Patterico's Pontifications

7/12/2006

More Greenwald Dishonesty

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:32 pm



So, was Greenwald’s post on right-wingers not condemning Misha irony? Or serious?

Turns out he is saying both. He’s just hoping we aren’t paying attention.

Over at Q&O, Jon Henke says Greenwald was being ironic. In other words, he was simply making fun of right-wingers who make the “silence equals assent” argument:

It was not a serious suggestion that the Right has an obligation to denounce any incidence of that kind of rhetoric; it was a response to the recent suggestion from some Right wing bloggers that the Left had been remiss in not denouncing an obscure blogger for obscene rhetoric. Goose, gander.

On the same blog, McQ says Greenwald is being serious. McQ says Greenwald really was condemning righties for failing to condemn Misha.

Greenwald has agreed with Henke, saying he was being ironic. As quoted by McQ in an update to McQ’s post, Greenwald said:

I was just about to explain that McQ missed the entire point of the post – the point was not to impose an obligation for bloggers to condemn every vile comment that comes along. To the contrary, I was objecting to complaints made by numerous right-wing bloggers this weekend that “the Left” did not condemn Frisch’s reprehensible though irrelevant remarks with sufficient vigor and frequency and that this somehow means that they must approve of the tactics.

In other words, he was being ironic.

So Greenwald says he didn’t mean to require right-wingers to condemn every vile comment that comes along. Ooookay . . . except that he said the exact opposite in a comment to my post this morning:

You certainly were vigilant in railing against those irr[e]levancies, even though you’re way too busy to notice or condemn any of the far more significant, vile rhetoric pouring forth regularly from the higher echelons on the Right — a glaring inconsistency which, incidentally, was the principal point of my post.

In other words, he was being serious.

Ironic? Serious? Serious? Ironic?

Depends on where you look.

I highlighted that last quote in an earlier post for a different reason: to show that he lied or was inexcusably sloppy in accusing me of failing to condemn outrageous statements on the right.

But now I want you to look at something different. Compare the bolded language in the last two block quotes.

Can they be reconciled? I think not. In one, he says he was not trying to condemn the right for failing to condemn Misha. In another, he says he was.

I think he’s talking out of both sides of his ass. But you be the judge.

77 Responses to “More Greenwald Dishonesty”

  1. How very postmodern of Mr. Greenwald.

    Abraxas (828688)

  2. Patterico, I really think this depends on which literary theory you subscribe to.

    Clearly Greenwald subscribes to the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Literary Criticism… you know:

    Words mean what he wants them to mean, nothing more and nothing less, which of course changes depending on what he wants at a given moment.

    Or as Abraxas said, very post-modern of him.

    Carrick (3eafe1)

  3. Ditto Carrick.

    mh (5b638c)

  4. Like I said at Jeff’s, and with all due respect to you, Pat, all of this is pointless. If he meant that everyone has a duty at all times to condemn asshats, that’s stupid. If he meant that those who wanted the Left to condemn Frisch should ipso facto condemn Mischa because the two are morally equivalent, or Mischa’s statement was worse, that’s even stupider.

    Either way, he’s stupid. Case closed.

    CraigC (9cd021)

  5. Although, come to think of it, it doesn’t hurt to point out that he’s either confused or mendacious.

    CraigC (9cd021)

  6. I think I’m pretty much done with him now. Those were just some obvious points that needed to be said.

    Back to “ignore.”

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  7. Calm Down GG…

    We all can get carried away sometimes when posting. And judging from his reply, I’m afraid all the attention today may have Glenn Greenwald (GG) a little rattled. There’s, I assume, a typo in the headline: Right-wing tempter tantrums…. And…

    Riehl World View (72c8fd)

  8. Thank you. Ignore the clowns like Greenwald and engage the serious lefty commentators.

    mh (5b638c)

  9. “…and engage the serious lefty commentators.”

    Bueller?

    Al (2e2489)

  10. And when Mr. Greenwald threatens to touch my sister in sensitive places, or to “cock-slap” his readers, I’ll believe there’s some equivalence between him and his “conservative” detractors.

    stickler (06d921)

  11. Um, Stickler, you probably think that a Volkswagon and a Cadillac are the same thing because they’re both cars, don’t you?

    CraigC (9cd021)

  12. Al,

    While Glenn Greenwald is a dishonest joke, there are indeed serious people on the left, and I’d like Patterico to address them, as he seems willing to do. There’s no point in wasting time writing about a guy — Greenwald — who doesn’t care about advancing a serious argument.

    mh (5b638c)

  13. Patterico’s done an excellent job here of showing up Greenwald as a lightweight, but I think we all ought to go read Ace of Spades’ post on the subject as well. Just for perspective.

