Jeff Goldstein Responds to Article in “Inside Higher Ed” Portraying Deborah Frisch as a Victim
I was about done with this whole Deborah Frisch thing, but I can’t let this stand.
There is a sloppy article in “Inside Higher Ed” that — I swear I am not making this up — portrays Frisch as the victim of right-wing crazies, just for making an innocent joke or two. I have excerpts from the article, and Jeff’s response to that article, below.
Also, at least one lefty site is accepting her lie that she didn’t publish comments about French-kissing Goldstein’s boy. Jeff has confirmed that she posted those comments from the same IP address that she used to post other comments.
First, the Inside Higher Ed article:
“I enjoy writing things that inflame, mock and infuriate the right,” Deborah Frisch said in an e-mail interview Sunday in response to a question about her online activities. By any measure, she’s achieving her goals — and she’s also out of a job.
Frisch posted a comment last week on Protein Wisdom, a Web site known for its no holding back conservative commentary, frequently with considerable mocking of liberal academics and ideas. Frisch, an adjunct lecturer at the University of Arizona until this weekend, said in the posting that she would not be sad if the 2-year old child of the site’s founder, Jeff Goldstein, was “Jon Benet Ramseyed,” and she reportedly posted other questions of the sort a Ramsey-inspired attacker might ask. (Goldstein lives in Colorado, where Ramsey was killed.)
Although Frisch apologized for the remark, which she called “nasty,” numerous conservative Web sites over the weekend traded stories about Frisch, saying that she had physically threatened Goldstein and his child (she denies this and says that however inappropriate her comments were, they weren’t threatening); that Frisch is Churchillian, as in Ward, not Winston (she agrees on some counts and has defended the notorious “little Eichmanns” remark); and that Frisch organized an online attack on Protein Wisdom (she denies this). They called on Arizona administrators to fire her (e-mail addresses were provided).
Frisch portrays herself as the victim. She’s trying to make herself into the next Ward Churchill:
Frisch acknowledged that the tone of her comments — even if they had nothing to do with her teaching — make her a target. “I play a dangerous game by being a professor and also having a very rabid left-wing blog and also posting nasty inflammatory comments on other people’s blogs,” she said. “The issue is how these rabid, crazy, right-wing nutcases have stalked me, told on me, reacted totally out of proportion to a joke in bad taste I posted on a blog. They are treating me the way they treated Ward Churchill — a lunatic lefty in academia who deserves to be verbally attacked, abused and mocked.”
The mind reels.
To state the simple truth: the issue, Ms. Frisch, is that you posted numerous comments threatening violence on a two-year-old boy. If you had directed those comments at one of my children, I would have, at a minimum, called the police. In my view, you’re lucky you’re just out of a job, and not facing criminal charges.
I talked to Jeff Goldstein about this article. Jeff’s access to his site has been spotty due to the repeated DoS attacks he has suffered lately. Accordingly, he authorized me to publish his response to the article. He has posted that response at his own site, here, but I am reproducing it in its entirety so that it can still be read if his site goes down again:
I received no email or phone call from anyone at Inside Higher Ed.
A few corrections:
1) I don’t believe I engage in “considerable mocking of liberal academics and ideas.” I taught English for a number of years at a private university in Colorado, in fact, so I’m not unfamiliar with the academy.
True, I have addressed issues of identity politics within the academy, but I’ve done so seriously. And for the record, I consider myself a classical liberal (I am about as far from a social conservative as one can be, for instance). so while I’ve written extensively on questions of progressive philosophical assumptions and how they lead to things like, say, free speech zones, I don’t mock liberalism. Just the opposite in fact: I think progressivism is in opposition to classical liberalism — particularly insofar as it promotes group identity over individualism.
2) Frisch’s apology was immediately followed by a walking back of that apology, and has now culminated in a desire to see rightwingers heads cracked open with baseball bats, and suggestions that I doctored her comments.
But her comments were cut and pasted as she made them, and they are recorded in Google caches in pristine condition. The suggestion that I altered them, therefore, is potentially libelous.
3) No one on my site harrassed Frisch, as a perusal of the various threads she appeared on will attest. And in my post, her school email was not included.
4) Frisch is relying on sites like this one to suggest that she is a victim. Don’t let her get away with it. Frisch was looking, by her own admission, to be banned from my site.
Not only that, but she is trying to suggest she is guilty of nothing more than engaging in a “teachable moment” — the presumptuous and self-importance of which is staggering.
But it bears noting that, even in your article, Frisch, an adjunct instructor, refers to herself as a “professor” and compares herself to Ward Churchill. Her desire for academic and leftwing martyrdom drips from her every word and claim. But I won’t be used as her dupe.
I had been prepared to let this go (something I believe I made fairly clear after my site recovered from one of the 3 DoS attacks I was under this weekend), but now that Frisch has decided to try to parlay her infamy into victimized Truth Speaker status, I’m prepared to follow through and make it clear once and for all that Ms Frisch is a very sad case indeed. In fact, the only reason she’s a “target” at all is that she has worked hard at setting herself up as one.
That is to say, rather than blaming “rabid, crazy, right-wing nutcases” for her troubles (such as they are; I happen to thing she’s quite enjoying the attention), she should take ownership of her own behavior, which throughout has been vile and manipulative.
— Jeff Goldstein
proteinwisdom.com
As for me, I would like to take issue with the article’s claim that Frisch posted a single comment, and Frisch’s claim that her comments “weren’t threatening.” They have been excerpted on many sites. Let me just remind you of some of the things she said that “weren’t threatening”:
I’d like to hear more about your “tyke” by the way. Girl? Boy? Toddler? Teen? Are you still married to the woman you ephed to give birth to the tyke?
Tell all, bro!
…
[…] as I said elsewhere, if I woke up tomorrow and learned that someone else had shot you and your “tyke” it wouldn’t slow me down one iota. You aren’t “human” to me.
[…]
So if you could just tell me the AGE and SEX of your “tyke,” I’d be stoked!
Thanx!
…
Ooh. Two year old boy. Sounds hot. You live in Colorado, I see. Hope no one Jon-Benets your baby.
…
I reiterate: If some nutcase kidnapped your child tomorrow and did to her what was done to your fellow Coloradan, Jon-Benet Ramsey, I wouldn’t give a damn.
…
Give your pathetic progeny (I sure hope that mofo got good genes from his mama!) a big fat tongue-filled kiss from me! LOTS AND LOTS OF SALIVA from Auntie MOONBAT, if you don’t mind!
Somehow, Jeffy boy, I think you get off on the possibility of Frenching your pathetic progeny, even if it is a boy. You seem like a VERY, VERY sick mofo to me, bro.
Frisch has claimed that the last bit, about French-kissing Jeff’s two-year-old, was not hers:
People are posting snippets of what I posted that have been embellished with references to french kissing and other things I didn’t say.
The meme that she didn’t say these things is being accepted by some, including the serial Goldstein-hating obsessives at Sadly, No!
I asked Jeff to check his IP logs on this issue. He confirms that Frisch posted all of her comments from two IP addresses. The French-kissing comments came from one of them. He has posted a screenshot of his IP logs at his post responding to the article.
I agree with Jeff. We cannot let the truth be so twisted so that this woman becomes the victim.
UPDATE: The Sadly, No! guy said in his post:
(Some extremely vile quotes attributed to her [not reproduced above] seem to be made up. I know it’s shocking that wingnuts would simply make things up, but life is full of surprises.)
Yet in comments here, when I called on him to forthrightly make the accusation that Goldstein altered the comment, he said:
I’ll say honestly that I don’t know for sure. But there are people who say they do.
Another detail is that we often have commenters impersonating our trolls. If you check the IP on the most offensive comments from Frisch, they might not match up with the others.
Except that they do, as Goldstein has shown.
So why is Sadly, No! saying that some of Frisch’s comments “seem to be made up,” when they admit here that they don’t know? And, now that we have proof that the IP addresses match between Frisch’s admitted comments and the ones she denies, doesn’t it seem wrong to say that the comments “seem to be made up”? And shouldn’t Sadly, No! issue a retraction?
Yes, they should. But is it likely they will? Say it with me:
Sadly, No!
UPDATE x2: And despite this support they have given Frisch, by blindly accepting her side of the comment-altering story against Goldstein’s IP address proof, they pretend in this post that they haven’t supported her. Gotta love it.
Jeff’s latest comment strikes exactly the right tone. Jeff was more than generous in his response to her semi-apology and gracefully accepted her offer of “a drink,” but she has chosen to start up all over again.
Now what? Jeff is the one and only person who can decide whether he wants to pursue this personally (libel etc), but none of us has to sit idly by while “Deb” tries to parlay her repugnant, inexcusable behavior into Mother Sheehan status.
Jeff, one poster earlier on suggested that she is very possibly capable of extreme behavior. The ease with which she threw in the towel on her career and chose to up her stakes and move to Oregon is pretty frightening in itself. My two cents is to assume the worst and hope for the best as far as she is concerned. I am shocked she has not retained a lawyer (assuming she hasn’t) and just plain laid low. It doesn’t take a great legal mind to figure out she is walking the line, if not criminally then certainly civilly.
Let’s not give her the satisfaction of site hits, I’m sure that Jeff or his friends will keep us updated. Meanwhile, we have to make sure, as is being done already on an ongoing basis, that the full, accurate story is out there. Jeff, can you access and save the whole series from beginning to end?
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:41 amIt’s not ‘serial’ until Goldstein outs another anonymous blogger, leading to threats to his or her family, as happened to Thersites before.
And since we’re talking, Goldstein alters, edits, and selectively deletes comments. That’s a provable fact.
Sadly, No! Research Labs (25ca42) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:43 amSadly, No!
If it is provable, prove it.
Shaun (b49a47) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:45 amI want to see you make the accusation that he, and not Frisch, posted the following comment:
Go ahead. I dare you.
You’ll waffle and insinuate, but you don’t have the stones to actually make the accusation. I know your type.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:45 amYou know, since we’re talking.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:46 amSadly, no, right Sadly No?
Look at the text, the same strange use of the word “bro,” and the rest of the language would make this very hard to fake, and why in the world would Jeff need to do it? This comment is far from the worst of the lot.
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:49 amI also liked this quote from the Higher Ed article
Frisch is known for going on conservative sites she abhors and engaging in debate.
She proclaimed, repeatedly that she was trying to get banned, not “engage in debate”.
That is one beautiful whitewash they tried there.
Veeshir (5f9b87) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:57 amYou’ll waffle and insinuate, but you don’t have the stones to actually make the accusation. I know your type.
I wouldn’t make such an accusation in response to a dare, no.
You should also note that I didn’t defend Frisch. I said that her offense is trifling compared to what you guys do regularly. Mote –> beam, and all that.
Sadly, No! Research Labs (25ca42) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:58 amPlease send questions or comments about Inside Higher Ed to info@insidehighered.com
We prefer to receive correspondence by e-mail, but printed material may also be directed to:
Inside Higher Ed
2121 K Street NW
Suite 630
Washington, D.C. 20037
202-659-9208
Fax: 202-659-9381
Contacting reporters and editors
Ideas for articles, opinion pieces, columns, and other editorial features should be sent to Scott Jaschik (scott.jaschik@insidehighered.com), editor, or Doug Lederman (doug.lederman@insidehighered.com), editor.
Contacting specific reporters, columnists and opinion authors: Most authors’ e-mail addresses are linked from the bylines on their stories. For others, we’re happy to pass along your comments. Send them to editor@insidehighered.com
http://insidehighered.com/contact_us
Comment Here (022fa6) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:59 am[…] Patterico has JG’s response to the Inside High Education piece in case Protein Wisdom is down. Technorati Tags: DebbieFrisch, Frisch, ProteinWisdom Filed under: Blogosphere, Liberal Morons — Flap @ 9:29 am […]
FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Protein Wisdom Watch: DOS’d Again? (baa0b4) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:00 amSadly No you have it bass-ackwards, obviously. You’re the one that started with the comment that Jeff was altering comments, not Shaun and Patterico. They only dared you to prove your accusation, which you obviously can’t.
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:06 amPatterico, it’s your site but I hope you will not drop the subject. Jeff has chosen his own course for the protection of his family and the rest of us have no right to gainsay him. It need not stop us from being outraged about this lady’s behavior. It may be that the authorities will not be involved after all but propagating what a poisonous viper she is will still be a public service.
nk (2e1372) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:07 amSadly! No Research Labs! That’s what PETA and I have to say. Are you guys not getting the message? “Animals Are Not Ours To Experiment On!”
Labs are great dogs and you should leave them along.
Here’s a link to PETA’s response to Running of The Bulls. It’s called Running of the Nudes and as Jeff G might say, you might even to able to see some cooze…if you look closely.
http://www.runningofthenudes.com/
PC14 (98b75e) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:07 amI wouldn’t make such an accusation in response to a dare, no.
The predicted waffling.
Just so the world knows, the Sadly No! people insinuate that Goldstein altered the comment, but don’t have the balls to come out and say so.
This from their post:
Gee, what quotes, specifically, seem to have been made up, Mr. Smear Artist? And by whom? Which “wingnut” specifically made up what?
My firm prediction: You’ll never say. You’ll leave it at baseless insinuation, because that’s the kind of low-class cheap-shot artist you are.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:09 am“It’s not ’serial’ until Goldstein outs another anonymous blogger, leading to threats to his or her family, as happened to Thersites before.”
I really just can not fathom how you could have followed the Golstein/Thersites dispute and claim, with a straight face, that Jeff Goldstein outed Thersites.
thelinyguy (e32b76) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:09 amSadly, Cowards!
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:10 amWere I Sadly, No! (and Thankfully, Yes! I’m not!), I’d be very careful about promoting the story that I altered Frisch’s comment.
And of course, the poster above knows for a fact that I didn’t “out” Thersites and his wife. That info was on NTodd’s site as well as elsewhere on the web — and was subsequently posted in my comments over night, while I slept. Besides, it had already been publicized after Dr Haggerty went after Ann Althouse. And I removed geographical locale and any other info that didn’t seem pertinent to our “debate” over theory.
Of course, we could revisit the whole of that adventure in its proper context had not Thersites pulled his site before he started trying to rewrite the entire story.
Jeff G (881746) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:11 amI find it interesting that Inside Higher Ed quotes Frisch as saying that “these rabid, crazy, right-wing nutcases. . . told on me.” Using the phrase “told on me” is illuminating. It’s as if Frisch knows that what she is doing is wrong, and her real complaint is that us wingnuts are tattle-tales. How dare we expose her lunacy to her bosses and the world at large!
JVW (d667c9) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:19 amJeff, I know you altered at least one person’s comments, and you posted Thers’s information yourself.
There’s no reason to go back into all of that, but as much as we squabble, you and us, we’re not the types to make serious accusations (e.g. inauthentic Frisch comments) without good cause and sources. We’re cheap shot artists, to be sure, but only about trivial things.
I’ll say honestly that I don’t know for sure. But there are people who say they do.
Another detail is that we often have commenters impersonating our trolls. If you check the IP on the most offensive comments from Frisch, they might not match up with the others.
Sadly, No! Research Labs (25ca42) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:19 amBut her comments were cut and pasted as she made them, and they are recorded in Google caches in pristine condition. The suggestion that I altered them, therefore, is potentially libelous.
