right through them. Nothing irks them more than to be treated as irrelevant. Let him accept the admiration of his sycophants and declare victory in his own sandbox. Heâll stew in the realization that he has been dismissed when he ventured outside it.
Posted by Just Passing Through | permalink
on 05/21 at 08:29 AM
{comments redacted]
Then scurry back to Thersites site and report in a condescending manner that the folks here just arenât up to snuff.
No – that is not a fair representation. What weâve been saying is more that JG wants to argue against deconstruction.
However, Thersites hasnât been using a deconstruction critique at all. What needs to be addressed is a critque from Bordieu.
What Phila said:
At this point, Thersites has made a pretty coherent argument that JG has scarcely begun to address, let alone refute…but Iâd be more impressed with a careful, reasoned explanation of why a Bordieuan critique is inapplicable to JGâs work.
Yep.
Posted by geoduck2 | permalink
on 05/21 at 10:41 AM
No – that is not a fair representation.
Sure it is. You said this, right?
Why do I start to fall asleep about two lines into any of JGâs writing? Itâs very soporific.
And this:
I gave a list of books, in case he hadnât read some of them.
But heâs not engaging. I canât tell what his beef is with NH if heâs not going to explain it.
Thatâs not true at all.
Your compatriot Aquaria:
Has this guy read ANYTHING about the art form? What IS it with these academic types that they have to write garbage?
Your hero Thirsty:
LJ: hee hee. Heâs the best the Right Blogosphere has to offer!
Who do you hope to fool with your protest, geoduck? Why even offer it here?
What weâve been saying is more that JG wants to argue against deconstruction.
However, Thersites hasnât been using a deconstruction critique at all. What needs to be addressed is a critque from Bordieu.
You seem to forget that the point of this excercise was that Thirsty was going to dismantle Jeffâs âtedentious garbageâ on Intentionalism. Thus far, you folks seem to want to do that by espousing the joys of deconstructionism. While you might have a ball with that activity, it doesnât achieve the goal of the exercise.
Once again, youâre swinging, missing, and thinking you knocked one out of the park.
Posted by Pablo | permalink
on 05/21 at 11:09 AM
No – that is not a fair representation. What weâve been saying is more that JG wants to argue against deconstruction.
However, Thersites hasnât been using a deconstruction critique at all. What needs to be addressed is a critque from Bordieu.
What Phila said:
At this point, Thersites has made a pretty coherent argument that JG has scarcely begun to address, let alone refute…but Iâd be more impressed with a careful, reasoned explanation of why a Bordieuan critique is inapplicable to JGâs work.
Yep.
This is precisely the kind of ludicrous dodge one can expect from academics who have nothing to offer. First off, whether one labelâs Thersitesâ critique a âdeconstructionistâ critque or not is absolutely irrelevant. I havenât responded to a type of critique, Iâve responded to what Thersitesâ wroteâand dropping names meant to label his critique doesnât change the substance of his critique.
To say that I have scarcely begun to address Thersitesâ argumentâwhich I have patiently broken down to each of its kernel assertions and addressed at lengthâshows precisely the kind of intellectual dishonesty coupled with smug and evasive self-satisfaction that people recoil from in self-styled academics.
The discussion (which began about meaningâs situatedness) has now been massaged in a different direction: having conceding intentâs role in meaning making, the chin-scratching pompous know-nothings have now gone on to wave that away with a âso what? Other things can be done with texts that we believe are more importantââwhich is something that I discuss in my notes (it is correct observation, but the results of those other things we do with textsâspecifically what we think they are, and what relationship they carry to the textâs meaning, either in an interpretive paradigm or outside one) are the important questions.
I suppose Iâm through answering questions from either geoduck or phila, and Thersites has proven he is absolutely indoctrinated by easy and puerile theoreticsâwhatever name he wants to give to his âapproach.â But I do find it both touching and telling that his sycophants continue to try to protect him and insolate him from what I hope Iâve shown objective readers are the inherent flaws in his (very convoluted) position.
As for a list the list of books geoduck cited…so? I addressed the problems with new historicism. Iâve read Greenblatt and Tompkins and on and on.
You simply wish to name dropânow Iâm to answer a âBordieuan critiqueâ but Iâm not to do such using a âdeconstructionistâ paradigm, is that it?âbut you wonât put your money where you mouth is.
Iâm not worried about labels and name dropping. If its a critique of B you want, spell out the assertions of the argument and I will address them. I have been quite clear in what my kernel assertions are. Why wonât Thersites just spell out what his theoretics are? And pray tell, someone please point out what arguments Thersites has made that I have âscarcely begun to addressâ.
Otherwise you are shams, frauds, and a coterie of self-reinforcing back-patters. Whatâs worse, you are disingenuous, and have proven yourselves incapable of dealing with someone who has directly taken on each of the points youâve raised.
Go on. Declare yourself the victors. Throw in some quote from Benjamin and step away.
But anybody following along knows what happened here.
I suggest you save further commentary for Thersitesâ site, where you can join in with the luxuriating over my supposed stupidity and inability to write. It is clear none of you bothered to read the notesâbut have instead decided you were able to my arguments with the sheer strength of your oblique, namedropping bullshit. I knocked that kind of self-serving bullshit down at the School of Crit an Theory, and Iâm having no problem doing it here, despite what you people seem to wish to convince yourselves youâve done to trip me up.
The fact is, I very much doubt you blindly loyal supporters of Thersites (and Thersites himself) have a scholarly impulse in their bodies. Insted, you have learned how to write papers from a particular (and quite easy) critical perspective, and you squeeze everything out through that particular intellectual sausage maker until youâve filled up enough casings to fill a collection of essays. Itâs like you people are assembly line workers.
But saddest is the fact that you can say, with a straight face, that I havenât addressed Thersitesâ arguments when I have posted the entirety of his arguments here and addressed each of their points.
Now go away. There are paste-eating dork remarks to be made. Just not here, where serious people (on occasion) gather.
Posted by Jeff Goldstein | permalink
on 05/21 at 11:40 AM
——————–
You can see that while we all should have been more polite, it’s not an entirely out of the ordinary conversation for the blog-o-sphere in tone. I was enjoying talking with people on the blog. Then things got bad very quickly — this is why:
The argument about Bordieu, literature ,and the author’s position versus the audience continued on Metacomments until an anonymous poster made the sexually threatening comment about the 2 year old.
(I’m looking for the response on PW to that comment, because I cannot recall the exact day) After that happened, if I am remembering right, both I and Phila did not comment again on PW. (Thersites also did not comment on PW after this point.)
——————–
For about a week Jeff continued to talk of and on about lit crit & his thoughts about theory & the arguments that Thers made about Bordieu and intentionalism with his commenters.
However, over Memorial Day weekend is when the next big upset happened:
Thers and his wife’s information was revealed by a poster on PW; Jeff got mad at posters from Eschaton and reposted the information (in particular, he was mad at Tena and NTodd); Thers notified the authorities about the threats and went to Blogger in an effort to find out information about the person who had posted the first statement about the child and the later threats.