    See Dubya (921613)

  14. Ace of Spades is so right.

    His post will be front and center in my next post.

    Imagine. Ace of Spades, providing perspective for my life.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  15. So far as I know, no right-wing commenters have criticized lefties for failing to notice Dr. Frisch’s comments (if anyone has, then s/he is an idiot)

    The criticisms that I can recall have been leveled 100% of the time at lefties who spoke explicitly, deliberately about Dr. Frisch’s comments, and the right-wing critics found those lefties’ responses to be somehow lacking or inappropriate.

    But to turn this back around at you, if you will permit me to be so bold on your site:

    You demanded that Actus condemn Deb Frisch’s person (not good enough to condemn her acts). Even saying she’s probably mentally ill didn’t cut it for you. You have not issued a single word of condemnation against Misha. All you condemned was his post:

    Well, for starters: I don’t read the guy. His over-the-top rhetoric has never appealed to me. To understand why, you need look no further than the outrageous, ridiculous post cited by Greenwald.

    And, I’ll be a little bolder: you owe an apology to Actus for trying to smear him associating him with Deb Frisch by claiming insufficient condemnation (when Jeff Goldstein says things that are very similar to what Actus said*). I don’t know what sort of history you two have, but you’re wrong about this specific point, and given the abuse you’ve hurled at him over it, an apology is owed. You have failed to meet, here, the standard you set for Actus.

    * It should be noted that Jeff Goldstein has proclaimed Frisch “batshit crazy,” “as nutty as the ring inside a squirrel’s crapper,” “more of an object lesson in having too many cats,” and that she should stop “huffing” “that cheapass rail shit.”

    I’m not a troll (and I have no stake in this), so I won’t comment on this any further should you choose to ignore what I’ve said. I’m just giving my 2 cents in good faith.

    Daryl Herbert (9512bf)

  16. CraigC said: “If he meant that those who wanted the Left to condemn Frisch should ipso facto condemn Mischa because the two are morally equivalent, or Mischa’s statement was worse, that’s even stupider.”

    Why is that even stupider?

    1 – Are you saying Misha’s comments are not morally equivalent to Frisch’s? I think they are. Threatening a man by threatening his children is despicable. It’s just about the same level of depravity to call for the assassination of judges because you don’t like their rulings.

    You do realize just how bad things would be if people went around lynching judges, right??? I think Patterico knows it’s only a very short step from that to lynching prosecutors.

    Were Dr. Frisch’s comments worse? Maybe a little, maybe not. But even if so, it’s only a matter of degree. They’re the same kind of terrorist slime. I have in the past specifically distinguished that slime from Jeff G’s comments (on Ann Althouse’s blog: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/07/nasty-blogging.html#115260350212281286). Even if you stacked 10,000 of Jeff G’s most rude & raunchy comments end-on-end, they couldn’t approach what Deb Frisch or Misha has said.

    2 – Let’s say there’s a right-wing blogger out there who demands that ALL lefties stop what they’re doing to condemn Dr. Frisch. That particular person would be demanding GLOBAL condemnation of Frisch, from people who have never heard of her, endorsed her, etc.

    So why not demand PARTICULAR condemnation from just those loudmouths, of Misha? Demanding that THEY–individually–condemn Misha is much LESS of a demand than demanding that EVERY SINGLE RIGHT-WING BLOGGER EVER has to stop to condemn Misha. Can’t you see the difference?

    Daryl Herbert (9512bf)

  17. 1 – Are you saying Misha’s comments are not morally equivalent to Frisch’s? I think they are. Threatening a man by threatening his children is despicable. It’s just about the same level of depravity to call for the assassination of judges because you don’t like their rulings.

    Daryl, you have rocks in your head.

    Misha’s comments are hyperbole. Are they juvenile? Yes. Ill-advised? Yes. Socially unhelpful, yes. Angry? Yes. Akin to psychosexual murder fantasies about a two year old? Not on this planet or any other. Deb Frisch has carved out a place in internet lore for herself. Misha who? Oh yeah, Emperor Darth Misha I, ruler of the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler (which is a damned odd name for an empire). Uh huh.

    Remind me never to leave a child in your care. But if I ever need a Justice sitter, I’ll look you up first.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  18. Via Shad, in the comments at Q and O.

    White Supremacist Is Held In Ordering Judge’s Death

    Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer for Mr. Hale, said the charges filed today might stem from a misinterpretation of a statement by his client on the Internet that ”we are in a state of war with Judge Lefkow.”