Um, No Jeff Goldstein, it would not be ‘libelous’ to suggest that you altered her comments.
You EDIT PEOPLE’S COMMENTS ALL THE TIME. Especially when you are unable to defend yourself, since you are an intellectual pussy.
Plus, being a T.A. in a class does not mean you ‘taught the class’. I love how you inflate your ‘experience teaching’ so that your sycophantic loser readership thinks you are a prof.
Hope you’re enjoying that DOS attack. I know I sure am.
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:20 amSadly, No!
If you don’t know for sure, then why did you claim it to be a “provable fact”? You keep talking about sources to prove it. Put your money where your mouth is. PROVE IT!!!!!
Shaun (b49a47) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:23 amJG does occasionally edit comments. When he does, he puts his addition, or substitution, in brackets to indicate that he did. It’s weird that anybody would take her word for anything. Even if you take the Sadly, No! theory that what she did doesn’t matter (because neo-cons are baby killers and, so, deserve it), it doesn’t stand to her credit, right? I still haven’t read anything from a, “Way to go Deb!” line of thought, anywhere. She said what everybody knows she said.
Nobody (fed4ec) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:23 amSo there you go, Shaun:
PROOF that Goldstein edits or deletes comments.
Is that enough for you? Probably not, troglodyte.
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:23 amIf you check the IP on the most offensive comments from Frisch, they might not match up with the others.
Sadly, Uninformed!
He already did check.
By the way, I don’t know if Sadly, No! is behind the DoS attack on Goldstein’s site. But there are people who do know. Meanwhile, it’s interesting that they are enjoying it. That’s the kind of comment someone might make if they were behind it.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:25 amJG does occasionally edit comments. When he does, he puts his addition, or substitution, in brackets to indicate that he did.
unfortunately, no!
He edited my comments with nary a bracket, intellectual lightweight that he is.
Online Integrity my ass.
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:25 amIt’s also interesting that the fringe left, as represented by the previous commenter here, is in favor of having political opponents’ speech squelched by DoS attacks.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:26 amI really just can not fathom how you could have followed the Golstein/Thersites dispute and claim, with a straight face, that Jeff Goldstein outed Thersites.
We followed it from the Thersites side, and it didn’t seem like much at first. The key event was Jeff reposting the information himself.
I realize you guys aren’t our readership, but we’re super-zealous about protecting our commenters and about never allowing other people’s personal information to appear in our comments. We wiped Malkin’s name, address, and two phone numbers out of comments during that whole contretemps — and they were the real ones, not the out-of-date ones that some other clown was posting. We banned that guy. We don’t ban people lightly.
Like us or not, we have a little ethical hillock to stand on in affairs like this. We take some things very seriously.
Sadly, No! Research Labs (25ca42) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:28 amSadly, No! guys: whether you are behind it or not, do you support/”enjoy” the DoS attack on Jeff’s site?
Just checkin’.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:28 amIf you don’t know for sure, then why did you claim it to be a “provable fact”?
Provable fact that Jeff has altered comments in the past.
You need to read more carefully.
Sadly, No! Research Labs (25ca42) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:29 amNow, let me state for the record:
Any DOS attack on some idiot Winger’s site is the direct fault of EVERY blogger on the internet to the left of Bill O’Reilly.
Much like Frisch’s comments, we obviously must all apologize for the actions of some random asshole, or else we implicitly support them.
Whatever.
I may not ‘support’ the DOS attack, but I sure do enjoy it!
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:30 amIf I were King of the Forest, Not queen, not duke, not prince!
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (fed4ec) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:32 amMy regal robes of the forest, would be satin, not cotton, not chintz!
When I went to the website linked and clicked on the link in it that goes to where the post in question was edited, it takes me to the PW front page. I don’t know where it is I’m supposed to see this quote.
I haven’t been a PW reader until the past few months, so I don’t know the history of many involved in this Sadly No fight. I was there on PW at the time Frisch was posting her stuff for those few days. It was a train wreck you couldn’t look away from. She was pretty proud of what she was saying at the time until she realized that she wasn’t getting the backing she expected from outsiders. Then she was silent for a while as she watched the fallout. And then she started posting that they weren’t her words. Those who saw her post it in real time know this is a lie. You have your vendetta against Jeff, so you will choose to believe her. No one can change this in you. However, you don’t look too good for those who saw it all go down. Who am I going to believe? You or my lying eyes?
Shaun (b49a47) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:34 amThere’s your difference. I enjoy debating the other side in the marketplace of ideas. Shorter Rightwing whatever enjoys seeing the other side squelched. Just like a good fascist.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:36 amwhether you are behind it or not, do you support/”enjoy” the DoS attack on Jeff’s site?
Patterico, we don’t even hear about a lot of this stuff until you guys go into one of your linking furies.
If someone in the left-blogowhatsis was hacking sites, we’d be one of the first to know who it was, and one of the first to put a smackdown on them.
What was it you said about making vain accusations? I mean seriously here.
Sadly, No! Research Labs (25ca42) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:36 amJeff does not hide it when he edits comments.
But go ahead, insinuate all day, Lefty children. Suggest that this is another one of those Rightie conspiracies you love dreaming up. Imagination is a good thing for kids to have.
OHNOES (3b3653) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:38 amWell, whoever is behind it is, I would guess, committing a federal crime. I don’t know this for sure, but it’s an educated guess.
Same goes for Frisch. Like I say, were I Jeff, I’d be calling the police or the FBI.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:39 amSomeone said he used to comment in his own blog pseudonomously. Which I think is a totally cool way to explore the medium of blogging.
actus (4f2df7) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:40 amSadly, No! won’t go on record as to their opinions on the DoS attacks. Scratching your head over that one, are you, guys?
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:42 amTo the guy posting the antiwisdom link, seek help. When you say asshole every three words it puts a dent in your credibility. That whole post sounded like an unhinged rant, short on the proof. I believe Goldstein edited your comment.
The point that seems to escape you is he did this after you called him a racist and asshole, etc. etc. as you even admit to. In that context the comment he inserted in your place is rather tongue-in-cheek, don’t you think? Perhaps you need to just take some deep breaths and relax a bit. Also, I’ve read many posts on his site and never once encountered racism unless it was a blatant attempt at irony. So unless you can’t detect irony, I don’t know where you’re coming from with all of that. Actus has been trolling Protein Wisdom for a long long time and has never been banned or had his comment edited (at least I’ve never seen him claim as much), why do you think this is? Because he has never resorted to outright name calling and his posts are generally thoughtful and occasionally have a point, as obscure as they may be.
thelinyguy (e32b76) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:44 amDont they usually come from hacked computers all over the world?
actus (4f2df7) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:44 amSomeone once said that actus was a baldfaced liar, which I think is a totally cool way to express oneself.
James (022fa6) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:45 amI didn’t ‘support’ Waco and Ruby Ridge either, but man I thought it was cool that there were less right wing fundies in the world!
Stop the Evil Right Wing (022fa6) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:47 amWell, sure, but you’re not saying that’s what he did here, right? I mean, there actually IS a Deb Frisch. She had a job, and an ugly haircut. . . Unless it’s all a greater conspiracy than even I could have imagined!
Nobody (fed4ec) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:47 amMore importantly:
Sadly, No! said this in their post:
Now they appear to admit that “seem to be made up” means “are made up according to Frisch, although we have no idea.”
So, to recap: some unhinged person claims something, and Sadly, No! doesn’t know whether the unhinged person’s claims are true — but they really want them to be. So they say that the claims “seem to be” true.
Now that’s good bloggin’!
It may be time to update the post.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:48 amWhy would I say that. That is not cool at all.
actus (4f2df7) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:48 amWouldn’t thinking something is cool still be a way of expressing your support for it? You can’t have it both ways.
Shaun (b49a47) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:48 amSadly, No! won’t go on record as to their opinions on the DoS attacks. Scratching your head over that one, are you, guys?
I love how these arguments go fractal. Let me quote what I just said:
“If someone in the left-blogowhatsis was hacking sites, we’d be one of the first to know who it was, and one of the first to put a smackdown on them.”
You keep trying to make me go on record denouncing or approving of things, which seems a strange, legalistic style of argument to me because I keep plainly saying exactly what I mean.
My opinion on the DOS attacks? Shitty thing to do, and I’m against it.
What’s your opinion of the Rumsfeld’s Driveway frenzy, in which Times reporters were threatened by right-bloggers for photographing Don Rumsfeld’s house with permission from Rumsfeld?
Sadly, No! Research Labs (25ca42) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:52 amThis is the best April Fool’s Day gag ever! You guys had me so snookered, but then actus spoke truth to power and I’m cured. Deb Frisch is just a figment of Jeff’s autistic imagination.
Nobody (fed4ec) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:53 amI was there for the incident involving the pathetic little child calling himself “Shorter” something-or-other. Jeff most certainly did discuss the fact that he had altered the quote in order to mess with the idiot. I’ll bet he wishes he hadn’t done that now, but he did not try to pretend that he didn’t do it.
CraigC (9cd021) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:53 amSadly, No! won’t go on record as to their opinions on the DoS attacks. Scratching your head over that one, are you, guys?
I love how these arguments go fractal. Let me quote what I just said:
“If someone in the left-blogowhatsis was hacking sites, we’d be one of the first to know who it was, and one of the first to put a smackdown on them.”
You keep trying to make me go on record denouncing or approving of things, which seems a strange, legalistic style of argument to me because I keep plainly saying exactly what I mean.
My opinion on the DOS attacks? Dirty, lowdown thing to do, and I’m against it.
What’s your opinion of the Rumsfeld’s Driveway frenzy, in which Times reporters were threatened by right-bloggers for photographing Don Rumsfeld’s house with permission from Rumsfeld?
Sadly, No! Research Labs (25ca42) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:54 amThe foul waves of black, unrelenting hatred curdling throughout your site are such a breathtaking refutation of any “point” you may ever have (or will have) attempted to make: it genuinely boggles the mind that you’d proffer it as “evidence” of much of anything, really, save your own gibbering dementia.
I especially enjoyed pointing and laughing at the part where you openly confess to being a drunk, and (therefore) incapable of reading for comprehension.
Not that that wasn’t screamingly self-evident right from Jump Street, mind.
Putz.
Kent (005e8f) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:55 amThe spam-eater ate my last comment, so I’m going to try it again….
Wouldn’t thinking something is cool still be a way of expressing your support for it? You can’t have it both ways.
Shaun (b49a47) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:55 amSomeone once said actus’ mom and dad were both first cousins.
Kent (005e8f) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:57 amFTR: post #38 is in response to the mouth-breather posting as “Shorter Rightwing Arseholes”: NOT Jeff G.
Kent (005e8f) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:59 amI haven’t seen all the various comments on Jeff’s site obviuosly, but have seen him alter comments a few times although never without making the fact plain.
Either he includes the original comment along with a translation into coherent rather than incoherent jackassery or he announces beforehand that a particularly irascible troll’s comments will be subsequently overwritten in order to tweak some moron’s nose. I’ve only seen the second format is used in response to extreme imbecility and it does provide for the humorous edification of the rest of his readers. The point is that neither format is a surreptitious act.
I suspect Short Rightwing Asswipe fell into the second category, but haven’t the time or inclination to look.
Just Passing Through (5fde41) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:00 amIs there any way to excuse this woman’s behavior?
Sadly, no.
Jim Treacher (c3be1b) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:02 amYeah, Kent, he’s a perfect example of what passes for the left these days. They’re such angry, unhappy little creatures, I don’t know how they make it through the day.
CraigC (9cd021) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:03 amOoh, deleted my messages and spam-filtered my IP to make a false case.
Now you have to delete all the messages that refer to mine, as well.
[screen capture]
Nice talking, as always.
Sadly, No! Research Labs (25ca42) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:04 amI’m confused.
How is the fact that Jeff has edited/removed comments in the past even remotely relevant to the question of whether he has done so in this particular case?
Patterico, Malkin, and Blackfive have contemporaneous quotes of the Frisch comments at issue. Unless Jeff’s some sort of Evil Mastermind™ — and I do realize that he’s one of them Jooooooos, so anything’s possible — it seems pretty far gone to suggest that he not only altered Frisch’s comments on his blog, but also arranged to have them altered on at least three other blogs as well.
Brett (6f05b6) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:05 amPatterico, the spam-eater has eaten up my posts! LOL It won’t let me post using my other email. What happened? I couldn’t find how to contact you outside of posting.
Shaun (b49a47) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:06 amKent,
Clicking your link, I see that Jeff would definitely have a potential libel action against the Shorter guy. But somehow I’m guessing he doesn’t have enough money to be worth going after.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:08 amDrudge has linked to this story…
“Psychologist, Professor in Hot Water Over ‘Threats’ to Blogger’s Two Year Old…”
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Dreport (022fa6) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:09 amSomeone once said actus’ mom and dad were both first cousins.
So what? Lots of people have first cousins. It isn’t unusual that two people would both happen to have first cousins. Your insults will make more sense if you use proper grammar.
Big Worm (d00104) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:11 amComment #44 looks bogus.
nk (54c569) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:18 amWell, Sadly Retarded seems to have the same sick sexual fascination for Jeff that Deb has. I thought the left was liberated about sex and sexual identity, but considering the amount of homophobic commentary from the left then I can guess that much of this hatred has deep seated psychological issues.
But thanks Anti-intellingence and Sadly Demented for acting as a zoo example of the case in point.
capt joe (3b8c83) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:19 amActually, it was Jeff Goldstein that said he used to comment on his own blog. Said he stopped, and said something about the blogosphere being younger then.
actus (4f2df7) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:21 amReally sad situation. Certainly someone is lying or cannot control themselves. Everyone involved, of any political stance, should ponder what lies lead to.
Consider that Gorby said that the USSR’s failure was partly because the Communists lied to themselves until they no longer had any facts to guide them.
And Speer, before Gorby, said the lies that Nazis told one another greatly hurt them. (not that anyone would have it otherwise.)
Let partisanship end at the lies edge!
K (f31147) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:22 amThis is very odd.
I did not delete any comments from “Sadly, No! Research Labs” from this thread or this site.
Yet, they appear to be gone.
I remember some on this thread. But now, they aren’t there.
There have been weird things going on with comments lately. I am going to see if I can recover them.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:22 amSame link to insidehighered. So the BS goes on.
nk (54c569) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:23 amI didn’t say I was A drunk – I said I was drunk.
But, I guess one could make the case that, while I was drunk, I was A drunk.
Anyways, the fact that I am angry and use dirty language on my blog doesn’t detract from the basis of my points. I am angry because you idiots are a huge group of torture-supporting, preemptive-war-based-on-lies-loving assholes.
And sheesh, being drunk on a Saturday night – what a lush! How could I possibly dare?
My durty mouth and my moonshine swillin completely ‘dents’ my credibility, eh? I’m sorry you are such a prissy little baby who drums up affronts wherever one may find them in an attempt to prove that you aren’t all evil-incarnate wingers. It’s not WHAT I say that you focus on, its HOW I say it.
Did you learn that in the Upstairs Debate School classes you took?
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:25 amSomeone once said actus’ mom and dad were both first cousins.
Watch out ‘Kent’! You might poke someone’s eye out with that wit!
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:28 amI have found them in the spam-filter and tried twice now to recover them, without success. Someone named Shaun can’t comment either. Jim Treacher hasn’t been able to comment for days, although I hand-recovered some of his comments yesterday. This is seriously screwed up.