(The above is as I understand the situation – I could be wrong.)
geoduck2 (098c5d) — 7/10/2006 @ 8:07 pmI went only to the latest post and read all the comments. Who can reason with unreasonable people? (Even Amanda Marcotte showed up.) Let them all go back to opposing the war on terror because the President opposes gay marriage.
nk (ca8012) — 7/10/2006 @ 8:11 pmSaying “raghead” is horrible, but saying you want to dick-slap someone is funny, but saying that some widows are enjoying their husband’s death is inexusably offensive, but saying “I touched your sister in her secret places” is is just a school-yard taunt but saying that Murtha is the reason that fragging was invented is vile.
I’m getting quite dizzy trying to figure out exactly what the rules are here. What possible sort of evaluation would make Jeff Goldstein inoffensive but Ann Coulter an embarrassment?
Doc Rampage (47be8d) — 7/10/2006 @ 8:13 pmthis is Jeff’s response to Deb after she asked the age and sex of his tyke…
to which Deb starts referring to Jeff’s child, so Jeff responds
It is apparent that Jeff was allowing to say any old stupid thing about him, and warned her to engage her brain and leave an innocent 2 year old out of it, 2ce and Deb chose (ironic, since her book she is working on is about “decision making”) to continue AND ratchet it up, a lot.
I think people should refer to the original thread, read the unfolding and realize Jeff allows criticism alot on his site and gave Ms. Deb many opportunities to act like a smart person, or a psychology instructor.
topsecretk9 (827241) — 7/10/2006 @ 8:16 pmPatterico,
Have you ever gone to the libary and sat to down to look through a book and smelled something like someone who hasn’t showered in a few days and looked up and in one of the nearby chairs sits a guy in dirty jeans and t-shirt with about 3 days growth of beard and his hair so greasy it makes you sick? He wears thick rimmed glasses and even though he has all the earmarks of being homeless you sense that he isn’t. His clothes are dirty, but not street dirty and he still has his teeth. His shoes don’t look worn either. He has beady eyes and is reading something like “When aliens lived on planet earth” and it isn’t a fiction book.
This is the kind of guy you are arguing with at lefty sites.
Don’t try. It’s futile. Getting angry only makes their day. They have no life. They sit in front of computer in their mom’s basement waiting for her pension check to arrive so they can pay for their dial up service.
Really. Why am I telling you this? You know this, right?
Rightwingsparkle (657e7a) — 7/10/2006 @ 8:20 pmDoc
You forgot Larry Johnson suggesting Karl Rove’s mother committed suicide because she realized what she created…that, I was told was not as bad as…well everything the right says too.
topsecretk9 (827241) — 7/10/2006 @ 8:20 pmTell you what, geoduck.
You go tell that guy Retardo that, in your opinion, he told a big fat lie about me today when he said I found comments about oral sex on a one-year-old “humorous” — and then I’ll look into this whole Thersites thing.
But if you just want to sit by and watch your folks slander me, then I’ll be damned if I’m going to spend another second on what you’re talking about. You can ignore your folks’ slanders, and I’ll assume that Just Passing Through (who has a good track record with me) is telling the whole truth.
Somehow I’m guessing you’ll decline. Not because you don’t think it’s a lie. I can tell you’re honest enough to see it is. But because you don’t want to stand up to them.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 8:27 pmFunny. Jeff banned me after 2 comments, and I said nothing sexual or vulgar. He even deleted the comments, which strikes me as a tad, I dunno, disingenuous. In any case, “opportunities” are not things I find on Jeff’s site.
dgbellak (8f1e68) — 7/10/2006 @ 8:28 pmI’m too lazy to check the thread, but do I have this about right? Jeff, talked about touching someone’s sister in her secret places. To a regular commenter on a blog? Who’s average age is probably 35-40. Youngest ones maybe 20 or 21? So am I to believe that this commentators sister is 7? 9? 12? Pedophile, right?
I guess I’ve found one instance where the Left is consistent. If they can shrink/contract time/age to make a full term fetus to fall within Roe v Wade, they can easily make a 25-30 yr old sibling a victim of pedophilia.
I’ll confess, I’m exaggerating. I know it’s not the only time they’re consistent. It’s always America’s fault. Every culture (and tradition) is superior to America’s. The military and police are always at fault/wrong; bringing charges much less an indictment are necessary. All communists/ socialists/ meritocracies/ thugocracies are good (as long as they oppose the USA) – even Joe, Mao, Ho, etc.
MaDr (d28110) — 7/10/2006 @ 8:36 pmIt’s all in the context, Doc, Comment #23. I never thought that Michael Moore was a total jackass because of “Roger and Me” but I thought he was worse than that after “Fahrenheit 911”. I have read a great deal of Ann Coulter that I thought was reasonable. I do not want to say that fragging is bad in all circumstances having read that there were three unsuccessful attempts to frag Hitler. In the case of Congressman Murtha I agree that it was vile.
nk (ca8012) — 7/10/2006 @ 8:45 pmWhat *did* you say, dgbellak?
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 8:45 pmSee, geoduck, being on a site like Sadly, No! and having people misrepresent what I said and call me names all day long has had a certain hardening effect on me. It makes me feel like everything everyone says on that site is complete 100% B.S. Thing is, there were people like Steve and you who seemed reasonable, but neither of you were willing to tell that Retardo guy that he was full of it when he said I found it HUMOROUS when someone made a comment about ORAL SEX ON A SMALL CHILD.
So why the hell should I care about this thing you’re on about? I have to assume you are all full of it too.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 8:48 pmIt’s been long enough ago that I honestly don’t remember, but I do know it wasn’t personal and it actually pertained to the topic at hand. Well, not personal as in nothing about family members or his meds, but I’m sure it was a vulgarity-free comment about his intellectual dishonesty.
dgbellak (8f1e68) — 7/10/2006 @ 8:52 pmSweetie!
geoduck=library guy
Don’t let them get to you!
Rightwingsparkle (657e7a) — 7/10/2006 @ 8:55 pmdgbellak,
We’re here. I can ask this question without having 500 nitwits descend and obfuscate things.
“Retardo” lied about me today on that site. No?
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:01 pmSo why the hell should I care about this thing youâre on about? I have to assume you are all full of it too.
Comment by Patterico
Huh? You wanted me to defend you?
I was busy looking up all these old sites because you asked me to. I didn’t ever read to the beginning of the thread. You were handling yourself just fine.
So now I’ve just wasted all this time reading old stuff about lit crit?
Quite frankly, I don’t even know what you and he were arguing about. But I’ve been avoiding getting into those fights ever since the Thers buisness. Nobody wins.
OK – since it means a lot to you I’m going over to defend you. And I’m doing this because I believe you and you care about it.
But I don’t appreciate you asking me to look something up for you and then being like this.
Just for the record, I am never, ever, ever arguing about lit crit again. I can’t believe it comes to this.
geoduck2 (098c5d) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:02 pmPatterico,
The following has been posted on Sadly No on the threads “Jeff can’t read” and the “Brad” thread. I believe those were the two pertinent comments:
For the Record:
I believe Patterico when he says that he did not approve or think it was funny that an anonymous commenter sexually threatened a two year old child.
—————
Well, I don’t really know what to say. Good night.
geoduck2 (098c5d) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:07 pmNo. Don’t do it because I asked you to. Do it because you are intellectually honest and there is a prick lying about me and it bothers you.