    ”They are probably trying to take things he said along the lines of political advocacy and turn it into a crime,” Mr. Greenwald said. ”The F.B.I. may have interpreted this protected speech as a threat against a federal judge, but it’s probably nothing more than some heated rhetoric.”

    Game. Set. Match.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  19. I think perhaps the biggest difference between Deb Frisch and Misha is that (from what I understand) this is part of his schtick. In other words, he ALWAYS does the “rope/tree/unfortunate victim of my invective/some assembly required” gag. So, anyone reading him knows that it is a gag, albeit a sick one. The difference to Deb is that she was an unknown quantity who came sailing into Jeff G’s site and within a few threads was threatening his child. Perhaps she thought this was a gag not unlike the rope/tree/etc, etc, but it didn’t appear that way to ppl who read Jeff G’s site.

    Or maybe it’s along the lines of “it’s ok to attack me but leave my children out of it.” Remember Chelsea Clinton? It seemed like she was out of bounds.

    I’m not condoning the lynching of Supreme Court justices one disagrees with, but neither am I so sensitive that I feel compelled to condemn another’s stupidity this way. If he’d called for the lynching of the Supremes grandchildren, I might view it differently.

    sharon (fecb65)

  20. That’s part of the difference, another part is that Misha went after the perps directly rather than after their children, spouses, or some other innocent party simply to get at them. The biggest difference IMNSHO is that Misha confined his statements to his own blog. Had his five ropes and his five trees been accompanied by five threatening letters to the five Justices in question, his actions might be a bit more analogous to Frisch’s.

    Without condoning Misha’s rhetoric, anyone who equates it with Deb Frisch’s sick ramblings is not playing with a full deck.

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  21. Without condoning Misha’s rhetoric, anyone who equates it with Deb Frisch’s sick ramblings is not playing with a full deck.

    Which brings us back to the actual complaints that were actually made by an actual number of RW bloggers which is larger than the solitary blogger that set Greenwald off on this idiot mission against the monolithic Right.

    I’d be looking at you, Sadly, Morons! if I had the stomach for that sort of thing.

    Pablo (efa871)

  22. [The following Glenn Greenwald comment, which Greenwald has been spamming all over the place, contains yet another lie. He says Patterico deleted a comment that pointed out his former praise for Misha back in January 2004. (Patterico used to watch Bill O’Reilly, too. Tastes change.) Greenwald’s accusation is flatly untrue. Patterico did not delete the comment. He approved the comment from moderation. Patterico explains more fully in an update to this post. Greenwald has no apology for his misstatement about Patterico, choosing to rely on this distraction to evade responsibility for his misstatement, which Patterico now believes was a knowing lie and not just irresponsible. — Xrlq, with permission from Patterico]

    As I learned from my comments section yesterday, it turns out that — while denying the central point of my post: that you condemned the Deb Frisch comments with such melodrama and flamboyance, you ignore equally bad rhetoric coming from people like Misha — you knew of evidence which proved that point completely, but you concealed it. Namely, Misha came to your little blog here and, right here, in front of your anti-bad-discourse nose, he advocated the summary execution of judges. And, of course, you attacked him for it the way you attacked Deb Frisch, because – as you’ve been screaming for the last two days everywhere you can go – you are not guilty of the inconsistency and double standards of which I’ve accused you, which makes me a “liar.”

    Oh, wait – no, you didn’t condemn him. In fact, you did the opposite. When you saw Misha advocating the murder of judges on your blog, you wrote a whole separate post in order to expressly welcome him to your blog.

    And now that this behavior of yours has been revealed (by a commenter whose comment you shamefully, though understandably, deleted), you suddenly decide that you want to end your obsession with writing posts about me, calling me a liar and douchebag, and other assorted high-level and oh-so-piercing attacks.

    I think it’s clear who the liar was all along — that would be person who claimed it was a “lie” to apply the point of my post to him, even though there probably is no blogger to whom that point applies more thoroughly, and then suddenly decided he didn’t want to talk about it anymore once conclusive evidence of his dishonesty emerged.

    If I had the power to invent a fact to rebut your hysterical obsession over the last couple days, I don’t think I could have invented anything better than the fact that Misha spewed his violence-inciting rhetoric right here, in front of your face, and you then WELCOMED him to your blog. Isn’t it time to hear again about how much you hate Deb Frisch and her horrible comments, about how much you lament attacks of that sort? You’re in a perfect position to dole out those lectures. Your history definitely entitles you to lead the charge against hateful rhetoric — obsequiously welcoming those who urge the execution of judges is a great qualification to lead the charge against Bad Rhetoric.