I was updating the post to quote Sadly, No’s comment, which is inconsistent with what they said in their post, and it had disappeared.
I’m sending an e-mail to my tech guy but that’s all I can do.
Meanwhile, I can see that the guy is leaving further comments, also going into the spam-catcher, accusing me of doing this deliberately. Well, that’s just great.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:28 amThe numbers are all messed up too or it’s my eyesight. I swear that what is now comment # 49 was numbered #44 when I posted my #51. Sorry Jim.
nk (54c569) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:29 am> the pathetic little child calling himself “Shorter” something-or-other.
He does sound short, doesn’t he?
Jane (5a66ce) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:33 amIt does? Why?
Jim Treacher (c3be1b) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:33 amJust testing to see if I can get through. My posts from the beginning have also disappeared. There are posts commenting to me, but no “me”. 😀 Oh well. Hope you can get it fixed, Patterico.
Shaun (b49a47) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:33 amGreat, what was #44 and then #49 is now #59. Ok. It’s the Drudge link. It’s the sam insidehighered post.
nk (54c569) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:33 amI am having terrible problems with comments. I keep trying to recover them but there is a tech glitch. Sadly, No! and Shaun have both gotten comments caught in the spam filter, and I can’t seem to hand-recover them.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:35 amMm-hmm.
P.S. No prob, nk.
Jim Treacher (c3be1b) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:36 amwell, shorter doesn’t refer to his height if you know what I mean.
capt joe (3b8c83) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:37 amShaun’s comments have also been sent to the spamcatcher, even the ones that were already posted. It’s totally out of control. I have a desperate e-mail in to the tech guy.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:42 amI think Sadly No is PURPOSELY breaking his comments into the spam filter so that he can blame you and gin up OUTRAGE!
Because it makes as much sense as any other “explanation.”
OHNOES (3b3653) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:42 amSo that’s your point? Behind that crusty veil of dirty language lies a shred of truth so awful we don’t dare address it, lest it destroy our “evil-incarnate” souls? For the record, I don’t give a damn about your language, it’s the fact that what you seem to think are serious accusations sound like incoherent ravings.
Thanks for proving my point so eloquently. Everything you say is based on name-calling of some sort. Why would someone take what you say seriously when you sound like a 10 year old throwing a tantrum? The substance of what you’re saying seems so minor in comparison to how you’re expressing yourself.
No, it’s common sense. Grow up and then people will treat you like an adult. It’s obvious you’re not interested in honest debate. You are a shit slinger looking to score points, so why should anyone take what you say seriously?
thelinyguy (e32b76) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:43 am“Anyways, the fact that I am angry and use dirty language on my blog doesn’t detract from the basis of my points.”
Well, as my daddy used to say (the one who fought in 3 wars to protect your potty mouth), people who use foul language have limited vocabularies. And judging from the rest of your post, I’d say he was right.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:44 amOkay, they’re back, at least some of them, temporarily, after my third attempt to hand-recover. I’ll look for any others. Hopefully they don’t disappear again.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:46 amThere are still some missing.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:48 amDenial of Service attacks, and comments that disappear. How about that. Is there a common link? Sadly, no.
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:54 amI don’t these guys are behind it. I had a split-second where I wondered if I’d been hacked, but then sanity prevailed and I realized all the comment problems I have been having are probably connected with this.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:56 amAs far as I can tell, everything has been recovered. Until it disappears again.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:57 amI don’t recall them having denied the denial of service attack, do you agree Patterico?
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:58 amThe Insanity Of The Obsessed Part Three: Stop Digging!…
Are you freaking kidding me? How about doing a little research? “She reportedly posted other questions of the sort a Ramsey-inspired attacker might ask”?
Liberty and Justice (a5b264) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:58 amIf Scott Jaschik truly wanted to explain what happened, why didn’t he directly use the commen…
Also, I already addressed your point above, which you either didn’t catch or are ignoring. So I’ll say it again.
It looks like Goldstein edited your comment in addition to banning you as an obvious joke in response to you calling him a racist and asshole, perhaps more (which you openly admit to, and even seem proud of). Since you have already called me names and your post on your blog is littered with profanity and yet more name-calling, I’m inclined to call that “a dent to your credibility.”
I think everyone who was cognitively functional realized that you did not actually make that post. So if this was your big ‘aha!’ moment, you have already lost your argument.
Goldstein once edited a comment from a troll (in an obvious way) to make a joke at his expense! What a fascist!
Also, why hasn’t Actus been banned or had any of his comments edited over at Protein Wisdom? He’s been trolling there for a long time. Perhaps it’s because you provoked him and crossed a line he sets for his own blog?
thelinyguy (e32b76) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:00 pmFrisch has been pushing the altered comment meme since Friday when Proteinwisdom went down. It’s been picked up by the easily manipulated like SadlyNo and promoted. The record exists, but it’s only one more small step down the path of intellectual dishonesty to claim the record itself is also altered.
Things are actually going swimmingly for Frisch as far as her modified agenda is concerned. She hit the mainstream through Drudge. She’s posted another taunting parody of an apology on her site that vectors any readers to SadlyNo post on Jeff. The left is slowly coalescing behind her. Her 15 secs of fame on a slow weekend is staggering along towards 15 mins. If she can keep uping the ante, she’ll get there. I anticipatet much more from Dr Deb in the next few days.
She’s batshit crazy, but not, unfortunately, stupid.
Just Passing Through (5fde41) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:18 pmI updated the post with the Sadly, No! quote that I was trying to find when I discovered that all their comments had disappeared.
Here I wanted to *use* their comment against them, and at the same time they were accusing me of deliberately disappearing their comments.
Very frustrating. Probably just a taste of what Goldstein is feeling.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:21 pmB-b-b-b-b-but… I HATE HATE HATE HATE HAAAAAAAAAAATE that evil Reich-Winger Rethuglikkkan Goldstein! I hate him so much it hurts! Can you not see how he cruelly eviscerated my comment and clearly “sexed up” Frisch’s comments to gin up outrage? Is that not the most obvious, most logical explanation for what happened? How can you even trust that vicious, evil, bible-humping, torture-loving neokkkon war-humper!
Not Shorter Rightwing Arseholes, but I play him on TV (3b3653) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:22 pmI mean, my harsh language only shows how much I HAAAATE that evil, evil man!
The fact that you remark about that, well, that just proves that you are pretending not be an evil, hate-filled Rethuglikkkan, which you ARE, by definition, no matter how much you deny it!
Not Shorter Rightwing Arseholes, but I play him on TV (3b3653) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:25 pmThat was supposed to be “She’ll hit the mainstream through Drudge.”
Just Passing Through (5fde41) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:25 pmJust Passing Through,
I agree she is playing to her strengths and making lemonade from lemons but the comments that she admits to–threatening a two-year-old to name one–are damning beyond salvation.
She can cry victim but it’s hard to see who could believe it. I think we do need to be vigilant to abuse and lies though, and by “we” I mean sensible parties on both sides of the aisle. That woman should not be allowed to practice in learning institutions.
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:27 pmParents shouldn’t blog…
Why the hell are they blogging? They have young children. Shouldnt they be spending time with their kids instead of wasting all their time trying to dazzle strangers with their political insights?…
Don Surber (59ce3a) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:40 pmBoth comments are correct.
The fact that you are (patently) unhinged, however, does.
*Yawn*. Too easy. Next…?
Kent (005e8f) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:40 pmMan, I hate it when my ‘limited vocabulary’ gets in my way. That’s when I always resort to cussing!
You may not know this, but I have just as much English Learnin’ as your fancypants idol Mr. Goldstein. I got my BS in English, then went on to ‘teach some classes’ (be a TA, that is called) while I was working on my graduate work. Then I got a job running supercomputers, so getting a phd to teach about Beowulf didn’t seem to appeal to me anymore.
Cursing does not come from my limited vocabulary (and both my grandfathers fought in WWII, to protect our nation, just like your daddy, so don’t feel special or anything). Oh, then there’s the whole ‘satire’ thing – not sure if you are familiar with that. My wellspring of invectives is sourced purely in your asinine support of the Chimp In Chief who turns everything he touches to poop.
And, Patterico, your ‘basis for libel’ idiocy is quite laughable. Remember when Limbaugh sued Franken over ‘Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot’? Guess what – Limbaugh lost. Satire my friends.
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:42 pmNo argument there.
Kent (005e8f) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:48 pmI don’t know what satire means, but I sure like saying it.
See, it is your support for a man, excuse me, chimp I HATE HATE HATE HAAAAATE so much that drives me to cursing.
Not Shorter Rightwing Arseholes, but I play him on TV (3b3653) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:49 pmI’m beginning to think Surber shouldn’t blog.
Jim Treacher (c3be1b) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:51 pmExactly, Kent – that’s why I called it a BS, as in bullPOOP. I actually got what was called a B.A., aka Bachelor of the Arts, but I think BS is much more appropriate, since the only reason people get English degrees is because they want to speak pretentiously.
Or write, or whatever.
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:52 pmRick O’Shea,
I agree with everything you say. However, the points you made don’t enter into her calculations. She does not have to successfully don the mantle of victimhood. The attempt just serves keeps her current. Infamy will satisfy her agenda.
Also, in my comment I meant to say “She’ll hit the mainstream through Drudge.” and not “She hit the…”. It was also supposed to be at the end of the paragraph where it makes sense. I’d edited it before submitting it, but the edits didn’t take or something.
Just Passing Through (5fde41) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:52 pmSatire, as in “If some nutcase kidnapped your child tomorrow and did to her what was done to your fellow Coloradan, Jon-Benet Ramsey, I wouldn’t give a damn.” Boy that was some satire there.
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:55 pmHe’s a satirist now.
Dripping with satire.
Stop it, you’re killing me with your satire!
Care to tell me where I ever brought up Bush or any of his policies? I did not vote for Bush. Goldstein is not my idol.
You also compare your education to Goldstein’s. Bravo. Now I read his blog next to yours. What happened? Is it the drinking? Do you just not care? Is your hatred (sorry, your satire) such a blanket of protection that you don’t have to bother with cogent analysis or coherent arguments?
BTW, you have now twice ignored my criticism of your main argument. Should I expect a rebuttal in the near future?
thelinyguy (e32b76) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:55 pmAnd, Not Me, I don’t recall writing the word ‘hate’. Hate is a very strong term that I only apply once in a while. As far as I can tell, I don’t hate anyone. I may hate the killing of thousands of innocents as a direct result of a war you supported. I may hate the fact that Abu Ghraib occurred as a direct result of the war that you supported. I may hate the fact that we run an illegal gulag in Cuba that even our right-leaning scotus said was against the law, or the fact that George thinks he can ignore the ‘quaint’ Geneva Conventions.
I don’t hate George, you or anybody. I hate the terrible things your group has done. Sorry I have this thing called a ‘moral center’ (not the Bill Bennet kind – a real one). When my sense of decency has been violated so many times by the right, it makes me use invectives. When the American ideals (such as no torture, etc) my grandfathers fought to defend are constantly abrogated in gross violations of international law, I curse.
But whatever – keep it up, fellas. You’re all doing a heckuva job sitting in your basements with cheeto-stained hands, drawing up the plans for the next ‘war’, perhaps in Iran (or perhaps North Korea, which George is messing up just like everything else he’s done).
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/10/2006 @ 12:59 pmSatire, as in “If some nutcase kidnapped your child tomorrow and did to her what was done to your fellow Coloradan, Jon-Benet Ramsey, I wouldn’t give a damn.” Boy that was some satire there.
Go read my post – I wrote that I in no way support the actions and/or words of some random bit player on the left who I never heard of before.
Good argument there, pal.
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:02 pmZoomed over the Everest’s peak of your cranium so high and so fast, you couldn’t even see the contrail, huh?
Here, precious. Finish up your malt 40. Daddy gets cross when you neglect your breakfast.
Kent (005e8f) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:02 pmSo Shorter I suppose you prefer the code of the enemy, the code that includes hacking off civilians’ heads with bowie knives and distributing the act over the internet? Or maybe you like blending in your own children while attacking the enemy? Or blowing up civilians in trains or skyscrapers, or massacring two hundred children at Beslan? Or is it those sexy chador the women have to wear, as profiled in this week’s Time? Sorry we’re infringing on your rights there, but you know you can always move to Europe where the thinking is so much closer to your own.
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:05 pm“Cursing does not come from my limited vocabulary”
But, apparently, your limited vocabulary does include it.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:06 pmGee sorry I missed your post, Shorter, I’ll have to dig it up.
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:06 pmAh. Now it all (finally) becomes clear.
I hadn’t been made aware, until just now, of SRA’s creepy, self-documented history as Jeff Goldstein’s frothing and obsessed online stalker.
So: it’s all just some weird, fetishistic Fatal Attractions-type thing, then.
A weird, DRUNKEN and fetishistic Fatal Attractions-type thing, I mean.
Yikes.
Kent (005e8f) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:16 pmSRA…please try to keep your eye on the ball, son. We are not here to debate international politics on this thread, so quit changing the subject. You satire (hate) Jeff Goldstein so much that you went over to his blog and called him names. You then acted like “a prissy little baby who drums up affronts wherever one may find them in an attempt to prove that you aren’t” crippled with satire (hate) by waving out the instance where jeff deleted your comment and inserted a joke at your expense (again, because your only apparent purpose in being there was to call him names…for satire of course). You use this as evidence of him being an evil asshole or some such combination of satiric (hateful) words. Just admit that you don’t like Goldstein because of politics, not because he’s done something specific and undeserved to you. In fact, you really do seem to satire (hate) him.
The real point here is that this incident you cite is supposed to lend more weight to the claim that Jeff Goldstein edited Frisch’s comments. You failed as soon as you linked to your site and opened your mouth.
thelinyguy (e32b76) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:17 pmHow does Carl Rove do it?
Gbear (95d12a) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:20 pmI was just wondering that exact same thing Gbear. I think Goldstein is a Rovian plant and SRA is a Goldstein plant. F’ing brilliant. He actually had me going there for a minute. I always heard leftists were beyond parody, now I get it.
thelinyguy (e32b76) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:30 pmI do not like Goldstein’s politics – you are right. I don’t ‘hate’ him, as I don’t know him personally.
His support of torture and an illegal, immoral war makes me not like his ideas even more.
His racist statements, which were the subject of the post I was referencing, was the reason why I went over there and started leaving my comments. I called him a racist because he made racist ‘jokes’ and tried to call it ‘humor’ or ‘irony’. My sister is Mexican, and I don’t appreciate his racist bullpoop. My ‘only apparent purpose’ (not apparent to you, I guess) was to let him know I didn’t like what he said, and I used my limited Spanish to color what I had to say.
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:31 pmFor somebody with “Shorter” in his screen name, he sure does go on.
Jim Treacher (c3be1b) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:33 pmActually I know that Shorter is a racist.
He probably was one of those who saw the movie “King Kong” and thought “look at the negro causing all the mayham, more proof that Peter Jackson is racist!” while most people thought “hey look at that big monkey/ape i.e. non-human.”
SHORTER = RACIST
J (022fa6) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:34 pmI only got to the #2 comment from the obsessive-compulsives at S*dlyNo and had to immediately comment.
They are as contemptible as Frisch. I have many other things I could say, but this is Patterico’s site and I respect the tone he sets.