Never mind. You’ll say I demanded you do it and they’ll call me a whiner and I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t give a damn what anybody there thinks. They can all rot in hell.
It would be worth it just to see them swarm all over you too.
Nobody over there gives a damn about the facts. Or rational argument. Maybe Steve did. That’s about it. Everyone else is just looking for a way to score a point. And never mind if it takes flat-out dishonesty.
Sorry you don’t appreciate that I was interested before but am disgusted now. There’s a lot that happened today I don’t appreciate.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:10 pmgeoduck,
Without the Metacomments record available, there’s no way to illustrate the gleeful comments about the idiots on PW you made each time you and one or two others went back there after commenting oh so reasonably on Jeff’s blog. The record of people noticing it does still exist on Jeff’s blog. Are you contending the expression of that notice was contrived?
Thersites acted like a pompous, pretentious asshole from the start when he took on Jeff over literary theory and it was immediately obvious he was out of his depth. You don’t engage in and win an intellectual debate using contemptuous condescension as a substitute for knowledge of the subject matter. I think he realized he was coming off as an idiot and would have been happy enough to disengage. All you accomplished in your sycophantic stroking of his ego and assurances that he was so much smarter than Jeff that he just had to be right was help convince him not to do the smart thing and either break off the debate or defer it until he studied up. Things might have turned out quite differently if he had. Consider your role in the affair in that light.
This meme, that thersites was winning in the ring and so had to be taken down a notch or two outside the ring, is I suppose of some comfort to thersites, but it seems to be critical to your self-image as a competent sycophant. On ‘The Valve’ you tried to float thersites position in the literary theory debate with Jeff as the obvious correct one in a community of people vitally interested in the subject. You were politely but firmly corrected there. Do you ever learn?
Just Passing Through (5fde41) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:10 pmgeoduck,
Boy, you let him have it with that comment. Good night.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:11 pmPatterico, Retardo lied, or at best was really sloppy and held his ground rather than admit it. But you were a tad unreasonable in your unwillingness to admit that your critique of Gavin was a bit off-point considering the Confederate Yankee post to which he was responding.
Nonetheless I think all can agree that it’s kind of mean for the vapid captain of the cheerleading squad to pick on library guy.
Josh (365a03) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:13 pmYou go tell that guy Retardo that, in your opinion, he told a big fat lie about me today when he said I found comments about oral sex on a one-year-old âhumorousâ â and then Iâll look into this whole Thersites thing.
But if you just want to sit by and watch your folks slander me, then Iâll be damned if Iâm going to spend another second on what youâre talking about. You can ignore your folksâ slanders, and Iâll assume that Just Passing Through (who has a good track record with me) is telling the whole truth.
Somehow Iâm guessing youâll decline. Not because you donât think itâs a lie. I can tell youâre honest enough to see it is. But because you donât want to stand up to them.
Comment by Patterico â 7/10/2006 @ 8:27 pm
Patterico,
I just read the above comment. I was posting before I read this thread.
Do you know why? Because I went for a walk and was then busy looking stuff up for you.
I am so annoyed. It was tedious reading through all those old postings on PW.
I am going to finish reading this thread, and then find a nice genre mystery book and sit in a bubble bath.
geoduck2 (098c5d) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:16 pmBTW: Jeff was not mad at the posters from Eschaton for the reasons you allude to but don’t see fit to specify. He was specifically pissed off that thersites’ partisans, (and include yourself in that mix), continued to float the idea that Jeff or someone from his site made a comment about thersites’ daughter without backing that assertation up after repeated requests to do so.
Just Passing Through (5fde41) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:17 pmOh, man. Patterico! What were you thinking of engaging these people? They aren’t fit to debate you; they only know how to attack you with irrelevant ad hominemisms and lies.
But thanks for sticking by Jeff. I like that guy and I think it sucks what’s happening to his site (down again at 2321 CST).
Keep up your own good work, too.
Toby Petzold (c44e3e) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:22 pmNobody over there gives a damn about the facts. Or rational argument. Maybe Steve did. Thatâs about it. Everyone else is just looking for a way to score a point. And never mind if it takes flat-out dishonesty.
Sorry you donât appreciate that I was interested before but am disgusted now. Thereâs a lot that happened today I donât appreciate.
Comment by Patterico
You do understand it is a parody blog?
1) I just read your comment that you wanted a defense. There’s not a point in a defense in that situation. Just like I would expect comments like that if I posted on PW.
2) I hope you understand that the reason I didn’t even know you cared was that I was busy looking stuff up for you.
Geez. And quite frankly, I still don’t even know what you two were arguing about because I wasn’t following it. I still haven’t followed it – I just trusted that you didn’t say anything like that.
3) I don’t consider myself a regular on Sadly No. I recognize Gentlewoman, who I think is nice and funny.
Pfft.
I guess I care because I feel like I wasted my time tonight. In the future – don’t ask somebody to do something you really aren’t interested in.
geoduck2 (098c5d) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:23 pmNonetheless I think all can agree that itâs kind of mean for the vapid captain of the cheerleading squad to pick on library guy
*sigh* It’s always the nerd that had acne that makes references to high school. (note: It’s not “captain” in cheer, it’s head cheerleader) I’m sorry the cheerleaders ignored you. But I wouldn’t have. Heck, I even talk to the library guy.
Rightwingsparkle (657e7a) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:27 pmHe was specifically pissed off that thersitesâ partisans, (and include yourself in that mix), continued to float the idea that Jeff or someone from his site made a comment about thersitesâ daughter without backing that assertation up after repeated requests to do so.
Comment by Just Passing Through
Look – that’s not true; I was not posting on Protein Wisdom or other blogs about Thersites. Quote me. In fact, the last time I posted on Protein Widsom was on the day that the comment was made about Ther’s child. Which was a week before Thers was outed.
In the week between the time the comment was made and Memorial Day weekend when Thers was outed I was being quiet about the whole affair. Thers had asked us to drop it.
geoduck2 (098c5d) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:28 pmHere’s the “Oh My” post in question – not sure what that’s supposed to prove about Jeff, outside of the fact that he shows far more restraint about his critics than they do about him.
Patterico, I know how it is when you get involved in what ends up being a pointless back and forth with rad libs. Hasn’t happened to me at a blog, but at a political message board I once frequented. They agitate you so much – and deliberately so, just to keep you coming back. I don’t believe the moonbat wing of the Democratic party actually believes half of what they post. They just say things to get the right to respond and keep responding and in the end the whole flame war ends up being a waste of time.
IMO, of course.
Sister Toldjah (7ce608) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:29 pmgeoduck,
Maybe I’ll be interested at some future point. So it isn’t necessarily a waste of time. It’s just that, like I just said in the update, I feel like someone who spent a whole day fighting monkeys who were flinging poo. At the end of the day, I am covered in poo, I wonder why I wasted my day, and they are still jumping up and down and making monkey noises and continuing to throw poo.
For now, I’ll let Just Passing Through critique your findings and I’ll look at it all some day when I’m not so disgusted.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:29 pmWhat???