    Yeah, great – you write posts about how you don’t like Ann Coulter. Congratulations. Even Michelle Malkin does that. My point never was, as was painfully clear, that every single blogger to whom I linked never once, in their lifetime, condemned someone on the Right for excessive rhetoric. Most people on the Right love to do exactly that with, for instance, Fred Phelps or Ann Coulter to show how very fair-minded they are.

    The point was that those who engaged in the condemnation rituals aimed at Deb Frisch overlook and even condone far worse behavior from the opinion leaders in their party. The primary, but not only, example I cited was Misha. And despite your petulant and shrieking denials that this applies to you, it turns out that you are the Poster Child for the very hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty which I was highlighting.

    Apology and retraction, indeed. I wouldn’t hold my breath for those if I were you. But I will give you credit for one thing – you picked an excellent time to declare your obsessive battle to be at an end. And a rather ignominous end it is.

    Glenn Greenwald (7a0fe5)

  23. I think your mistake is assuming Greenwald actally knows whether he’s being serious or ironic.

    TallDave (e15e0b)

  24. Good job, Pablo, Comment #19:

    Matthew Hale is now serving 40 years in a federal prison. I guess Mr. Greenwald ran the same “intellectual circles” around the judge and jury that he is now running around us “fools”.

    nk (57e995)

  25. […] Patterico has been suckered by this dishonest liberal wet smack into a flurry of posts (and there are several more — just scroll around a bit), but the nuisance was worth it for this headline: Is Glenn Greenwald a Liar? Or Is He Just Someone Who Makes Confident Assertions of Fact without Having the Slightest Clue Whether They Are True? […]

    Cold Fury » Blog Archive » What it’s really all about (6f4592)

  26. You know, I remember football coach Bill Parcells once being asked about his team’s execution after a poorly played game, and saying he was “all for it.”

    The horror. My God, the horror. To this day I am haunted by visions of that murderous psychopath.

    TallDave (e15e0b)

  27. Heh.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  28. I also remember when the Guardian ‘advocated’ assassinating Bush. I think he and Cheney went and hid in the White House basement.

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  29. Glenn the Douche:

    As I learned from my comments section yesterday, it turns out that — while denying the central point of my post: that you condemned the Deb Frisch comments with such melodrama and flamboyance, blah blah blah blah frickin’ blah, and hell no I won’t apologize just for being a dishonest prick, blah blah blah blah blah blah.

    You can say that again. And again, and again, and again

    Xrlq (b50c29)

  30. Can’t recall whether Greenwald got all denunciaty about that.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15659

    But in their defense, it was uncharted territory.

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  31. Matthew Hale is now serving 40 years in a federal prison.

    ADX Florence, isn’t it? The last guy I know of who landed his client there was Moussaoui. I had no idea that he was also a leading Constitutional scholar, but hey, results are results.

    Pablo (efa871)

  32. I think I can explain Misha’s argument. Even if they were tried and found guilty of treason, or whatever, they could appeal. Eventually it would reach the Supremes, and they would have to recuse themselves. At which time the jury would be hung.

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  33. Moussaoui and Greenwald, Pablo? They do say “great minds think alike”. I admit to some hyperbole in the comparison. Moussaoui was far less arrogant in his insistence of his righteousness.

    nk (ca8012)

  34. Trolls: Are they Illegal Combatants?

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  35. – Apparently the great Kossak leader Kos has sent down the marching orders to his prolitariat hoards that Progressive Marxist policy for the “Frisch affair”will be handled as follows:

    a) It’s ok to issue a soft repudiation along the lines of “she shouldn’t do that” on Frisch’s comments.

    b) It is however, a requirement to adamently tie any statements of mild dissaproval to the usual torrent of Left talking points, and political equivalency, working in the usual “Coulterism’s, Rush’s sex life, and any other bitchy red herring’s that can be managed. Slipping the words Zionist Neocon warmongers, Isreal, and oil into your comments would be good too”.

    c) One extra assignment is to post nice things about fellow Kossack, Greenwald. He’s working hard for the cause, even though the pac checks have been slow in coming lately, so we will all show him our solidarity and support in the great cause.

    d) One good approach is to simply deny that you’ve ever heard of this woman, covering your eyes, and holding your hands over your ears, singing lalalalalala, if any Rethuglican’s try to actually execise their free speech rights, which all good Kommrads know, were only invented for us. Use the Constitution as often as possible against the riechwing-nuts. Its your patriotic doodie.”