But let me say I wouldn’t be at all surprised if someone affiliated with S*dly was connected with the DDoS attacks on Jeff’s site. There’s no bottom to their pond o’scum.
Darleen (81f712) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:34 pmActually the war is neither immoral or illegal.
SHORTER LIED, IRAQIS DIED
Shorter is a fascist. Clear and simple.
J (022fa6) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:35 pmLook at Shorter trying to push his morals on everyone.
Typical…for a goosestepper.
J (022fa6) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:37 pmMan, J, I feel so….baited. Maybe I should bite?
Eh, no – not worth it…
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:38 pmI hope the Perfesser doesn’t end up boiling Goldstein’s rabbit.
Dave (5d3fab) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:41 pmSo you deny not being a racist and fascist and a liar?
Shorter = Racist
Shorter = Fascist
Shorter = Liar
End of story.
J (022fa6) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:44 pmShorter let me ask you a serious question, and I promise I won’t mock your answer (and hope the neighbors don’t as well): What do you think would happen if we pulled our troops home, let the NYT publish whatever it wants, and stop all of the programs that the left has been criticizing? I mean this in the context of the terrorists. Specifically, would you feel as safe?
Have at it. I PROMISE civility.
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:49 pmHis “racist” jokes are irony, because irony deficient (I’m using your sense of satire as a litmus here) people such as yourself take them seriously and call anyone to the right of howard dean racists, especially Jeff Goldstein. He’s in an interracial marriage, (I think) and yet he’s a racist. Just against Mexicans, then? Or is it more likely that he was making fun of such accusations through irony?
I was called a racist on wizbang by someone that sounds just like you for saying that Cynthia McKinney was at fault for striking that capital police officer. I hope that’s not your standard too, but from what I’ve heard it wouldn’t surprise me. You seem to enjoy making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. Apparently I’m a Bush-supporting, Goldstein-idolizing, torture-supporting, something-something, blah blah blah for some reason or other.
thelinyguy (e32b76) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:50 pmI honestly can’t decide which is the more suprising: that your sister is a man, or that he is (apparently) full of “racist bullpoop.” Will you tell me some more about your “B.A. in English,” if I manage to talk the bartender into allowing you to suck on his counter rag again…?
… and, of course: none of your self-righteous voguing and vamping does anything to explain away the creeped-out, obsessive-compulsive blog dedicated to ranting about Jeff Goldstein on a nearly daily basis, simply because the poor man kept refusing your incessant requests for the two of you to “rassle nekkid, like the gladiators, mmmmMMMMMM” while Elton John’s “Tiny Dancer” played on a continual tape loop in the background.
“Seek” and “therapy,” muffin. In that order.
Kent (005e8f) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:50 pmActus is Protein Wisdom’s special child. His messages are in special short packets, he wears a tinfoil hockey helmet, and special nanny software has been installed on his computer to protect him from cognition.
We tease because he annoys us.
Alan Kellogg (f97701) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:51 pmAnd, kent, do stalkers end up getting sick of what they are doing? I started the ‘Shorter Jeff Goldstein’ thing after he banned me and changed my comments. I got over 2000 hits on the first day.
After a couple of weeks I got burned out, because I can’t stand to read anything he writes – he’s predictable and not funny – so I broadened the scope of the blog to include the entire right wing. So now I stalk the entire right wing, if that’s ok with you…
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:52 pmShorter you obviously didn’t read his postmortem interview with Zarqawi. Now THAT was funny.
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:54 pmwhile Elton John’s “Tiny Dancer” played on a continual tape loop in the background
That, I must admit, was funny.
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/10/2006 @ 1:59 pmShorter why would you go through the trouble to attack Jeff, setting up that website and all? Karl Rove is out there man! Bush lied, people died! Go after the Big Fish! Your congressman! Your senator! Joe Lieberman! He’s out there out of control, the frigging guy SUPPORTS THE WAR!! He’s all into DEFENDING AMERICA!! C’mon, review a Michael Moore movie! I mean c’mon man, MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 2:01 pmCouldn’t say, as I’ve never seen the (putative) attraction of the thing, myself.
Judging from the rapid deterioration of your grammar and sentence structure, however: it’s doubtless safe to venture that they do grow a good deal more drunken, as the grueling, self-imposed regimen of the day’s trolling rolls right along. (… and, of course: the very fact that you actually established a blog solely to whinny and mewl at another blogger to begin with is more than simply “wrong” — it’s scary wrong. Nurse Ratchet wrong, even.)
Again: yikes.
Kent (005e8f) — 7/10/2006 @ 2:04 pmWell, I have a child to take care of (Jesus, should I be talking about that with all these Frisch supporters around?) and can’t spend all day monitoring the stupid spam filter, which appears to be catching way too many comments.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 2:07 pmPatterico it seems to hold the comments up and then spit them out, back to the time they were supposed to have been posted. Not the end of the world, apart from the fact that a lot of comments could go unnoticed.
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 2:09 pmI’m having to hand-approve virtually everything.
This damn thing is out of control. I hate it.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 2:24 pmYou’re doing it all for the hegemony and the oil, mannnnn! CONFESS, you freakin’ neocon bushitler warpig fascist! CONFESSSSSSSSSS — !!!
Kent (005e8f) — 7/10/2006 @ 2:28 pmIt’s Rove I tell you. He’s a frigging CyberRove.
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 2:31 pmKent it is becoming clear that you are a true fellow red RightWing ‘O Facist. May I be the first to say: You suck.
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 2:34 pmAll the folks here and elsewhere who take issue with Jeff, his blog, and his commenters, seem strangely unable to leave the guy alone. This is especially the case for Ms. Frisch, who is promising to drop the subject over on her blog. But I will bet she’ll be blogging about this into next month, as will the others, like Shorter Buffalowing Arseholes, who object to such a “racist supporter of an illegal, immoral war”.
Look at all the people still commenting about that stupid prick Thersites, and perpetuating the meme about Thers being outed and his kid being referenced in a vulgar manner. Never mind that it’s all bullshit. Proven bullshit.
Fast forward two months, when we’re verging on the election, and tempers heat up as Dem’s realize they’re gonna lose another one, then someone pulls the Frisch card to score some stupid points, portraying sympathy for the Devil and hatred for Goldstein (or any other similar blogger).
The left is that predictable.
Brian (b0d240) — 7/10/2006 @ 2:46 pmAnd it’s a hard thing to do. Get a Bachelor of Sciences degree in English.
Anyway, let’s bracket this thing. Why should that mendacious mental-patient-to-be be exemplary of anything. Because she lied about wanting a “ceasefire,” and instead (as compulsive liars will do) claimed that Jeff had altered her comments (perhaps she’ll be able to use the Patrick Kennedy defense), Jeff will now, I suppose, make this a legal matter, which he would have before were he the insane, hateful wingnut you make him out to be. So, let’s let it go for now. Certainly we all have more important things to do than to contemplate ad nauseum the psychosis of Dr. Deb Frisch. I do wish that Ace or Wuzzadem will do her imaginary advice call-in radio show on Air America, but that’s only because I love theater of the absurd.
Maybe something good will come of it, even for Deb Frisch. Maybe as a result of being prosecuted, she’ll end up getting the help that she so obviously needs. I honestly think that her behavior (given that she studies “Decision Making”) is a cry for help. Further, maybe institutions of higher education will be more careful to vet for online signs of instability.
Remember, Deb solicited Jeff to commit suicide. But he’s such a paste eater that she had so show him how.
Dan Collins (c568a0) — 7/10/2006 @ 2:46 pmNice dogs.
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/preps/11198.php
PC14 (98b75e) — 7/10/2006 @ 2:49 pmDo I? Or do I? My bum itches. Palestine. Ah, those accursed “lib’ruls.” I have a stuffed toy tiger, I do, I do. PEAK OIL, MISTER! Ham. HamhamhamhamhamhamHAM.
Sorry. Sorry. I was attempting to “channel” actus for a moment, there. Purely as a sort of thought experiment, you understand. You were saying, again…? 🙂
Kent (005e8f) — 7/10/2006 @ 2:55 pmShorter said:
All thoughtful and rational people hate the killing of innocents. It is, however, intellectually dishonest to not consider the context of why thousands of innocents have been killed. First, most of the innocents being killed are being killed by people other than Americans and allied soldiers. The insurgents, whether foreign or domestic, kill many innocents daily. A significant part of the domestic insurgents did not magically start killing innocents in 2003. Before the invasion they were doing the same thing at the direction of Saddam.
Those innocents who do die at the hands of coalition forces fit into two categories: those who are killed unintentionally and those killed against orders to the contrary. It behooves us to use any practical means at our disposal to prevent unbalanced people from joining the military, but the fact that we are imperfect at that task doesn’t, in my opinion, invalidate any use of military force. Likewise, the fact that innocents die in shooting wars isn’t a disqualifier. It is a factor that has to be considered in the calculation of whether war is the correct answer to the problem. The better the precision of the weapons used and the more accurate the tactical intelligence available, the less unintended civilian casualties and the less weight this factor carries. We seem to be making great and continuing improvements on the precision of our weapons, but tactical intelligence is more difficult to control and predict.
It is interesting that you describe Abu Ghraib as an event rather than specifying the abuses that occurred there. I condemn the illegal abuses that happened there and believe that they were handled correctly by prosecuting those involved. I don’t think those abuses can be used to support a conclusion that we should not detain captured enemies, or that, once detained, they should not be interrogated to determine what they know about enemy operations and infrastructure. The methods that are allowable are indeed worthy of debate.
SCOTUS did not say any such thing and I doubt seriously that you’re careless enough to not know better. SCOTUS may lean slightly more right with O’Conner’s replacement by Alito, but Roberts sat this one out, as you know, eliminating that factor. What SCOTUS did say was that the use of military tribunals at Gitmo was unconstitutional
without congressional approval, and contrary to the Geneva Convention. Stephens, in the majority opinion, went on to say that there was no particular problem with indefinite detention without trial as an alternative. I am no SCOTUS or constitutional scholar, or even a lawyer, but I can read as can you and the wording was unambiguous and relatively unencumbered by arcane legal terminology.
It would be helpful if you could explain what parts of the Geneva Conventions that George Bush is ignoring. It would also be helpful if you’d avoid using distractors like “quaint” where Gonzales referred to certain provisions of the GC as quaint, where they were obviously exactly that. “In my judgement, this new paradigm… renders quaint some of the provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privledges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments. http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/docs/gonzales_memo_quaint.pdf
Which group would that be? Humanity, the West, America, the Coalition, Conservatives, Bush supporters, white people, or atheists. I belong to all of those groups and yet still seem to be able to reach different conclusions than others in the same group. Therefore lumping me into these groups in order to insinuate that I share a common opinion with them is incorrect and objectionable.
We all have a moral center. That center is dynamic in some, and unrecognizable in others. For most it moves seldom, and then slowly, and falls within a range that most people can relate to.
Nothing makes you use invective. You chose to do so. When you do so, it detracts from your point unless the usage is clever or humerous. Regardless of your opinion, it is fact that anything that causes members of your audience to ignore or be distracted from your argument must therefore detract from it.
Unless you define torture down to harsh language, it’s difficult to argue convincingly that there are constant gross violations. That, as I’ve stated before, is arguable. I doubt your grandfathers really had torture high on their list of ideals they were fighting for, unless they were unusual, but its a handy assertion and sounds good if taken at face value.
Ouch, got me there. Other than the fact that I have no basement, avoid Cheetos and other carbohydrates like the plague, and haven’t been invited to any war planning sessions.
Immolate (37450a) — 7/10/2006 @ 2:56 pmBrian, can you summarize (with links) the Thersites story? Briefly? Because I see the left is all over the place today saying that Goldstein outed the guy. I have no idea what happened there. Can you fill me in?
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 2:57 pmSadly Still Consuming Oxygen!,
Great. So which of you little douchebags is it that likes to think they’ve googled me up as a married swinger in Maryland and drops cute little hints to the effect? You know, the Buffalo area nitwit. Which of you little bastards is it that is oh so interested in “outing” me, even though I’m not really “in”?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 7/10/2006 @ 3:00 pmNIce fisking, Immolate- slow, calm, methodical and oh, so effective.
Tom (904af1) — 7/10/2006 @ 3:00 pmI was wondering the same thing, what is this Thersite of which you speak?
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 3:08 pmEvery place I go for the Thersites story seems long on assertions and short on links.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 3:12 pmIt’ll take me awhile to gather the linkage re Thersites, but will try. Problem is, Thers closed the blog in question, Metacomments, so much of the evidence went with it, allowing the assertions to live on that much easier.
Basically, during the whole kerfuffle between the two bloggers, a commenter disclosed information about Thers’ identity, along with his wife (a.k.a. NY Mary) on Jeff’s blog. Several hours elapsed, during which Jeff was either asleep or out of the house while Thers was emailing him demanding the info be removed from the comments area, until Jeff finally did remove the offending information. In other words, he was as magnanimous to Thers as he has been today with Frisch by removing public newspaper articles about Frisch from his comments area, per Deb’s request.
After Jeff removed Thers’ info, a commenter (many think it was a chap who goes by the handle of NTodd, but who used a sock puppet identity, so it’s just conjecture on our part) placed an offnsive comment about Thers’ kid on Thers’ site, not Jeff’s. Thers went ballistic, along with his commentariat. Jeff volunteered to look into the matter if Thers would give Jeff the IP address from the comment so he could check and see if it was a PW commenter, which Thers was certain it was. To this day, that IP address has not been offered up, and never will.
Soon thereafter, Thers and his crew kept at Jeff. They wouldn’t let it go, wouldn’t accept the facts facing them. Jeff finally threw in the nice-guy towel a dn “outed” Thers and NYMary, but using information that was readily and publicly available, interestingly enough on NTodd’s blog. This is Thers’ new blog, and the comments there are monitored scrupulously by its owner. Wonder why.
Again, I’ll round up some links, but since Thers’ old blog is gone, so is the evidence.
Brian (b0d240) — 7/10/2006 @ 3:20 pmFrisch voluntarily resigned her job the moment those comments were made public. That’s proof enough to anybody but a demented Leftist that she made those comments.
Carlos (98df3a) — 7/10/2006 @ 3:29 pmRe: #131 Nice dogs.
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/preps/11198.php
What’s even more troubling is that if you click on the picture you’ll see a small child in the frame – probably not much older than J.G.’s.
Here we have a woman who has made sick and threatening sexual comments about a small child, yet possibly has one in her care?!? I think someone needs a visit from Protective Services.
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 7/10/2006 @ 3:29 pmThe Thersites thing started here.
And, it being PW, you should probably read everything for about 3 weeks forward from there.
As has been mentioned, the portions of the discussion that happened at Thersites’ place have been either unfortunately or conveniently deleted, depending on where you stand. You can draw from that, and from who did the deleting, what you will.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 7/10/2006 @ 3:33 pmTakeFive,
Beth from My Vast Rightwing Conspiracy has been all over that. I don’t care how the woman gets help, but it’s clear that she needs it. She is in a hell of her own making, and she’s high on the adrenaline rush of her newfound notoriety, but she is going to crater badly. Then we can revisit this issue with the nice folks from Sadly, No!