Anyway, before I leave off the subject, I’ll invite Mr Patterico to apply some racetrack logic. Consider the tone and common style of the commenters at SadlyNo and Eschaton – commenters thersites is proud to be a part of and a site thersites’ old blog was an offshoot of. Consider the similarities in style of the PW community. Now consider the critical differences in the application of logical interpretation of common and current events.
Which horse would you be inclined to bet on?
Just Passing Through (5fde41) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:32 pmThe point, geoduck, is not that I don’t *really* think that was humorous. That’s obvious. The point is that the Retardo guy is a goddamn liar. And not one single solitary person who comments there, including you, has the guts to tell him so.
Freaking amazing.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:33 pmWhich horse would you be inclined to bet on?
It’s not even close.
Not even close.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:33 pmYou damn well know that’s impossible unless thersites releases the archives of the defunct Metacomments, so save the outrage.
Just Passing Through (5fde41) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:36 pmWithout the Metacomments record available, thereâs no way to illustrate the gleeful comments about the idiots on PW you made each time you and one or two others went back there after commenting oh so reasonably on Jeffâs blog.
Are you upset because you believe I wasn’t polite enough? I agree — I should have been more polite. I find this part of the discussion to be odd. Why do you care about that?
Thersites acted like a pompous, pretentious asshole from the start when he took on Jeff over literary theory and it was immediately obvious he was out of his depth. You donât engage in and win an intellectual debate using contemptuous condescension as a substitute for knowledge of the subject matter. I think he realized he was coming off as an idiot and would have been happy enough to disengage. All you accomplished in your sycophantic stroking of his ego and assurances that he was so much smarter than Jeff that he just had to be right was help convince him not to do the smart thing and either break off the debate or defer it until he studied up. Things might have turned out quite differently if he had. Consider your role in the affair in that light.
Look – I shouldn’t have encouraged Thers to get into a literary debate with Jeff because nothing good could come of it. In my personal opinion, Jeff never answered several important questions about Bordieu & the new historicism in terms of literary theory.
But I didn’t care about the literary debate much after Ther’s child was threatened. It wasn’t important in comparison.
This meme, that thersites was winning in the ring and so had to be taken down a notch or two outside the ring, is I suppose of some comfort to thersites, but it seems to be critical to your self-image as a competent sycophant. On âThe Valveâ you tried to float thersites position in the literary theory debate with Jeff as the obvious correct one in a community of people vitally interested in the subject. You were politely but firmly corrected there. Do you ever learn?
Personally, I think you may not have understood what some people said on the Valve.
But, anyways, for the record the arguments on the Valve were mostly about what I believe in terms of literary theory and books that I enjoy reading. Thers knows much more about lit crit then me.
And, anyways, a discussion about literary theory isn’t about winning or loosing. It’s about a theoretical approach to interpreting books.
I both disagree and agree with the people on the Valve in which I was having a discussion. I respect all of them.
This doesn’t make us winners or loosers. It means we have different approaches and I realize that interesting and important knowledge can come from approaches that are different then my own. In fact, they ought to be approaching things in a way different from me, because I’m in another discipline.
It would be quite boring if we all had the same theoretical postitions and approaches in scholarship.
geoduck2 (098c5d) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:37 pmPatt,
Retardo:
âContrast with Thers who shut his blog down immediately when Goldstein outted him and his commenters left that remark about âcock-sucking lipsâ about his one-year-old. But of course to Patterico, that was humorous.â
Implying that you found the comment about the one-year-old humorous was wrong. Factually untrue? The pretense was that you were there to defend Goldstein, and that situation was one of his products. Since you weren’t unequivocally condemning such an event – an event that directly paralleled what was going on on that S,N thread – those were that dots that Retardo connected. It was libelous, but so is claiming that Frisch was supported or defended by anyone there. I see by your immediate and repeated “liar” responses that it kinda stings to be accused of such things baselessly, from your perception. Now, keeping that in mind, what did you originally intend by going to S,N?
dgbellak (f8adc2) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:38 pmWell, anyway, Mr Patterico, I apologize for leaping up on the bar and declaiming in your joint. I’ll see that someone else drives me home.
Night.
Just Passing Through (5fde41) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:41 pm*sigh* Itâs always the nerd that had acne that makes references to high school
Whatever you say, SparklePony.
Josh (365a03) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:44 pmIt was libelous, but so is claiming that Frisch was supported or defended by anyone there.
Well, now, wait. Place to one side the whole structure of Gavin’s first post, which included a very tepid condemnation (“pretty bad”) amongst a host of examples to show that it was *relatively* not so bad. You can’t deny that he *did* support Frisch on her almost-certainly-a lie that she didn’t write the French-kissing comments. Right?
So he *did* support her on that.
And your argument about him connecting dots is utter crap. The logic is this:
Connecting dots? Or utter 100% crap?
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:45 pmJust Passing Through,
You’re welcome here any time.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:46 pmgeoduck2 –
I’m afraid the “parody” aspect is lost on anyone who doesn’t believe Chimpy McSmirk started his vile Kristian war to benefit his master “Dead Eye” Dick Cheney and the Skull and Bones Helliburton KKKlub.
For parody to be effective (or even extant) there must be an element of humor. There is none in that sad place.
Thank you for the effort of research, though – it helps inordinately to understand that other situation.
Patterico-
I just came back from there, I attempted to be – and I think, succeeded in being – civil and non-confrontational; all I got was an ever increasing herd* of monkey flinging their feces.
They truly seemed more enraged that a visitor was unimpressed with their righteously incandescent rage (typified by the dropping of the f-word hither and yon) than they were about a toddler rape/murder fantasy.
I hesitate to contradict my host, but please folks, don’t go over there – it’s truly a waste of time. They are everything they wish conservatives were; hateful, inarticulate, amoral, etc…
*Herd? Flock? Anyone wanna help me out here?
Abraxas (828688) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:47 pmPatterico,
The point, geoduck, is not that I donât *really* think that was humorous. Thatâs obvious. The point is that the Retardo guy is a goddamn liar. And not one single solitary person who comments there, including you, has the guts to tell him so.
What did he lie about? I thought that he said you said it was funny?
Look: I’m not kidding. I wasn’t following it. So he lied because he said what?
————-
I don’t understand – I wouldn’t go to a blog where a culture was a particular way and not expect blowback.
And people are still angry over Thers. And rightly so. But many people haven’t followed it from the beginning and are confusing all sorts of things.
For example – It sounds like Just Passing Through is accusing me of provoking Jeff into posting Thers’s information. That’s not true. Jeff was responding to people posting on his own site. It’s right there in the post.
Did I say something on Metacomments? I might have – I don’t remember. I’m sure I said at some point that I was suspicious of that the person who did it was from PW. But Thers said on his site that he didn’t think it was Jeff.
geoduck2 (098c5d) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:49 pmUtter crap to come to such conclusions? Once again, I ask you, why were you there?
dgbellak (f8adc2) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:50 pmThank you for the effort of research, though – it helps inordinately to understand that other situation.
You’re very welcome. I appreciate it.
————
About the parody blog stuff. What I was trying to say – is that different blogs have different styles of attitude in the comments.
Everybody is polite at Althouse.
Everybody is not polite at Protein Wisdom. As a liberal, I would not expect people to be polite to me at Protein Wisdom, because that is the blog culture.
Do you see what I mean?