Dan Collins (c568a0) — 7/10/2006 @ 3:33 pmLike in the comment that he took down. It was all very onlineintegrity.org worthy.
actus (6234ee) — 7/10/2006 @ 3:39 pm“She is in a hell of her own making, and she’s high on the adrenaline rush of her newfound notoriety, but she is going to crater badly.”
Plus, she has to get those dogs to Oregon.
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 3:40 pmDr. Deb says that her latest apology is going to be her last post on the “Goldstein affair” for at least a month. Do we have a pool going? I get tomorrow.
http://debfrisch.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/502
Dan Collins (c568a0) — 7/10/2006 @ 3:40 pm>>>What’s even more troubling is that if you click on the picture you’ll see a small child in the frame – probably not much older than J.G.’s.
I would consider reporting this incident to Child Protective Services just to give them a heads up.
Carlos (98df3a) — 7/10/2006 @ 3:41 pmSounds like your argument might be with the mysterious NTodd, actus. Why don’t you research that?
Dan Collins (c568a0) — 7/10/2006 @ 3:41 pmI think we should probably just try to take personal repercussions out of it at this point.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 3:46 pmI agree.
Dan Collins (c568a0) — 7/10/2006 @ 3:48 pmWhat do you mean by “personal repercussions”? It’s mighty personal to that child if she’s in the care of a sociopath. Everything Frisch has done vis a vis her child molestation/death threat comments suggests borderline sociopathic. I’m not being hyperbolic. What it hurt just to forward someone at Child Protective Services the info and facts.
Carlos (98df3a) — 7/10/2006 @ 3:55 pmCarlos,
I’m not sure, because of the antecedent is vague, but I’m pretty sure he meant my suggestion that actus dig into NTodd.
But I am pretty sure that actus is too lazy to do that, so my suggestion wasn’t really serious.
Dan Collins (c568a0) — 7/10/2006 @ 4:00 pmResearch what?
actus (6234ee) — 7/10/2006 @ 4:02 pmWho really initially blew the whistle on Thersites and NYMary in comments. Why they didn’t forward Jeff the IP address. Why they nuked the site. Why they lied about Goldstein till he got pissed enough to re-post it. I don’t know.
Dan Collins (c568a0) — 7/10/2006 @ 4:05 pmHere’s some truthiness for you, actus. Pay attention to the misprision at the end of the piece, because it’s priceless:
http://independentsources.com/2006/07/08/deb-frisch/
Dan Collins (c568a0) — 7/10/2006 @ 4:10 pmI think we should probably just try to take personal repercussions out of it at this point.
I was just a little startled to read the things that woman had written and then see her in a home setting with a small child. The comment about a visit from CPS was not made to out of vengence, but rather concern.
While men have a virtual monopoly on sexual violence against children, this is a woman who has written of deeply troubling and explict acts with a child that is just a toddler, as well as other violent sexual imagery.
I’ve heard “they seemed so nice…” too many times after a tragedy. But it’s not my kid, right? So I’ll get back to working on my quaterly report now…
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 7/10/2006 @ 4:13 pmIt wouldn’t take much effort at all to forward some pertinent links the Child Protective Services about this. If it’s done in good faith and you submit only the facts, there should be no negative legal repercussions to the sender.
Carlos (98df3a) — 7/10/2006 @ 4:20 pmShorter is starting to make Deb Frisch look positively sane! And that takes real effort.
MikeD (195a1d) — 7/10/2006 @ 4:21 pmI don’t see why that matters. Not for the purposes of onlineintegrity.org. That standard isn’t publicly available information. Its about respecting the wishes of the subject of the information. Quite a big difference.
actus (6234ee) — 7/10/2006 @ 4:23 pmactus,
I see. So, then, it’s fine to lie about someone online, and when you do it, your anonymity ought to be protected. Because it’s about the integrity.
Dan Collins (c568a0) — 7/10/2006 @ 4:27 pmOh, dear lord… this is just too, too falling-down-funny NOT to share, really and truly: Psycho-Stalker Deb “French Kissin’ Kidz, Yo!” Frisch Botches Her Own (Planned) Interview!
*******************
A guy from Fox News named Richard Carbery emailed me on Saturday asking me if I’d be willing to be interviewed on Monday. I said yes, but then, I talked to people who actually watch Fox News and they strongly advised me against being interviewed on Fox, on account of they bully moonbat guests like me. Here’s the correspondence so far. Any advice on how to reply to Mr. Carbery would be appreciated.
Ms. Frisch,
Are you available for a phone interview on Monday. We will discuss what you’ve stipulated to have written, the blogosphere etc. I need a reply either way.
Regards,
REC
Dear Richard,
Of course. Any time Monday is fine with me. I was interviewed by Richard Harris on NPR when I worked for the National Science Foundation. I’ll try to find the interview and send it to you, because I know you are really into fair and balanced reporting and the more information the better!
Deborah Frisch, Ph.D.
Thanks. I’ll be in touch with you on Monday morning. Considering my request was for Monday, I wouldn’t have the time or need to entertain your NPR experience but I appreciate the offer. Let’s pencil in 710P EST via phone with John Gibson. Where can I reach you?
REC
I’m not sure where I’ll be. You can give me your phone number or else I can email you when I decide where I’ll be.
Could you tell me a little about the format of the show. I assume you’ll be interviewing Jeff also. Will he be interviewed by phone also? How do you plan to put it together for the show. I don’t watch Fox News so I don’t have an image of what the segment will look like, how long it will be, what will be the visual since all you’ll have is my audio, etc.
DF
This is for national radio. I didn’t plan to have Jeff on. Just you and the host. So, it can be done by phone. This all pending the host’s approval, he’s back in town tomorrow and I haven’t even run it by him.
REC
Richard,
I talked to a reporter from the Arizona Daily Star today and they are going to have a story tomorrow. Jeff and I have resolved our differences and both want to de-escalate the situation. So I am going to pass on the offer to be interviewed by Fox News.
Thanks,
Deborah
I’ll ask Jeff if he can verify your claim. Regardless, we will be discussing this story, not only in Arizona but nationally. Considering you agreed to come on, I would ask that you reconsider.
REC
Richard,
Why don’t you ask the host to email me with a rough idea of what he wants to talk about and I’ll think about it.
Thanks,
Deborah
We don’t do that. We want to discuss the story about your interactions with Jeff and the “tone” in the blogosphere. I emailed Jeff, with whom I’ve never corresponded to before and he claims that (your claim) that you’ve put this behind you, is false. I don’t know if this is a pattern with you but you agreed to come on, now you’re obfuscating coming on and perhaps misrepresenting the situation. If you want to “de-escalate” why not hop on the phone with the host for five minutes and participate.
REC
This guy sure knowz how to sweet talk a moonbat!
**********************
You could hold this sad, silly creature up to your ear and actually hear the ocean roar. Swear to God.
Kent (005e8f) — 7/10/2006 @ 4:27 pmI’m not the one that came up with those principles. And I do think that people get pissed and take revenge. But to me, thats the sort of retaliation that those principles claim to avoid. If someone is lying about you, you call them a liar. An anonymous liar. At least, thats what those principles seem to call for.
actus (6234ee) — 7/10/2006 @ 4:44 pmEvery time actus uses the word “principles”: a li’l baby kitten goes blind.
And then dies.
Kent (005e8f) — 7/10/2006 @ 4:51 pmJeff, end the attempt to flip the situation and put her in jail.
jpm100 (06f700) — 7/10/2006 @ 4:56 pmSorry, actus,
My response got flagged, so we’ll just have to wait to see whether the blog administrator lets it post.
The tension is palpable.
Dan Collins (c568a0) — 7/10/2006 @ 4:57 pmOh. To be clear. They aint my principles
actus (6234ee) — 7/10/2006 @ 4:58 pmThank you so much, immolate. I’m a lazy bastard, and I so didn’t feel like going to all that trouble. Nice job. And I notice he hasn’t been back.
CraigC (9cd021) — 7/10/2006 @ 5:08 pmThis stream just proves how public these comments are, and how you can’t post here (or anywhere) unless, to paraphrase the popular trusim, you don’t mind having it on the front page of the newspaper. It also underscores the responsibility Frisch has (had) as a professor, and the lumps she has to take now that her lack of sanity is out of the bag.
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/10/2006 @ 5:23 pmHere’s a story in The Arizona Star about this incident:
Cap'n Billy (ebcee3) — 7/10/2006 @ 5:43 pmhttp://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/137300.php
The most hilarious part is this excerpt:
//Now that she won’t be teaching, Frisch said she plans to finish writing a book on decision-making.//
As a great mind once said, “You can’t make this shit up!”
Immolate, good response. As CraigC said, I didn’t have the energy to go through all that for the 1000’th time and you did it better anyway. It’s not like it’ll do any good, though. You can’t actually debate with some people.
thelinyguy (e32b76) — 7/10/2006 @ 5:46 pmHow about a caption contest? (Or are we still de-escalating?)
Dave (5977b0) — 7/10/2006 @ 6:12 pmOkay, how long before we get the “okay, this is really the last time I’m posting” message?
This will be my last post on South(west)paw on the Goldstein affair for at least one month.
Wesson (c20d28) — 7/10/2006 @ 6:13 pm“and both my grandfathers fought in WWII”
Only one war? Tsk, tsk, tsk.
sharon (fecb65) — 7/10/2006 @ 6:25 pmAah! The goggles, they do nothing! You bastard!
[dies]
Li'l Baby Kitten (90abdc) — 7/10/2006 @ 6:51 pmSeriously, one wonders on which side. Given the dissolution of their gene pool, I suspect the Milice.
Cordially…
Rick (1536e4) — 7/10/2006 @ 7:14 pmThe Frisch attack on Goldstein – the latest news, along with other misc. blog notes…
Here’s a refresher on what happened last week when a University of Arizona professor viciously attacked blogger Jeff Goldstein and his two year old son. If his site isn’t down from another Denial of Service attack, you should be able to re…
Sister Toldjah (1466f5) — 7/10/2006 @ 7:44 pmThe Frisch attack on Goldstein – the latest news, along with other misc. blog notes…
Here’s a refresher on what happened last week when a University of Arizona professor viciously attacked blogger Jeff Goldstein and his two year old son. If his site isn’t down from another Denial of Service attack, you should be able to re…
Sister Toldjah (1466f5) — 7/10/2006 @ 7:44 pmThe Frisch attack on Goldstein – the latest news, along with other misc. blog notes…
Here’s a refresher on what happened last week when a University of Arizona professor viciously attacked blogger Jeff Goldstein and his two year old son. If his site isn’t down from another Denial of Service attack, you should be able to re…
Sister Toldjah (1466f5) — 7/10/2006 @ 7:44 pmThe Frisch attack on Goldstein – the latest news, along with other misc. blog notes…
Here’s a refresher on what happened last week when a University of Arizona professor viciously attacked blogger Jeff Goldstein and his two year old son. If his site isn’t down from another Denial of Service attack, you should be able to re…
Sister Toldjah (1466f5) — 7/10/2006 @ 7:44 pmThat is because a significant part of the story disappeared with Thersites old blog, Metacomments.
One very significant difference between the Frisch and thersites affairs is that Frisch pulled Jeff’s boy out of the clear blue as a bludgeon to hit Jeff with. Thersites used his own daughter as a foil in a comment meant to infuriate an already irate commenter by calling him stupid. The commenter response to this went way the hell over the line, but the commenter did not inject thersites’ daughter into the mix like Frisch did Jeff’s son. thersites did that. I suspect he regrets the tactic fulsomely.
There was never to my knowledge any mention of this by anyone from Jeff’s blog that did not unequivocably condemn the comment.
thersites professional personna was posted on Jeff’s site but also available in several other places online, including and significantly on the site of one of his more strident supporters.
You should also be careful attributing a fair and balanced tone to another of thersites’ supporters, geoduck2, who you engaged on SadlyNo concerning the thersites story. She was involved from the outset and has posted a lot of misinformation concerning the story here and there over the last month. She is a dedicated partisan of thersites, and while there is no shame in that, it does need to be factored into understanding her spin on things. She is if I recall correctly, the first and certainly most strident one of thersites’ adherents to characterize the comment made on thersites blog as a direct threat to rape a child – and however reprehensible the comment was, it was not that – and pushed the accusation that the comment came from Jeff or a regular on his blog without any evidentiary basis. She has also tried to characterize the second pertinent issue as Jeff seeking to out thersites in pique about losing an argument about literary theory. That twist in the narrative is nonsense. Not only did it not directly relate to the thersites information being collated, thersites was fighting outside his weight class on literary theory and got spanked. geoduck was politely but firmly disabused of this notion on the ‘The Valve’, a blog dedicated to literary theory, when she obliquely tried to argue it there. So she knows better and just won’t accept it.
The insinuations and outright accusations that Jeff or someone from his comment section made the comment on thersites blog continued being made by thersites partisans and thersites himself despite the calls from Jeff to put up or shut up. Jeff finally had enough. That part can be found on Jeff’s blog.
I suppose that my tale is also long on assertation and short on links (and I can live with that characterization), but links would be pointless anyway without the Metacomments side of the record.
Just Passing Through (5fde41) — 7/10/2006 @ 8:15 pmHi Just Passing Through,
I just posted a some history about the dust up on the above thread on this blog. Feel free to contradict me on any of the points.
It’s true that I got very angry when a comment was made about the two year old. I may forget something, but I do not ever lie intentionally.
If I knew then what I know now, I would have realized that someone was trying to “troll” us with that disgusting statement.
Instead I thought someone was really crazy & dangerous, and I was quite worried when the information about that family was publicized on the web. I was angry because I thought you all were taking it too lightly. (And prior to Memorial Day weekend, I personally had no idea what Thers’s real name was or where he worked or the town in which he lived.)
geoduck2 (098c5d) — 7/10/2006 @ 8:31 pmJust Passing Through wrote:
She is if I recall correctly, the first and certainly most strident one of thersites’ adherents to characterize the comment made on thersites blog as a direct threat to rape a child – and however reprehensible the comment was, it was not that – and pushed the accusation that the comment came from Jeff or a regular on his blog without any evidentiary basis.
I said that I didn’t think it was funny that somebody was threatening to rape a baby.
I meant oral sex as rape. I meant that a man had looked up a picture of a two year old and thought about having oral sex with her. The anonymous commenter said in his comment, that he had looked at the archives and found her picture. That creeped me out.
I agree I should not have said it, because it inflamed the situation and I didn’t know who made the comment.
I was surprised that people on PW didn’t also see it as a potential rape. I was surprised you all got mad at me — I thought you would agree with me and condemn the person who made the comment.
I was sickened and shocked by that comment, but I wasn’t referring to anybody else besides the anonymous person who made the comment. I apologized to Thers for making that comment on Protein Wisdom and I left that blog.
I did not talk about the situation (except on Metacomments) because I didn’t want to cause more trouble for that family.
Somebody claimed that I ran around the internet talking about it. I did not. Thers asked us to drop it. This was a week before Thers was “outed.”
After the “outing” I finally answered Pablo on Majikthise because he kept bringing it up when I’d appear on other blogs.
She has also tried to characterize the second pertinent issue as Jeff seeking to out thersites in pique about losing an argument about literary theory. That twist in the narrative is nonsense.
I don’t know what you’re talking about here. Please quote me if you have a specific example.