—————
Anyways, thanks again, I really do appreciate it.
geoduck2 (098c5d) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:53 pmgeoduck2 –
You are quite right, I see what you meant.
Best,
A.
Abraxas (828688) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:55 pmdgbellak,
You didn’t address my points. Don’t expect me to pretend you didn’t notice it. I noted one way that Gavin did indeed support Frisch.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:56 pmAbraxas,
It’s quite amazing. You go there and it’s pure bullying. They announce their intent to mock you and ignore your points. I guess the idea is that they don’t want anyone with a contrary viewpoint.
It’s different here. Psyberian, a confirmed leftist, acknowledged here earlier today that when people are unfair to him or just call him names without content, that I intervene.
Again, it’s about setting a tone. I like robust debate from different sides, and I’m not so wimpy as Althouse about it, to where I am constantly deleting comments (including because they simply don’t agree with me). My way of enforcing a tone is chiding those who are unreasonable and just call names. Those people are encouraged over there.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:59 pmPatt,
Hey, those are my lines.
Gavin’s comment in question:
(Some extremely vile quotes attributed to her [not reproduced above] seem to be made up. I know itâs shocking that wingnuts would simply make things up, but life is full of surprises.)
Yeah, “seem to”. He had two things to go on here. Frisch’s word, and Goldstein’s proven, undeniable propensity to alter and change comments while still attributing them to the original commenter. Can you say ‘crying wolf’? It’s not a matter of support, it’s a matter of trust, and though it was wrong to trust Frisch, there was good reason not to trust Goldstein. So pardon the hell out of Gavin. That is not a ringing defense, especially in light of the war that has followed.
Now, why in the hell were you over there if not to pass similar judgment?
dgbellak (f8adc2) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:08 pmPatterico
It’s just that the general feel of leftist sites is – well, as I said before – incandescent rage. Either that or puerile posing.
There’s just no thought going on over there. None. I did promise to get back to them if anyone wanted to continue the conversation; but they seem too puzzled that an online poster doesn’t want to use scatalogical language to even try to debate the topic at hand.
And for those leftists who are reading – here’s a bit I left at a Ms. Jane Hamsher’s website not too long ago that “mysteriously” disappeared…
“And since leftists can’t possibly be expected to stay focused for more than a moment on the issue at hand, here’s a Postscript for your flying moonbat monkeys who want to lump every imagined slight that President Bush has ever committed toward them in a primal scream (er, post) of anguish on any sympathetic blog entry ever written on the perfidy of the “other side”: Don’t think you’re the only ones righteously *Angry* in this country. As angry at Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice, Wolfowitz, the Bush twins, Barney the dog, W’s housekeeper from back in Texas, ad nauseum as you are, imagine an entire populace absolutely incandescently outraged at *You* for the gutter depths you’ve dragged America through over the past 30 years. As much as you hate, you’re hated right back. Every patchouli stinking one of you. Choke on it.”
Notice the lack of cursing. Also, please notice almost all of it is over the top invective. It *can* be done.
Also – sorry for hijacking your monkeys flinging poo imagery – I didn’t read closely the postscript to your post. Not that you can ever have too many monkeys flinging poo … I’m just sayin’.
Abraxas (828688) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:10 pmThey announce their intent to mock you and ignore your points.
Patterico! Of course that’s what they do!
That’s the point of the blog. Anyways, now you know.
Ok- I don’t mean to be annoying. Thanks for having me; bye.
geoduck2 (098c5d) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:11 pmI don’t think the authors would agree that that is the point of the blog. They seem to think they are all about intellectual honesty and such. News flash: that includes seriously looking at arguments from the other side. Which they don’t do.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:17 pmRecall that earlier today Deb Frisch promised not to post about Jeff Goldstein for another month? It seems her promise lasted 6-1/2 hours and now she’s “recruiting troops” of “like-minded warriors”.
DRJ (fc0576) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:22 pmItâs quite amazing. You go there and itâs pure bullying. They announce their intent to mock you and ignore your points. I guess the idea is that they donât want anyone with a contrary viewpoint….My way of enforcing a tone is chiding those who are unreasonable and just call names. Those people are encouraged over there.
So Sadly, No! bears a closer resemblance to blogs like Protein Wisdom than it does to blogs like this one. So what?
Josh (365a03) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:38 pmI had no idea who Tim was, or if he even had a sister.
Geoduck? Talks out of both sides of her beak.
Dgbellak? If I banned you and not actus — who posts 50 times a day on my site — you probably said something that I found unacceptable.
Let the Sadly, No! crew make their silly strained equivalency arguments. And let’s all pretend that my site is nothing but hard right Limbaugh-ish boilerplate.
I can live with it. The people who actually read me, though, think differently. And there are plenty of them. So it’s all good.
Jeff G (881746) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:45 pmlet me get this straight. you accepted a challenge to wrestle about 20-30 gnomes in their own mudpit and you expected to come out victorious with all clean clothes? patterico, you seem like a smarter guy than to do that. don’t you have a brief or a motion to write or something?
assistant devil's advocate (546cfb) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:55 pmgoldstein said he touched somebody’s sister in her private places? damn, he’s a cyberexhibitionist perv too!
what is it about blogging where people descend to the high school level and get back in touch with their inner adolescents?
I donât think the authors would agree that that is the point of the blog. They seem to think they are all about intellectual honesty and such. News flash: that includes seriously looking at arguments from the other side. Which they donât do.
What arguments? Yours? Like the one in the S,N comment thread where you say Deborah Frisch is a “face of the fringe Left” like Ann Coulter is a “face of the fringe Right”?
And that is “serious” how, exactly? Because what you said is like saying, “Mark Twain and Jeff Goldstein are faces of American literature.”
What is your argument, anyway? That because some obscure and unhinged person made vile comments on Goldstein’s blog, there should be a moratorium on reminding people of Goldstein’s more embarrassing quotes for a certain amount of time (a day? a week? forever?)
Demogenes Aristophanes (250dd8) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:00 pmYou’re kind. She’s a treacherous liar who mastered the art of being syrupy sweet about it back in middle school would be how I’d put it.
Just Passing Through (5fde41) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:01 pmJG,
If I remember correctly, commenters in the thread from which you banned me accused me of being someone else; it may have been actus.
What you find acceptable and unacceptable is a big source of the derision directed at you. Your standards fly in the face not only of good taste, but of common sense as well, as exemplified by your run-ins with the likes of Frisch. Glass houses, and all that.
dgbellak (f8adc2) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:04 pmI don’t find my “quotes” embarrassing. I said them. Under my own name. For reasons that are clear in context.
And I don’t run from them.
Why is bringing them up now — in the context of the Frisch comments — so important to people like you, DA, if not to suggest some sort of equivalency which you know, when you’re not playing partisan agitator and trying to score points, is utter bullshit?
Jeff G (881746) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:05 pmJG,
I thought playing partisan agitator was the whole point of this exercise. Or are we to assume you’re only thinking of the safety of your child when you continue to Frisch-wrangle under the headline “More from the tolerant left”? Your hypocrisy astounds.