This is what happened on Protein Wisdom when Jeff decided to, himself, post the information. He was angry at NTodd and Tena – two posters from Eschaton. In response, he decided to out the information about Thers and NYMary:
Here’s what happened May 30th, 2006 in a post titled “Oh, MY!” on Protein Wisdom. There are 12 pages of comments. The night before a poster outed Thers and NYMary.
At first Jeff graciously erased the information. But then this happened on page 4 of the coments:
NTodd and this tena thing (who, despite numerous mentions of the fact still can’t seem to grasp that it was not me who posted Thersites’ info—and this despite her claims she holds a degree in law, which generally presumes on the part of the holder at least some ability to pay attention to important details before opening one’s stupid yap) are responding to my civility by keeping this drama ongoing.
It’s almost as if they are daring me to say fuck it, and just let the info fly!
Thersites should be alerted of this at once. Because his little attack dogs are starting to take up too much of my time. And I have better things to do, like, I dunno, teach a couple of ad hoc comp classes at Front Range Community College, if the mood strikes.
Posted by Jeff Goldstein | permalink
on 05/30 at 02:23 PM
Thers was not posting on PW at all at this point. He e-mailed Jeff asking him to remove the private information. NY Mary, to my knowledge, has never posted on PW.
Here’s Jeff in the same comment thread – He’s angry at Tena and NTodd and some other posters from Eschaton:
Okay, that’s it. I’ve had it.
Until [full name I’ve redacted ] and [wife’s name] of [place of employment] in [home town] prove that one of my commenters made this comment about their kid—or else explain to their own commenters that coming over here and trying to tar my site with this offense is very bad form and will no longer be tolerated— [name] and [name] of [employment place] in [home town] can kiss my ass. [redacted info]
Tena—you are, without doubt, one of the stupidest people I have ever encountered in any forum. And you shouldn’t take that lightly, because I’ve spent several weeks now having to do battle on the finer points of interpretive theory with a bunch of [redacted] posing as [redacted].
All of you who are visiting from [name]’s may now assert your outrage. Because at least NOW it will be partially justified.
But if I’m going to take shit for something that I had no part of, I may as well reinterpret “private” to bracket out things that are readily available on a simple Google search and that information which has been posted freely by those who are now claiming to have been wronged.
I am tired of the moronic answers from [redacted] and his insipid claque who should have just admitted long ago that they were out of their depth. [name & place of employment0 for instance, still can’t differentiate between the procedure for making meaning and the procedure for interpreting. And I weary of repeating myself for his “delectation.”
Instead, we get things like this, from one of his faux intellectual sycophants: “”I can’t follow one fucking thing the Paste Eater says in this damn debate. I’m going to assume that is because he is so damn stupid he is incomprehensible.”
Well, tena, others have followed along just fine, and I’m certain that my language has been clear and concise, and all of my words and perspectives clearly delineated. So if you’re not following it at this point, I’m fairly certain that the problem may be with you. Unlikely as that may seem to someone with your obviously over-inflated sense of self.
And yet, you claim to be able to follow the incoherent, inconsistent, dithering ramblings of [name &place of employment]?
Maybe I’ve been going at this all wrong. Maybe it should be me sucking down the daiquiries.
Now. Fuck off, the lot of you.
Posted by Jeff Goldstein | permalink
on [redacted]
The above is the situation as I understand it.
geoduck2 (098c5d) — 7/10/2006 @ 8:54 pmgeoduck, I don’t think you’re hearing me.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:00 pm188 Patterico,
No. geoduck2 doesn’t believe in the intentionalist approach to interpretation. Whatever you say, geoduck2 will hear what she(? — presumption from Maguire’s) has running around in her head, and respond to that. Rephrasing and repeating doesn’t help; in fact, it usually supplies more material.
Give up.
Regards,
Ric Locke (007f1c) — 7/10/2006 @ 9:47 pmRic
geoduck, I don’t think you’re hearing me.
Comment by Patterico — 7/10/2006 @ 9:00 pm
Patterico,
I posted the stuff on this thread before I read the other thread. I didn’t know you were mad at me and no longer interested. I wouldn’t have bothered posting this stuff. I didn’t come here to be a nuisance or to troll.
188 Patterico,
No. geoduck2 doesn’t believe in the intentionalist approach to interpretation. Whatever you say, geoduck2 will hear what she(? — presumption from Maguire’s) has running around in her head, and respond to that. Rephrasing and repeating doesn’t help; in fact, it usually supplies more material.
Give up.
Regards,
Ric
Ok Rick. You’re right about literary theory. I think that you are absolutely right and you win any past, present or future argument about lit crit with me.
If you want I will say that you also have superior opinions and knowledge of cultural anthropology and social theory.
Why? Because I don’t really care. It was fun before it got ugly.
And it got very ugly.
But you, for some obscure reason you care about winning a debate about lit crit. So enjoy this:
YOU WIN! YOU WIN! Yea! WHOOPEEE!
ok?
In the scope of what happened to Thers the state of literary theory and what other people thought about it on the web meant very little to me.
I suggest reading David Lodge’s Small World for a funny book about lit people.
ok- I don’t want to be a troll, so I’ll go away.
Good night everybody.
geoduck2 (098c5d) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:07 pmgeoduck,
I responded on the other thread. I will be interested some day, I promise. This is just been a very draining day. Having people lie about you and distort your comments all day long has that effect. I do appreciate the work and I will look at it. Just not now.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:10 pmOn SadlyNo. Interested parties are invited to search.
You take your supporting text out of context. I will say this one more time. Jeff reposted the information because he was gawd damned sick and tired of the continued assertions that he or someone from PW made the comment on thersites site. Those assertations were being made on Jeff’s site and on Metacomments. Those assertions continue to be made to this day by people who never read the original threads. dgbellak makes it in comment #55 in tonight’s SadlyNo thread on this site.
Now, THE COMMENT.
Thersites used his own daughter as a foil in a comment on his site meant to further infuriate an already irate commenter by calling him stupid. The commenter response to this went way the hell over the line, but that response did not inject thersites’ daughter into the mix. thersites did that. I suspect he regrets the tactic fulsomely. Nonetheless, it is critical in understanding the difference between the reprehensible comment made on thersites site and the series of comments made on PW by Frisch. Jeff Goldstein did not bring up his son. Frisch did that all by her lonesome.
Keep in mind that thersites and the cretinous commenter were exchanging barbs and the commenter’s evident state of mind was very angry by this point. thersites tone before this point on the other hand was pompously condescending.
Thersites’ comment
There were a couple of intervening comments concerning side issues being argued by other commenters in the thread and of no relevance to this. Then this (part of thersites comment was quoted as the leadin.) I am blocking out the worst part of the comment. Interested parties can find that elsewhere if so inclined.
There was never to my knowledge any mention of this by anyone from Jeff’s blog that did not unequivocably condemn the comment.
Be careful about the extent to which you take your inability to quite remember, just exactly, what you yourself just might have posted during that week. Did you, thersites, and the rest of the crew think that given the accusations being made that folks from PW would not store a record of the Metacomments end of things?
As Frisch will discover over and over again, the Internet resists revision.
I’m done with you.
Just Passing Through (5fde41) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:20 pmWant to bet Rather and Mapes wish they had thought of the Frisch defense….
Then they could have said, “We actually had documents that were produced by a 1970 IBM Selectric typewriter, but LGF, Powerline, and other right-wing blogs changed the typeface to look like MS Word.”
scott (345803) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:25 pmI am blocking out the worst part of the comment. Interested parties can find that elsewhere if so inclined.
Why, that would be the part that some guy called “Retardo” said I find “humorous.”
That prick.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:28 pmThe Arizona Daily Star has a story on this debacle. Here are my favorite excerpts:
Frisch, 44, said she quit her $32,861-a-year part time position not only because she fears for her safety, but because she regrets the UA ended up in the middle of what was intended to be a “sick joke.”
“I like to play with fire. I’m a left-wing Rush Limbaugh. I’m a writer and I like to fight with words. I’m a word warrior.”
Now that she won’t be teaching, Frisch said she plans to finish writing a book on decision-making.
DRJ (fc0576) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:34 pmGive geoduck this much credit, at barest minimum: she certainly does show more class than actus, in this one particular regard.
Kent (005e8f) — 7/10/2006 @ 10:36 pmThis is the sort of distortion that makes this woman a liar. No matter who many times it is pointed out to her and her fellow travellers that the people at PW immediately and vociferously condemned the comment, she’ll continue to claim otherwise. It dovetails nicely into the revised narrative.
Just Passing Through (5fde41) — 7/10/2006 @ 11:18 pmAh, I’m back for one last comment.
Sorry that I’m here – but I did do all this work in finding the original blog response.
You will find me freaking out. I’m not proud of that fact. I escalated the situation and I wish I had not.
For the record:
I think the commenters on Protein Wisdom were disgusted and sickened by those statements made by the anonymous person.
Other then that: I think the comment thread is rather self explanatory.
This is the sort of distortion that makes this woman a liar. No matter who many times it is pointed out to her and her fellow travellers that the people at PW immediately and vociferously condemned the comment, she’ll continue to claim otherwise. It dovetails nicely into the revised narrative.
But I am being quite honest. I wasn’t used to the type of rhetoric that’s at PW. I thought that you all would act more surprised or something.
I understand now that you did sincerely find it horrible. At the time, I did not understand it.
Anyway: Here it is – from PW on May 22, 2006 in the comments for the post
“I think SOMEBODY needs a little more frozen strawberry and a little less rum… (UPDATED BELOW THE FOLD)”
About mid-way through the comments, Thers posted this, and the following comments are all there. I didn’t delete anything because it sounded like people were interested in the context. I’m sorry it’s so long. Please check the archives of PW if you doubt my honesty.
Somebody left the following comment at my site:
I will say that looking back through your archives, your daughter has quit the set of dick-sucking lips on her. You must be so proud.
# posted by Anonymous : 7:49 PM
My daughter turns two in August.
I know that Jeff Goldstein will distance himself from this comment and commenter, even if it turns out to have been made by one of his regulars. Frankly, I believe this comment was left by a sociopathic troll of some sort, one driven by obscure but obscene motivations.
Posted by Thers | permalink
on 05/21 at 11:08 PM
Of course I distance myself from such a comment. It’s deplorable. I have a two-year-old son.
But why bring it up here? You don’t think I did it, do you?
Posted by Jeff Goldstein | permalink
on 05/21 at 11:15 PM
POOPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Jeff Goldstein | permalink
on 05/21 at 11:19 PM
I know that Jeff Goldstein will distance himself from this comment and commenter, even if it turns out to have been made by one of his regulars. Frankly, I believe this comment was left by a sociopathic troll of some sort, one driven by obscure but obscene motivations.
The way I read it, it seemed completely ironical. Since I have all the power (as the audience), I guess that’s that.
Posted by Vercingetorix | permalink
on 05/21 at 11:25 PM
I brought it up here specifically because (as I posted at my site) I do *not* think you said it and I do not want a blogfight to develop that involves my kids. So I am stating here and at my place that while my first response was to see red, I am going to interpret the comment as purely mischievous and insane and designed to create a weird sort of trouble. (I have already told several people on my “side” not to make a big deal of this, because I think I may have been trolled.)
It may be one of your commenters, it may not. Doesn’t matter, as long as the line is drawn, as far as I am concerned. Too far is too far.
Posted by Thers | permalink
on 05/21 at 11:34 PM
Since I have all the power (as the audience)
Grow up.
Posted by Thers | permalink
on 05/21 at 11:39 PM
Dude, that’s your point. That’s what you’ve been arguing.
Deal with it.
Posted by Vercingetorix | permalink
on 05/21 at 11:47 PM
I can’t believe some one thought it was funny to threaten to rape a baby.
You are despicable.
Posted by geoduck2 | permalink
on 05/22 at 12:08 AM
Who is the “you” to whom you refer, geoduck?
I think you should aim your ire at the commenter. Have you proof it came from here?
Thersites: send me the IP address of the commenter and I’ll see if it matches somebody who comments here regularly. If so, I’ll let you two hash it out.
Posted by Jeff Goldstein | permalink
on 05/22 at 12:19 AM
I wouldn’t be too surprised if it was one of YOUR regulars either, Thersites. And, despite the anemic traffic, it’s not as if you are posting behind a firewall. There is the whole internets thing with a billion people out there doing google searches for Iliad hunchback porn.
Posted by Vercingetorix | permalink
on 05/22 at 12:28 AM
– Theres a third possibility Thers. Back when my blog was active I had a few trolls that would do that. Just bomb throw and then run and hide. I stopped that by making sure all comments were monitored before posting, and I posted nothing unless I knew the user. After that a few tried posing but were easily exposed and banned. Why do they do it? Who knows. Serious personal issues that compeles them. Very well could be it has not a thing to do with the current academic debate. As I recall none of the trolls at my site talked to the topic. Just drop something vicious for what ever kicks they get. Sad.
Posted by Big Bang Hunter | permalink
on 05/22 at 12:41 AM
The way I read it, it seemed completely ironical. Since I have all the power (as the audience), I guess that’s that.
Verc, you’re my hero.
Thirsty, you’ve got a comment delete function on the control panel. I’d suggest you use it. Then go spend some time finding new ways to incorporate “paste” or a variant thereof in each and every sentence you write.
Verc, what does it mean when Thirsty says “paste”? I get the feeling it’s got something to do with that Jerry Fallwell/Larry Flynt dustup some years ago, with Thirsty in the ambulatory role. Of course, that’s just my read.
Posted by Pablo | permalink
on 05/22 at 04:10 AM
Frankly, I believe this comment was left by a sociopathic troll of some sort, one driven by obscure but obscene motivations.
Nooooo! Really?
How dare we paste-eaters continue to resist an interpretive paradigm of such staggering explanatory power?
Posted by Paul Zrimsek | permalink
on 05/22 at 07:34 AM
geoduck, the comment in question is despicable, but isn’t a threat to rape a child. There’s no reason to appear here claiming it did and casting out some general accusation.
Thersites himself recognizes that the comment could just as easily come from his side. I expect that the rationale is someone was trying to stir the coals etc, a rabble rouser. From nearly the very start of this contretemps over Jeff’s notes there have been a couple of people commenting reasonably on this site, then scurrying back to Thersites site and striking a very different note there. Rabble rousing. You are one of them. You might want to think about that impression of your style before charging in here to show the flag.
In no way, shape, or manner do I condone or dismiss the odious comment but I also took a few moments to read through the comments on Thersites site. A few things strike me as contradictory at the least.
In the latest post, he starts with saying that someone referenced his daughter, then pasted the odious thread comment on his front page. If it were me, I would have deleted the comment and banned the commenter in the original thread. Not left it there and going beyond that reposting it on the front page. His wife went over to Atrios’ site and drew everyone’s attention by posting the url to the comment on metacomments. I understand he is now saying that he does not want anyone making a big deal about it, but has left it on his front page where anyone going there will see it.
What’s wrong with that picture?
The second thing that struck me is Thersites’ presenting this as someone referencing his daughter on the front page. If you read the comments in the thread at issue, it was Thersites who first referenced his own daughter in an heated argument with a commenter. He used her as a comic prop in an imaginary converstion that ended with Thersites reassuring his two year old that she is indeed smarter than the person he was arguing with. That person then went way over the top in the next comment.
Basically, Thersites used his own daughter in a middle school level taunt aimed at an already irate opponent and is appalled at the response. The response went beyond the pale but what a jackass Thersites was to bring a two year old into a blog comment flame war.
Posted by Just Passing Through | permalink
on 05/22 at 08:29 AM
Thersites still has his post entitled “Protein Wisdom and Civility”, despite having presented no evidence whatever that the comment in question had anything at all to do with Jeff, or even any of his frequent commentors.
Posted by Slartibartfast | permalink
on 05/22 at 08:52 AM
– Then again it would be a nice diverting stratedgy, were you too be getting your ass thouroughly freudenstueka in a debate. Who knows. Whatever the source, its part of blogging unfortunately.
Posted by Big Bang Hunter | permalink
on 05/22 at 09:37 AM
It’s not worth leaving a comment over at the hunch-backed hemisphere’s website, but let the flame wars go on.
Posted by Vercingetorix | permalink
on 05/22 at 11:12 AM
I brought it up here specifically because (as I posted at my site) I do *not* think you said it and I do not want a blogfight to develop that involves my kids. So I am stating here and at my place that while my first response was to see red, I am going to interpret the comment as purely mischievous and insane and designed to create a weird sort of trouble. (I have already told several people on my “side” not to make a big deal of this, because I think I may have been trolled.)
1) Thers—I’m sorry I escalated this.
2) My comment was directed to the person who wrote it.
Posted by geoduck2 | permalink
on 05/22 at 11:14 AM
Thanks for the heads up, Slart. I try to avoid his site, so I hadn’t known he’d included me in his post about this.
I left the following comment on his site. For the sake of completeness, I’ll leave it here, too:
I asked Thersites in my comments to provide me with the IP address of the commenter so I can see if it is somebody who posts regularly at my site.
That offer still stands. If it is, you two can hash it out.
Having said that, I find it very troublesome that you have this post titled “Protein Wisdom and Civility.” If it’s the fart comment you are outraged about—and which I take credit for—than relegate the post to that.
But you shouldn’t be juxtaposing my comment, to which I appended my name, with some ugly comment made by someone who could have come from anywhere.
Finally, I think if you want to talk about civility, you might wish to look at some of the things said about me—including by you—in your own comments threads.
Consider changing the title of this post, or separating the post out so that I am not in any way associated with that comment about your daughter.
And if you wish to blame it on my readers, provide an IP address. You can email it to me or leave it in the comments at my site.
Posted by Jeff Goldstein | permalink
on 05/22 at 12:04 PM
I can’t believe some one thought it was funny to threaten to rape a baby.
You are despicable.
My comment was directed to the person who wrote it.
Which comment you saw fit to make here including an incendiary morphing of the original comment on Thersites site into a threat to rape a baby. What a piece of work you are, lady.
Posted by Just Passing Through | permalink
on 05/22 at 01:21 PM
I forget, how civil is the paste-eater and moron epithets? Hmmm, seems someone needs to pull their lacy panties out of their cracks.
*Cough* Thersites *Cough* Geoduck *Cough, Cough…
Posted by Vercingetorix | permalink
on 05/22 at 01:28 PM
It’s striking how similar the course of this ‘debate’ has been to that surrounding the Sokal episode (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/).
Does any of this sound familiar?
(S.Fish) Professor Sokal’s question should alert us to the improbability of the scenario he conjures up: Scholars with impeccable credentials making statements no sane person could credit. The truth is that none of his targets would ever make such statements.
But of course they did.
(Andrew Ross) “I won’t deny that there is a law of gravity. I would nevertheless argue that there are no laws in nature, there are only laws in society. Laws are things that men and women make, and that they can change.”
And the evasions.
(Fish) Sociologists of science aren’t trying to do science; they are trying to come up with a rich and powerful explanation of what it means to do it. [ed: ..and then denouncing the scientific community for not employing such critiques in their own work. That’s ‘doing science’].
such as (B.Robbins, A.Ross)But your readers should not be left with the impression that Sokal has caught the editors of Social Text championing a disbelief in the existence of the physical universe [ed: the attack was on their scholarship. Sokal never creditted them with a sincerity of belief]. There is every difference in the world between such nonsense and questioning, as we do, the scientific community’s abuses of authority, its priestly organization and lack of accountability to the public, how it sets its agendas and allocates its resources. [ed: no agenda there!]
and the insinuations..
(Fish) The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, fraud is said to go “beyond error to erode the foundation of trust on which science is built.” .
The scientific community didn’t agree and Sokal hasn’t had to pay for a drink since.
Sokals basic point:(Sokal) The laws of nature are not social constructions; the universe existed long before we did. Our theories about the laws of nature are social constructions. The goal of science is for the latter to approximate as closely as possible the former.
You’re in good company JG.
just for fun (refresh ‘til tenure).
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo
Posted by Casimer | permalink
on 05/22 at 03:24 PM
Odd, Casimer. I think there’s room for both interpretations: that there are immutable laws of Nature, but those laws of Nature ain’t how we have portrayed them, exactly. So, there’s this schism between how Nature behaves, precisely, and the set of paradigms through which we view Nature’s behavior.
Which is not to say that the actual laws of Nature are subject to change by men, but rather that our paradigms are.
Posted by Slartibartfast | permalink
on 05/22 at 03:39 PM
Ah, but as Thersties has been wounded far more severely than Jeff has, Jeff cannot complain.
Apparently, by what passes for logic in comments over there.
Posted by Slartibartfast | permalink
on 05/22 at 04:17 PM
I wonder if a basic difficulty in “getting” math might explain a lot of the soft “sciences” inability to deal with some of this stuff. Concepts like asymptotes and max-min problems might be good analogies that let people with stronger math skills follow some arguments better.
Posted by Phone Technician in a Time of Roaming | permalink
on 05/22 at 05:21 PM
S: change ‘paradigms’ to ‘theories’ and I’ll likely agree with you.
A ‘paradigm’ is a social-historical model of a scientific ‘worldview’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm
Posted by Casimer | permalink
on 05/22 at 09:15 PM
OK, but how does any of this help me fix that damn hole in Chapter Six?
Posted by Great Mencken’s Ghost | permalink
on 05/22 at 10:07 PM
I must confess that this has been fascinating to read. I have learned rather alot from Jeff about his field of study (I was but a poor History BA and MA, before turning to the Dark Side – a J.D.). Should I ever hit the lottery (rather difficult if you don’t play, but you get my drift, yes?) I could almost go back to school and drink gin and argue deep into the night about weighty intellectual topics….sigh.
Or maybe I’ll go back to Afghanistan and hunt for the remnants of the HIG and Talib. Whichever.
Posted by Major John | permalink
on 05/22 at 10:36 PM
Oh, and were I Despot of the Universe, I’d probably get an autographed copy of Umberto Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum and beat Mr. Eco about the head and shoulders with it. And then I would have Stanley Fish made to serve as the victim in a $5 for 3 tries dunk tank at a University of Illinois – Chicago fundraiser (mind you the dunk tank would be filed with urine, not water). Bastid.
Posted by Major John | permalink
on 05/22 at 10:44 PM
As this entire discussion is over my head, I’ll just say this about Mr. Fish, and I hope he’ll take it in the proper spirit from a Wake Forest fan: Duke Sucks.
Posted by KM | permalink
on 05/22 at 11:07 PM
Hope I didn’t dumb down the conversation too much.
Posted by KM | permalink
on 05/22 at 11:10 PM
– Slart – the argument is a great deal simpler than all that. We know nothing in reality. Its all models. Not a single physical quality of anything in nature can be described exactly. Interactions and quantities we can describe. Actions/interactions/quantities, but not true material makeup, and only a very finite number of those, and only too a high degree of accuracy, not to exactitude. You don’t need to resort to anything more complicated than that.
– I went over this at length during the “Evolution versus Intelligent design” debates. You have one side arguing they know something they don’t, and the other side arguing to try to make it conform to preconcieved notions, which is wrong on both counts.
A ship of fools, sinking slowly, while those that “believe” are frozen with fear and won’t budge, and those that do not believe, jump happily overboard since the ocean is just a fantasy. Everyone parishes for their own reasons.
– The “truth” ,for all we can sense “it”, exists. We just havn’t figured any of it out yet. But that doesn’t stop us from “playing” with it, even predicting behavior of all the bits of “it”.
– Fortunately Fermi knew what he was doing as far as “action/quantity” was concerned, or none of us would be sitting here at this moment blogging.
Posted by Big Bang Hunter | permalink
on 05/22 at 11:15 PM
Whoa, Tiger, I am a History BA…the greatest art of the humanities if you ask me, and since you didn’t, even if you do not.
Posted by Vercingetorix | permalink
on 05/23 at 12:31 AM
This one time, I was watching Point Break, but really I wasn’t, I was reading the original version of this post and Point Break was on a TV across the room, and I thought I heard Patrick Swayze behind me shout at Keanu, YOU WANT ME SO BAD IT’S LIKE ASS IN YOUR MOUTH, and I laughed, oh how I laughed, with a joy and relish seldom felt, because, of course, Patrick Swayze never really said YOU WANT ME SO BAD IT’S LIKE ASS IN YOUR MOUTH, so that meant that the laugh was mine—all and only mine.
Posted by BoZ is an F! B! I! AGENT! | permalink
on 05/23 at 12:34 AM
I value a society in which dumbass arguments like
these take place.
Posted by BumperStickerist | permalink
on 05/23 at 06:30 AM
I see the large clam is squeaking out of both sides of its siphon, again.
And Thersties still has you in his headlines. I guess he’s all about inaccuracy. Plus, he doesn’t seem to get this whole thing about IP addresses.
Posted by Slartibartfast | permalink
on 05/23 at 06:36 AM
I see the large clam is squeaking out of both sides of its siphon, again.
Ayah; funny how the perpetrator manages to be “the person who wrote it” here and “those sick fucks” there. Does suggest a possible motivation behind all that anti-intentionalist gobbledegook, though: some speakers need more help from the audience than Tony Snow does.
Posted by Paul Zrimsek | permalink
on 05/23 at 08:09 AM
From Theristes – noted logimagician:
To use mathematical notation, here is a (much simplified for purposes of illustration) version of a “formula” for how we practically determine what something means:
convention + intention = meaning
Let’s change the variables:
c + i = m; or, in numbers, 2 + 2 = 4
Well, leaving aside the fact that mathematicians can’t prove that ‘2=2’ … wait, no … let’s not leave that aside. That’s, in fact, true. There is no mathematical proof for ‘1=1’, ‘2=2’ and so forth.
Also, how could Theristes not notice that he has both ‘c’ and ‘i’ equal to ‘2’ in his example? Because noted scholars releasing books about Jane Austen don’t do math so good?
I don’t know.
More importantly, Theristes doesn’t either.
.
Posted by BumperStickerist | permalink
on 05/23 at 08:21 AM
Ayah; funny how the perpetrator manages to be “the person who wrote it” here and “those sick fucks” there.
I’m sure it didn’t intend to do that.
Posted by Slartibartfast | permalink
on 05/23 at 08:27 AM
Thersites has profited from his reading of Lacan.
Bullshit philosophical argument + Bullshit mathematical analogy = Tenure.
Posted by Paul Zrimsek | permalink
on 05/23 at 08:35 AM
BTW, I haven’t chimed in on either side of this argument because I basically don’t know what I’m talking about. Meaning in literature is, I think, a slightly different proposition than meaning in works of nonfiction, so my mad symbolic logic skilz (joking, a bit) avail me not here.
That out of the way, I think Jeff is being rather more professorial (professional, even) than our friend Theristes. Off-putting, sometimes, how many possessors of the Piled higher.Deeper (Duncan Black, Juan Cole, Theristes (giving him the benefit of a doubt, here)) are prone to hysterics.
Posted by Slartibartfast | permalink
on 05/23 at 08:48 AM
When I was a wee laddy, I got into an argument with my mean older brother about the color of a toy he had. Just to annoy me, he insisted that the toy was red. I insisted back, quite correctly, that it was blue. He just wanted to jerk my chain with his obstinate idiocy, so the argument did not last long and went nowhere, but I got to thinking about his mis-naming the color later.
How could I demonstrate conclusively to a third party that what he and I were seeing was the same? More importantly, how could I tell that what we saw was the same?
This question led to an interest in Chemistry that has me now working in semiconductor manufacturing process control, with lucrative pay, a nice home, hot wife, kids, nice pickup, vacations in Winter Park to ski, etc… My mean older brother paints houses and lives at home with my aged mother. In another state. Hah.
But I also recall sitting in my dentist’s office as a teen, watching news while awaiting a teeth cleaning. The Nobel Prizes were being announced. Chemistry award was for the elucidation of the operation of the visual process. My question was answered only a few years after I posed it to myself. How cool is that?
Posted by Austin Mike | permalink
on 05/23 at 09:52 AM
And Major John, I will hold Umberto Eco whilst you thrash him with Foucalt’s Pendulum if you will help me force-feed a hardback edition of the The Gormenghast Trilogy to Mervyn Peake.
Posted by Austin Mike | permalink
on 05/23 at 10:20 AM
Again, Thersites is here interested in literary convention, which he believes is necessary for the production of a literary text. Which would mean that the very first literary text is not really a literary text, because the grounds for convention had yet to be established.
Heck, it’s possible to communicate simple noun/verb sentences to dogs using the animal’s position and whistles.
Posted by Phone Technician in a Time of Roaming | permalink
on 05/23 at 10:41 AM
I loved Foucault’s Pendulum. Classic, wackily-intricate conspiracy-theorist stuff.
Not sure if I could read it again, though. I think I scratched myself almost bald-headed the first time through.
Posted by Slartibartfast | permalink
on 05/23 at 10:50 AM
As the saying goes, academic disputes are so bitter because so little is at stake. Even the most clever of academic arguements can be utterly demolished with a shrug.
Posted by Chairman Me | permalink
on 05/23 at 11:08 AM
I’d probably hate Foucault’s Pendulum. But the first two Gormenghast books kicked ass.
Posted by Paul Zrimsek | permalink
on 05/23 at 11:09 AM
Jeff, whatever you do, please don’t let then deconstruct my tar baby!
Posted by Eric Scheie | permalink
on 05/23 at 11:11 AM
Someone’s probably already made a similar point but I didn’t care to find what they intended to communicate amidst the more than 120 comments. Besides, my intent is paramount.
In any case, Jeff, you should interpret Thersites’ arguments without regard to his intent, and rebut on that basis, therefore using his own theories against him. Your next rejoinder to his rebuttal (or whatever) should be an impassioned disseration on the lack of utility of flying squirrels as close air support in a middle eastern theater of operations, circa 1996, for certainly an unending interpretation of signs upon signs (without regard to the author’s itnent) says that Thersite’s argument is indeed a call to use flying squirrels in such a fashion.
And that’s just nutty.
Posted by winston | permalink
on 05/23 at 11:43 AM
“You’re driving me INSANE!”
— James Dean
SB: market
no, I won’t pick up “a few little things” for you.
Posted by mojo | permalink
on 05/23 at 11:58 AM
hey Jeff – just a quick question. have you read Intention by GEM Anscombe? I’m sure you have. I was wondering your thoughts on it. I am muddling my way through it, what with this engineer’s brain, and find bits of it provcative, and other times I just get lost in the words. any thoughts or places for someone with my background to start learning more? thanks in advance!