I believe I said something along those lines when you banned me.
dgbellak (f8adc2) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:10 pmIf you are making this statement because you genuinely don’t know any better… then: you are sadly mistaken. Not (necessarily) a sin, no… but nothing to feel terribly proud of, either; and something, certainly, to be remedied at the earliest available opportunity.
If, on the other hand, you are stating thusly while in full possession of the information to follow — and, if you actually have read up on the demonstrable facts as extensively and conscientiously as you have (repeatedly) claimed — then there’s no nice or inoffensive way to say this… but: you are a baldfaced liar. Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph. End of story.
The full “real” names, occupations and state of residence for both Thersites and NYMary were fully, readily and plainly available at several places throughout the ‘net; most notably (and damningly, insofar as the faux narrative in question is concerned) at the blog site of Thersite partisan NTodd. Not even the most gibbering and deranged members of the anti-Goldstein lynch mob has ever successfully managed to refute this; screen captures and contemporaneous postings at multiple sites — still immediately available, one might add, in the Google cache — render this as inarguable and beyond rhetorical circumvention as the Law of the Conservation of Matter.
In any event — whether the (repeated) misstatement on your part was one initially born out of a lack of familiarity with the long-settled particulars of same, or simply a willingness to blandly obfuscate, on behalf of naked political partisanship — you now no longer have the benefit of either excuse, re: any future recountings.
If you are an individual in any way predisposed towards intellectual honesty: you will have no further need of same.
You’re welcome.
Kent (005e8f) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:14 pmMy taste is my taste, dgbellak. The market will sort out who likes my style and who doesn’t. But please: any derision aimed at me by people who call me “pasty” and fluff themselves for the genius of “hausfrau,” etc, is laughable.
The source of many of the problems I have with people who get their info from sites like Sadly, No, is that they are lazy. They don’t click the links, aren’t curious about context, and — when it’s convenient — aren’t interested in the “root causes” that reflect badly on their blog heroes.
Bracket the provocation, and it’s all just one big cycle of violence.
Me, I don’t bracket the provocation. Sometimes when I’m attacked personally, I attack back in kind. Other times I simply ignore it. Depends on my mood.
But however I respond, it always comes from me. Not somebody hiding behind “Retardo Montalban” or “antiwisdom” or “Tbogg” or “The Editors.”
Jeff G (881746) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:14 pmI don’t get the hypocrisy charge, dgbellak. I said early on in Frisch’s visits that I was going to let her go — that she was baring her ass, and that I was going to let her do so. I told her that. I told my readers that.
Later, I wrote a post saying I didn’t feel threatened by Frisch. So I’m not pretending to one thing and doing another.
Whereas you are pretending that my earlier comments in other contexts are somehow equivalent to what Frisch said and did. Which you know to be false. And yet you argue it anyway.
There’s a difference. Squint and you’ll see it.
Jeff G (881746) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:20 pmWhy is bringing them up now â in the context of the Frisch comments â so important to people like you, DA, if not to suggest some sort of equivalency which you know, when youâre not playing partisan agitator and trying to score points, is utter bullshit?
Oh, it is to suggest some sort of equivalency, Jeff. I thought you would have got that by now. I mean, the “context” is some loon making disgusting, spastic threats on a blog comment thread. Seems to me your own comments of a similar nature would be very relevant.
Demogenes Aristophanes (250dd8) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:26 pmdgbellak,
“Your standards fly in the face not only of good taste, but of common sense as well, as exemplified by your run-ins with the likes of Frisch.”
Ah. So now it’s Jeff’s fault that some woman made threatening comments about his two-year-old kid being shot.
It’s probably Israel’s fault for getting into run-ins with the likes of the Palestinians, too.
It’s that crazy MORAL EQUIVALENCE!
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:28 pmJeff, you’re either the single most superhumanly patient fellow Israelite out of all the lost tribes… or: the most determinedly masochistic. đ
Kent (005e8f) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:30 pmFor now, Iâll let Just Passing Through critique your findings and Iâll look at it all some day when Iâm not so disgusted.
Shorter Patterico: any lie that makes my friends look good sits better on my stomach than the truth.
But however I respond, it always comes from me.
Now that’s an easy lie to refute: when you edit other people’s comments, Jeff, do you change the attribution? Sadly, no! And that’s a response, albeit a cowardly one.
Isn’t it interesting, though, how it takes another certifiable loon to knock you off your cock-swinging pedestal? Anyone with an ounce of decency gets flattened by the torrent of shit that you and your acolytes rain down on them, but when your mirror-image arrives on the scene, you run away sqeualing. Why don’t you and Frisch just fuck and get it over with?
ahem (e07c58) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:34 pmthersitesâ partisans, (and include yourself in that mix), continued to float the idea that Jeff or someone from his site made a comment about thersitesâ daughter without backing that assertation up after repeated requests to do so.
As opposed to, say, those at PW who asserted that Thersites posted it himself to gain sympathy? I hope you don’t shave with Occam’s Razor, JPT.
Donât try. Itâs futile. Getting angry only makes their day. They have no life.
This, in a thread about Jeff Goldstein? And not referring to him? It is to laugh.
ahem (e07c58) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:39 pmOne final comment:
We all know that Patterico and the Goldstein Gang will come up with whatever moral contortions necessary to tar the entire left blogosphere with Frisch’s Goldstein-esque performance, and paint Jeffy as some kind of martyr.
We can all expect that Goldstein will, at some point in the future, make crude remarks about sexually violating individuals, invite cruder responses from his acolytes, and violate the privacy of anyone who he doesn’t like. Although past results are no guarantee of future performance, he’s a recidivist with a potty mouth, a catalogue of nasty fantasies and a hair-trigger. And when that happens, Patterico will defend the edgy humor of his buddy.
And we all know that if you visit Protein Wisdom without an anonymous proxy and don’t verbally fellate the host, your privacy is up for grabs.
In short, he’s a troll; and like all trolls, should be ignored. For me, that begins right now.
ahem (e07c58) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:50 pmSadly, ahem, you are a lunatic.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:50 pmAhhhhhhhhh… the sweet, subtle nectar of wholly unintentional pinhead irony: my very fav’ritest label and vintage evereverever! And just savor the soft, slight piquancy of that bouquet — like something meaty just turning over and beginning to rot, in a warm, dark room!
Maybe — if you’re a really, really good boy all next week, and stop trying to use the training potty as a hat — Mommy will see if she can help you unload that pesky forty-seventh chromosome on eBay, sometime.
Kent (005e8f) — 7/11/2006 @ 12:10 amJeff–
Geoducks don’t have beaks, just, um, well…
Not a beak.
I am glad to have contributed to the debate.
See Dubya (921613) — 7/11/2006 @ 12:20 amOh fabulous! Jeff gave you a warm FireDogLady welcome did he?…he learns all his best moves from the Townhouse crowd…
topsecretk9 (cfd30d) — 7/11/2006 @ 12:23 amOne time I said something this one guy didn’t like, so he shot back with, “Oh yeah? Well, last night I did your mom!” He should have been locked up for rape.
Jim Treacher (c3be1b) — 7/11/2006 @ 2:37 amOf course, Thersites could have cleared all that right up by providing the IP the comment came from, and perhaps a screen shot showing it.
I’ve floated the notion myself based on one thing: There’s more evidence that Thersites did it than there is that a PW commenter did it. The person who has the capacity to identify the commenter, and who is also Thersites, has REFUSED to do so.
As a parent, my reaction would be much like Jeff’s has been, but perhaps with less restraint.
Thirsty’s response was to delete his blog and cry victim after reposting the remark on the front page TWICE. It doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t add up. It doesn’t sound like a Daddy. It sounds like a weasel.
Occam’s razor indeed.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 7/11/2006 @ 3:33 amYou canât win, and at the end of the day theyâre still jumping up and down, making their monkey noises, and flinging poo. And you wonder why you just wasted your day.
Well yeah.
I watched this thing unfold over at PW in real time but never said much about it anywhere for that reason precisely.
Just look at the posts at SadlyNo. They write a long post excusing this idiot by saying ‘right wing bad guys do it too’. Then they come back and say they didn’t defend her at all. They’re either stupid or they’re liars.
Goldstein’s site is under ‘humor’ in my favorites. He is an excellent writer and his stuff is funny if a bit on the raunchy side at times. He is also classically liberal – not a right winger – a point on political philosophy I’ve tried to make here and at other sites at times but which apparently interests few others. If you don’t want to read his stuff then, you know, don’t fooking go read it.
I don’t know if the internet is more like the wild west or an elementary school playground. It resembles both at times. I would be willing to bet that this woman’s ravings came not only from a diseased mind but also from a bottle of booze. In any case she needs fooking help. She does not need to have her behavior excused and the people that are acting like they’re her friends are doing her a disservice. People like SadlyNo.
“I know you are but what am I?” “Am not.” “Are too.”
Yeah, yeah. Whatever.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 7/11/2006 @ 3:51 amThereâs more evidence that Thersites did it than there is that a PW commenter did it.
Actually, Pablo — and I’m breaking my silence, because you’re exceptionally fuckwitted in a land of fuckwits — there’s more evidence that you did it. You were trolling the site at the time; it fits your mode of discourse on non-wingnut sites; Goldstein has no more reliable attack monkey. And the fact that you keep defending your bullshit: well, the lady doth protest too much, methinks.
ahem (e07c58) — 7/11/2006 @ 4:21 amIt’s just mud wrestling with pigs. The problem is that you both get dirty and the pigs like it.
Personally, it’s not worth the effort any more for me to suffer fools.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 7/11/2006 @ 4:33 amNo, ahem, I was arguing just as I was arguing on PW as cut and pasted above. If you’d like to quote me otherwise, feel free and don’t forget to link. And of course, had I done it, my IP would have been strewn across the site in 80 point font. Thirsty promised us an IP outing and we’re still waiting.
Speaking of IP’s, have you fleshed out your little secret yet, freak? Come on, spit it out already. Don’t be so coy. And stop using ahem’s nic.
Pablo (efa871) — 7/11/2006 @ 5:25 amAren’t you the guy who said this?
So, how’s the wife? Beat her once for me, would you?
Sev (0400df) — 7/11/2006 @ 6:02 amgeoduck2 said:
I’m an engineer. I would be a fool to take one or the other side in a debate about literary theory and try to argue it. Not my field and most importantly, and this is the point thersites should have contemplated, not my special interest. Nonetheless, I had no trouble following and understanding the debate on PW or the followup on The Valve. None.
Just Passing Through (7acdce) — 7/11/2006 @ 6:23 amPatterico,
You scored the telling point by noting that Frisch’s own apology and resignation was conclusive proof she had crossed a basic line of decency. But staying on to do battle with a bunch of slimers was not a wise use of your energies.
Bradley J. Fikes (e619fc) — 7/11/2006 @ 6:49 amSee Dubya,
Glad to see all that education paid off…;-)
It is clear that the left is trying to say that what Frisch said is the same as what Jeff says regularly.
The difference they can’t seem to grasp is that Jeff is BEING FUNNY, JOKING, AND MAKING A PARODY (anyone who reads his site knows this)and Deb clearly was not. She was serious. If you guys can’t see the difference, I can’t help you.
Now that she is mocking the toruture and murder of our soldiers you guys will stop defending her.
Or maybe not.
Rightwingsparkle (657e7a) — 7/11/2006 @ 6:54 amFor those of us who have spent well over 10 years arguing on the internet, I hate to say it but the first lesson is: Don’t Feed the Trolls. You my friend have ignored that very basic rule.
Given that most of the lefty blogs are just a step above or below the snarky contempt that a Ted Rall comic conveys, one shouldn’t be surprised when the level of discourse starts at the bottom, and continues downward.
Gabriel Chapman (6d7447) — 7/11/2006 @ 8:09 amBeware the Netroosters,
Bradley, I thought the boat sunk. Your comment is spot on. Now, let’s all learn from our mistakes and move along to more productive use of our time and talents. The midterms are coming, and we’ve got our own fish to fry.
Lefty blogs are substandard experiences, they’re like black holes, they suck energy and give no light. They’re filled with pathetic angry idiots, and not worth the time of day. Ignore them, and like needy attention seeking neurotics, they’ll go away.
Besides, they have Joe Lieberman to kick around and with Mother Sheehan on a diet, why there’s no end of opportunities to undermine our troops, or tip off Al Qaeda to GWB’s efforts to protect America, or to blame him for 9/11.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 7/11/2006 @ 9:01 amPatterico –
These comment threads are becoming unreadable.
Christ, how many re-postings of somebodyâs tired attempt to prove something about J.G. that most of us could care less about are we to be subjected to?
I not suggesting you ban them, just bulk ’em. Set up a comment dump, maybe named “Fever_Swamp” or “Daytime_TV” where these repetitive, off-topic meanderings on the finer point of nothing can be made available for those with ample time to waste and who enjoy the texture of monkey poo.
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 7/11/2006 @ 9:33 amPatrick, I hate to see you, and Jeff, wasting your precious time posting about, and giving credence to, bottom dwellers who rise each and every day with the singular goal of dragging political opponents down to their level by any means necessary. It usually takes the flavor of what you experienced at Sadly, No!, and can be found just as readily at FDL, C&L, Balloon Juice, Atrios, DU….you name it. It’s a game that can be very easy to get drawn in to, because we value our integrity and are rightfully offended when it’s challenged. But consider the audience: it’s comprised of riff-raff with zero integrity who are otherwise invisible in society, and must gain some recognition through negative reinforcement and acting tough behind a keyboard. It’s a big fucking waste of time. You’re arguing with people who cannot hear.
Brian (b0d240) — 7/11/2006 @ 9:33 amExhibit A for why discourse with the opposition is futile.
Juvenile bottom dwellers, all of ’em.
Brian (b0d240) — 7/11/2006 @ 9:36 amThe threads aren’t so unreadable unless you’re trying to pick them up after 100 comments or so. I wouldn’t bother at that point either. But I’ve been reading from the beginning. The gist seems to be: “It doesn’t matter what bad thing Deb Frisch did because anybody who supports the Iraq war is spawn of the devil and deserves anything anybody else can dish out, so long as the disher repudiates the Iraq war. And she is crazy anyway and we don’t necessarily support what she did but we sure can enjoy it. And Goldstein is a [insert any random vulgar insult here]. And it’s okay for us to say that but we get hopping mad if he says it about us. Which is why it’s okay for us to say it about him. And also, he OUTED [laughable concept] somebody who wanted to remain anonymous while his info was contemporaneously available at other web sites.”