Posted by mr. s | permalink
on 05/23 at 11:59 AM
Here’s an interesting example of how heavily the author’s intent weighs relative to the reader’s:
In the first chapter of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Harry notes that a ten-year-old kid named Mark Evans was beat up by his gruesome cousin, Dudley. Readers seized on the name: Evans is Harry’s mother’s maiden name. Could Mark Evans be Harry’s long-lost cousin? And if he’s ten years old, doesn’t that mean he’s eligible to attend Hogwarts the next year (in other words, in Book 6)?
The internet fandom lit up with all kinds of theories and predictions about the mysterious Mark Evans. Given J.K. Rowling’s predliction for hiding clues in throwaway phrases, there was no way that the name Evans was a coincidence. Rowling’s too clever for that.
And yet.
On her own web site, Rowling answered the pressing question about Mark Evans: he’s nobody. The surname was just a coincidence.
Despite all of the readers’ entirely plausible theories, despite their knowledge of the conventions of Rowling’s fiction, they were all wrong. And they were wrong because She Said So. The author. Who, in an incomplete text as is the Potter series, is very much alive.
Oh, there are so many more examples of how the readers of the Potter series misinterpret intention. Part of it isn’t their fault, the final chapter not having been published and all.
And yet there is no doubt that what Rowling means with her clues is what the text means. What the reader thinks they mean might make an interesting study in how readers respond to literature, but it doesn’t elucidate the text. It shows how the text affects people, but is that the same as saying what the text means?
Read The Name of the Rose for a good study in the misreading of a “text” and where it gets you.
Posted by dicentra | permalink
on 05/23 at 12:27 PM
Oh, I see that geoduck2 has removed its comment that I pointed to earlier. Wish I’d pasted it, instead of just a link to it, but (come to think of it) it’s just as salient now.
Posted by Slartibartfast | permalink
on 05/23 at 12:47 PM
fwiw, and it’s not worth much, Thersites has responded to my observation that he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about by continuing to demonstrate that he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about.
But at least he feels like he’s teh smart.
Dear T –
In your ‘math’ example, ‘c’ and ‘i’ are not variables if you say that each is equal to two specific quantities of a particular item.
Sorry. Variables have to, you know, vary. Unless you’re postulating the existence of a ‘nonvarying variable which varies’
You’ll need to employ coefficients to make that argument, so 2c + 2i = 4x where c=lemons, i = oranges and x equals fruit … wait … no, that’s wrong as well …. addition is not your friend in this matter.
try multiplication – 2c*2i=4ci and you can claim that lemons and oranges are ‘fruit’, though pineapples might throw a conniption.
Or you may just want to bag arithmetical approaches all together and go with set theory.
Of course, as you do so, please keep in mind Goedel’s incompleteness proof … all logic systems contain statements that cannot be proven using the logic of the system, so that sort of/kind of forestalls talk of absolutes in your (or any) particular system of ‘logic’.
But I’m sure you won’t let that slow you down.
Have a nice day – or I’ll motherfucking cut in front of you at the grocery store and balance my checkbook at the register after writing a check for $13.48 in groceries … using base5 and a sliderule.
Bastard.
Posted by BumperStickerist | permalink
on 05/23 at 08:12 PM
Mr. S —
I think a good, accessible place to begin is with Interpretation and Overinterpretation, which is a series of friendly “debates” between Umberto Eco and Jonathan Culler, intended for an interested (but not necessarily professional) audience.
Posted by Jeff Goldstein | permalink
on 05/23 at 11:59 PM
BumperStickerist,
Above you write:
Well, leaving aside the fact that mathematicians can’t prove that ‘2=2’ … wait, no … let’s not leave that aside. That’s, in fact, true. There is no mathematical proof for ‘1=1’, ‘2=2’ and so forth.
Are you saying that there’s no mathematical proof for equivalence between natural numbers?
You also write:
Sorry. Variables have to, you know, vary. Unless you’re postulating the existence of a ‘nonvarying variable which varies’
You mean like rigid variables in temporal logic?
You also write:
Of course, as you do so, please keep in mind Goedel’s incompleteness proof … all logic systems contain statements that cannot be proven using the logic of the system, so that sort of/kind of forestalls talk of absolutes in your (or any) particular system of ‘logic’.
I’m not sure this is true, but it probably depends on what you mean by “absolutes”. The incompleteness theorem doesn’t say that “nothing is provable in any system”. It only says that any consistent formal system allows you to construct statements which are not provably true (in that system). This doesn’t mean there are no provably true statements in any formal system. It’s a limit on the expressive power of a formal system, sure, but to claim it invalidates formal systems in general (as you seem to be doing) is more than a little pathalogical.
Posted by jayinbmore | permalink
on 05/24 at 07:00 AM
thanks Jeff, I will take a look.
Posted by mr. s | permalink
on 05/24 at 07:51 AM
Jay,
Thersites wasn’t using temporal logic and my example was limited to Thersite’s construct – we (probably) agree.
Also, I went back and reread my comment. My point – as such – is that Thersite’s arguments tend to claim that he does have a formal system which is complete. T’s a one man Russell/ Whitehead.
My point – as such – is that such systems, per the Incompleteness Theorom, cannot exist and that’s okay. It just makes the person claiming to have developed one look a tad daft, imo.
.
Posted by BumperStickerist | permalink
on 05/24 at 12:02 PM
BumperStickerist —
Seems somebody feels you just might be a paste-eater yourself.
HOW DARE YOU SPEAK, BOY!
Posted by Jeff Goldstein | permalink
on 05/24 at 03:29 PM
Criminy. I remember, way back when the thread was at maybe 50 comments, that I almost wrote something about Foucalt’s Pendulum and how irritating Umberto Eco is (sheesh, last year I read some semi-graphic novel of his about a guy who wakes up from a coma with amnesia, goes back to his childhood home in hopes of regaining his memory, regains portions of it by dint of daily exposure to a bunch of pop culture memorabilia [hence the “graphic” part of the novel] from his childhood and youth, and on the very verge of the one thing he wants to remember most, has a stroke and dies. Bleah), but I’m damned if I can remember why.
Posted by Jamie McArdle | permalink
on 05/24 at 05:58 PM
Jeff,
Thanks for the link! Unfortuantely you did not understand the intention of my post. Please read it again. You’ll notice there is no mention of anyone being a paste eater, nor is there any suggestion that someone ought not be speaking. I’m not at all sure where you got either of those notions. I’m actually still waiting for BumperStickerist to answer one of my questions (the one regarding “no proof of ‘1=1’ etc”, because this is, in fact, news to me). I think that would imply that I’d prefer he keep speaking, no?
If you’ve read some insulting tone into my post, that’s your mistake, but I’ll grant you it’s often the case I’m taken for being insulting when in fact I’m doing nothing of the kind. Happens to everyone in my family. Must be the way we talk (and write).
Also, note that on the substance of my post BumperStickerist agrees with me. He said so above.
Posted by jayinbmore | permalink
on 05/25 at 08:52 AM
Jay —
I understood your intent. You missed mine. I was simply using the conversations between this blog and others over the last couple weeks to make an ironic remark concerning your post. The paste-eater charge comes from other bloggers (not you) in relation to the linguistic conversations we’ve been having.
I just wanted to point BumperStickerist to the response you placed on your site; evidently you thought it important not just to address him here (where he answered you and was largely in agreement), but you posted it separately on your blog as an analogue to Godwin’s law—which to me suggested you were saying that people who don’t use the theorem in a way you agree with have lost the argument and should be ignored, and that you were (mildly) offended by BS’s comment. In fact, it was the Godwin’s Law comparison that led me to say you wished him (and those like him whom you believe to be misusing a theorem) not speak about that which they clearly don’t understand.
But as you say, that intepretation of your post may have come both as a result of your tone and the fact that you turned your comment here into a post on your own site to begin with.
Posted by Jeff Goldstein | permalink
on 05/25 at 10:05 AM
————————————-
If you’ve read some insulting tone into my post, that’s your mistake, but I’ll grant you it’s often the case I’m taken for being insulting when in fact I’m doing nothing of the kind.
If it happens that often, it’s probably your fault.
Posted by Pablo | permalink
on 05/25 at 08:15 PM
Oh for the love of…. grrr this annoys me. I’m Canadian, engaged to an American, currently in the US on a student visa. Do you have any idea the ridiculous process I need to go through when we actually do get married? Aside from the usual fingerprints, hours of interviews, detailed background and criminal records checks (all of which I have to pay for, and rightly so) I also have to have a full physical by a USCIS officer which includes stripping naked for a ‘full body exam’.
All of which I will, of course, go through because I intend to follow the law.
I’ll admit, I’m starting to understand the whole NRA perspective that laws only effect those who obey them in the first place.
John McCain can eat it.
Posted by Carolyn | permalink
on 05/26 at 01:01 AM
Hey, I’m working on about 4 gin and tonics here, and a couple of beers, but, be that as it may, two points come to mind.
1) In regards to Casimer’s argument about science v. the . . . po-mo? Is that it? Parody is not a critique.
I don’t know how this helps matters any, but I think for texts that are consistently described as literary, a common characteristic is for the author to REMOVE intentionality. So, for instance, Ezra Pound, il meglior fabrer, or whatever, improved Eliot’s Waste Land, by removing all the connective tissue, so that it becomes the perfectly opaque text that has kept literary scholars in work, and, incidentally, Eliot’s reputation in high repute.
Or, in another medium, Stanley Kubrick worked a similar affect on Arthur Clark’s perfectly ordinary idea for 2001 (aliens make us smarter with monolithic brain boosters). Kubrick removed all hints about the rationale behind the monolith, and turned a pot boiler into a great movie.
Tsetvan Todorov specifically describes the literary as being that category of discourse that is subjunctive. Literary discourse is open ended and requires the reader to put him or herself into it, to have it make sense.
Posted by tree | permalink
on 05/28 at 05:52 PM
————————————-
Sorry for the all the space it took up & I hope this doesn’t count as trolling.
I really didn’t mean to insult Just Passing Through with that other comment.
When the comment was made at Metacomments – it completely freaked me out. I had never seen anything like it before. I was trying to explain why I was so upset by the response.
I am not tring to justify my reaction – just to explain it. I am quite upset with myself for escalating the situation.
geoduck2 (098c5d) — 7/11/2006 @ 12:30 amOK, I made my way through half of that.
What I got out of it was that some jerk made a completely obnoxious comment about Thersites’s baby.
Jeff immediately distanced himself from the comment and condemned it.
No *wonder* I am accused of finding the obnoxious comment funny! After all, I DEFENDED JEFF!
Yup, Retardo Montalban is one sick lying prick. That’s what I get out of that.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/11/2006 @ 12:38 amI thought you would agree with me and condemn the person who made the comment.
I do. I think Thersites is absolute scum.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 7/11/2006 @ 2:57 amI tend to do that when I see people trying to weave lies into fact, particularly when they’re about me and/or people I consider friends. Expect me to continue to react that way in the future.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 7/11/2006 @ 3:05 amAs someone who attained a Bachelor’s of Science (engineering) I, too, would like to know when colleges started churning out B.S. degrees in English.
RW (89e21a) — 7/11/2006 @ 7:19 amEspecially to teenagers.
RW (89e21a) — 7/11/2006 @ 7:22 amGod diggity, people – I already posted a comment just a little bit further down the thread that I call it a ‘BS in English’ because I think that an English degree is a bunch of BullSh*t.
Try to use one tiny portion of your brain to think it through. I know it may hurt!
And thanks for trying to say I’m more crazy than that Deb Frisch freak. I appreciate the effort.
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/11/2006 @ 7:43 amNo, you’re not *more* crazy. You’re just crazy. At least she has achieved a level of intelligence that she can point to, kid. You’re not all that bright, are you?
RW (89e21a) — 7/11/2006 @ 8:41 amWell, beyond the fact that I run some of the fastest, biggest supercomputers in the world, I guess I’m just a dim bulb.
Thanks for letting me know – I guess I should just quit. All those professors and Department of Energy folks must really feel dumb now. This whole time, while I was helping them debug their fortran and c code, building massive storage systems and tweaking the interconnect speeds, I didn’t realize just how stupid I am. Man – thanks!
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/11/2006 @ 8:50 amUnlearned and stupid are not the same thing. People can be unlearned and not be stupid. Just as they can be ludicrously stupid without being unlearned.
Pointing out your accomplishments in learning is no defense against a charge of stupidity. The charge is not addressed by pointing out your accomplishments in other arenas. It is addressed (if one cjoses to address it at all) by defending what you say/said to promote the charge and why you say/said it.
You fail miserably in that regard.
Just Passing Through (7acdce) — 7/11/2006 @ 9:04 amjust like the pResident?
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/11/2006 @ 10:14 amYeah – and that whole ‘unlearned’ thing? You worship Goldstein, and he has the EXACT same ‘learnedness’ that I do. English degree, grad school, no phd. Difference is, I went straight from college to get a real job, and have been continually learning new, exciting, cutting-edge things every day, while Jeff stagnates in his own fetid pool of self-interested navel-gazing.
Plus, there’s that whole 19 years of school, eight of which were spent in the best private school west of the Mississippi, and 7 of which were spent in one of the top universities in the country, from which I graduated.
Yep, no learnin’ here.
Shorter Rightwing Arseholes (49460c) — 7/11/2006 @ 10:44 amLet’s see now. PW has been under DoS attack for the last few days and some dim bulb is here crowing about how big his computer is and how good he can make it hum. Now, how smart can this knucklehead be?
Black Jack (d8da01) — 7/11/2006 @ 10:49 amWell… but: be fair, Black Jack. We are dealing with a sexually obsessed cyber-stalker with a self-confessed drinking problem, after all.
Just let him squeegee your windshield for a few seconds; front him a dime or two towards tonight’s Boone’s Farm Strawberry fund; and let him stagger off peacefully.
Kent (005e8f) — 7/11/2006 @ 11:40 amShorter if you are so hard at work how is it that you’ve been posting here practically non-stop for the past two days. Jeff has his own blog: What’s your excuse?
Rick O'Shea (f41eca) — 7/11/2006 @ 11:46 amNope. He’d correct you on that notion if you asked him politely.
Your curriculum vitae is nice, but you continue to miss the point. Presenting it as your answer to the charge of stupidity online does not engage the charge made against you by the posters up thread. You make stupid statements. The style in which you chose to make them, especially on your blog, makes you sound even more stupid. If anything, your curriculum vitae underlines the fact that you have no excuse whatsoever for the abysmal stupidity you embrace in your online personna. If anything, it makes it all the more mysterious why you can’t see just what a jackass you come off as.
Just Passing Through (7acdce) — 7/11/2006 @ 11:47 amThe great thing about the internet is you get to be whatever you want to be, as my wife Morgan Fairchild was just saying as she “ran” electronics machinery (a term that is an anathema to technical jargon).
Sadly, some choose to be stalking trolls, lurking righty sites in order to foment traffic on their own site. How’s about we stop feeding the (rather unintelligent) troll, folks?
RW (89e21a) — 7/11/2006 @ 12:49 pmWhy does the left have to be so vicious??…
This blogpost is covering an issue I’ve been following all damned day. This blog post too.Why do Democrats feel the need to be so vicious when approaching what is well-known to be a conservative’s playground? I’ve said some fairly nasty things in my…
The Warlock's Study (2541af) — 7/11/2006 @ 4:54 pm