I have a few things to leave for the record at this point. 1) I’ve said before, here, that Jeff’s humor is not my style. But if you can’t see a huge difference between (A) “yo momma [sister, aunt, grandma]” insults, a longstanding and off-the-cuff, if puerile, form of degrading dark comedy, and (B) sexual innuendo and wishful death threats against a toddler, then you can’t see much.
2) Geoduck, get down off the cross, honey, somebody needs the wood. All I saw was a general request for information. You’re making it sound like Patterico whispered in your ear and sweet-talked you personally into ginning up the Thersites story and then flipped you out of bed onto a stone floor when you gave it up. And acting innocent and as if the issue were whether anybody “believed” Patterico found comments about a toddler funny just makes you less credible, not a martyred, longsuffering lib trying to enlighten us poor souls laboring under the delusion that Goldstein has his head on straight. (PS, did you *know* what a geoduck apparently is before you chose that handle? I didn’t, but I do now, thanks SeeDubya.)
3) Patterico, A for effort for you diving in over there to try to see some of what Jeff is dealing with. I see the point some people are making when they say “What did you expect?” but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have done it. It’s smart, and brave, to get out of friendlier confines once in a while. This Frisch thing is a good opportunity to take a good hard look at the way some people think debate should go. It’s sad and scary.
4) Frisch is a horrifying excuse for a human being. Her comments are completely indefensible on any level; thus the ones who share her political opinions are left with deflection and insult as their only options if they can’t bring themselves to condemn her remarks (IF, I say; a few have). I’ve been quiet not out of a lack of opinion or because I haven’t been following, but mostly out of amazement at what some people think is okay to say and do.
Anwyn (1d2652) — 7/11/2006 @ 12:42 pmAnwyn:
Excellent points.
One additional thought to point-4. The Left has always clamored about the Right’s “dehumanizing” of the opposition. The “Axis of Weasels,” for example, was held up as an example of us denying the humanity of those who differed with us politically.
Yet, the Left dehumanizes all the time. The idea that Goldstein’s family, his children, might be off-limits is somehow dismissed. At best (and it’s a poor best), the fact that we are bombing women and children in Iraq somehow is of “greater” import. At worst (and it’s a pretty bad worst), Goldstein’s children deserve whatever insults/threats are thrown their way, by the sins of the father. (Of course, Dubya is held up as an offspring of Prescott Bush, and therefore…)
That Deb Frisch would go on to post “Decapped Dupes” about the two beheaded soldiers is on par, but to the SRAs, no doubt it’s merely a bon mot.
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 7/11/2006 @ 12:53 pmAnwyn,
Yes, I understand your point about number two.
There’s no problem on my end. As far as I’m concerned it was resolved last night & wasn’t a big deal to begin with.
As for the mollusk question…yep, my family has even gone to a neighbor’s geoduck hunt/party. Probably not as fun as a clam bake, but still entertaining.
geoduck2 (098c5d) — 7/11/2006 @ 1:04 pmExhibit A for why discourse with the opposition is futile.
Brian, we are talking about a guy who said this to a commenter: “So, howâs the wife? Beat her once for me, would you?”
“Exceptionally fuckwitted in a land of fuckwits” is an apt description for the man.
Sev (7f9b63) — 7/11/2006 @ 1:50 pmHey Sev, I sure did say that to a pseudo-muslim.
But I won’t say it to you. You should blow me. Suck my left nut, then my right. Then work your way up until I smack you on the top of your silly head with the mushroom cloud you’ve been dreaming of lo these many long, lonely nights.
There. I feel so much better. đ
LGF Watch. Heh. It reminds me of when someone linked to Sadly No! as if that meant something that rational people should notice.
Patterico, if I’ve crossed a line of yours, I apologize. But this shit has been going on for a looooong time. And I’m tired of being nice to scum.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 7/11/2006 @ 5:16 pmOh, and I’d readily say it to a real muslim who was telling me how much better Islam is than western civilization. Because I’m something of a wiseass…
Maggot.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 7/11/2006 @ 5:21 pm[…] Second, my descent into the lefty snake pits yesterday has fortified my resolve to keep my blog from turning into a den of poo-flinging monkeys. The monkeys will not be invited in, and those that have sneaked through the cracks will be given a gentle boot out the door. Here’s a hint: someone who uses words rhyming with “uckwit” or “ucktard” is unlikely to stay. What is the point of discussions with such people? Yesterday I learned the answer: there is none. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Comments Issues (421107) — 7/11/2006 @ 5:45 pm#23. They are not rags – they are sheets!
Gbear (95d12a) — 7/11/2006 @ 7:01 pmWell now you learned a lesson. Monkeys not only sling poo, the stick their paws up their butt and lick the poo off. That’s as good a description of a liftie as i’ve heard lately. Right now there is a million lefties with no mind of their own standing around with one thumb up their butt and the other in their mouth, waiting for their fearless leader KOS to holler switch.
Scrapiron (9f37aa) — 7/11/2006 @ 10:04 pmBecause Iâm something of a
wisedumbassâŚEdited for accuracy.
Big Worm (365a03) — 7/11/2006 @ 11:32 pmDamn, that’s biting repartee. What ever shall I do now?
::ponders briefly::
Oh, look! A butterfly!
Hey, anyone heard any good insults lately?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 7/12/2006 @ 4:19 amAnd remember kids, when your beating your wife in the Way of the Prophet, use nothing bigger than the girth of your thumb.
Allahu akbar!
Pablo (08e1e8) — 7/12/2006 @ 4:23 amDamn, thatâs biting repartee. What ever shall I do now?
I dunno. Presumably what you usually do: go find Goldstein so he can practice his well-publicized technique on your forehead and cheekbones.
Big Worm (d00104) — 7/12/2006 @ 1:08 pmOh my. That one killed me dead!
Moron. So what’s with your cock obsession? Are you the one eyed sort of worm?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 7/12/2006 @ 2:35 pmCock obsession? You must be confusing me with Goldstein. The sad thing is I bet you’re not even his #1. Does he ever let you ride shotgun on the way to the track?
Big Worm (d00104) — 7/12/2006 @ 3:50 pmI read and comment on Jeff’s blog and a number of other blogs. I’ve never met the man, and have no plans to. You keep talking about his cock.
Don’t you have one of your own to play with, worm? Can’t you find someone with a unit they’ll let you play with?
It’s getting to be time for a new nic, isn’t it? How many does that make this year, worm?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 7/12/2006 @ 4:40 pmIf you ever actually READ what Goldstein ‘writes’, you will notice that he talks about his cock all the time, Pablo.
No really – he loves to talk about hitting people with his cock.
Shorter Rightwing Meanies (bbfdbb) — 8/1/2006 @ 8:14 amWhy are you writing about his cock, SRM?
I mean, I expect me to be interested in my junk. You? Get off it!
It seems to me that is you want your fill of Jeff’s junk, Sadly, No! is where you want to go. They’re running the museum. Or is it a shrine? And are you making deliveries for them now?
Pablo (efa871) — 8/1/2006 @ 8:33 am