    Your Fearless Leader: Kos Moulitosis

    (Sponsored by Laika – the space dog – beaming truthiness to power for all the tin-hat kommrads since 1957)

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  36. “At which time the jury would be hung.”

    That may very well be, Dan, nature willing, but would it be hanged as well? 😉

    [I have to stop visiting Protein Wisdom. I am turning into a rowdy. And with enough work in front of me to keep me up until midnight.]

    nk (ca8012)

  37. nk–

    I hear that. I stayed up there till 1 AM getting my moronic kicks by c*ckslapping trolls.

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  38. “You know, I remember football coach Bill Parcells once being asked about his team’s execution after a poorly played game, and saying he was “all for it.”

    That was actually a quote from John McKay, legendary wit and former USC football coach, referring to his players when he was coaching for the newly-formed TB Bucaneers.

    Matt (f67d74)

  39. If both statements were made in a vacuum, Greenwald’s equivalency might hold up. Unfortunately for him and other Frisch apologists, however, each were made within a particular context.

    Frisch’s comments were specific, detailed, repetitive, and intentionally directed towards the object of her anger, placing them squarely outside the boundaries of hyperbole and firmly within the area of threat.

    Misha’s comments were akin to a man ranting to his fellow bar patrons that the entire Supreme Court should be lined up and shot. Deb Frisch’s were closer to knocking on an enemy’s door and asking how well his child is sleeping these days.

    The distinction is clear to those honest enough to see it.

    The Warden (65448f)

  40. The distinction is clear to those honest enough to see it.

    Yeah. That’s kind of the crux of the matter.

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  41. Dan,

    Yeah. It always is, in’t it?

    The Warden (65448f)

  42. So, deb’s back.

    And one has to wonder if Greenwald is at all familiar with what deb’s own position is about this brouhaha.

    Ultimately, you aren’t interested in any cause. Only the few meager scraps of attention you get from the table each day.

    i shouldn’t be surprised anymore at the stupidity of the rightwingnuts i’ve attracted from ramseygate, but this is too much. my cause is exposing the rabid right as a bunch of hypocritical, stupid nutcases. Before I ever heard of Jeff Goldstein, I was writing inflammatory things here about dubya, kooky kristians, the war in eye-rack, etc.

    I am a moonbat word warrior. I lost my cool in the bowels of protein wisdom (which should be renamed stupid lipids). I am sorry for losing my cool and becoming the second troll@pw to make icky comments about count cockula’s progeny. Google satchel goldstein and check out the third item called Elevating the Discourse. The link is
    http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/20595/ but it doesn’t’ work. I don’t know why. PW has a lot of technical as well as intellectual problems.

    I gotta tell you, I don’t know why Jeff escalates conflicts with trolls who make fun of his two year old, leaving a disgusting google trail for his son. I don’t know why he doesn’t delete the references to his kid. It sure looks like he cares more about getting traffic at PW than he cares about his kid.

    Posted by deb at July 13, 2006 07:59 AM

    And follows up:

    Actually, Mark, if JG had deleted my jonbenet shtick, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have accused him of censoring me. I delete people’s comments all the time. I have no problem with bloggers deleting comments. I think bloggers SHOULD delete comments that go over the line and are offensive. In fact, JG’s refusal to censor his anklebiters who were making sexual comments about me is what caused me to even talk about ramseying his progeny in the first place.

    u guyz really are nutz.

    Deb
    Posted by moonbat, ph.d. at July 13, 2006 09:07 AM

    Emphasis added to both quotes.

    So, here we have deb frisch, using the term “ramseying” to describe what she was doing on Goldstein’s blog. That is, talking about the murder of a child, to the parent.

    And this is somehow comparable to stating that judges ought to be “strung up,” especially in a thread where the previous commenter had first suggested that all judges should be fired?

    Better yet, one wonders whether Glenn Greenwald (whom I do not, and have no intention of, reading) has perhaps seen fit to denounce, in either serious or satiric form, this latest defense of frisch’s?

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  43. Pretty much. Sometimes I just wish I could go live in Idealostan with the pretty, sexy, easy, hippie girls and the mushrooms by the waterfall in the Vermont summer. But I’m kind of an insomniac.

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  44. Remind me never to leave a child in your care. But if I ever need a Justice sitter, I’ll look you up first.

    This is exactly the kind of slime certain people have chosen to wrap themselves up in: accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being in bed with Deb Frisch.

    It certainly gives lie to the notion that all conservatives believe in being responsible for one’s own actions. Repeat after me, 100 times:

    “Deb Frisch’s actions do not excuse my own.”

    And this is somehow comparable to stating that judges ought to be “strung up,” especially in a thread where the previous commenter had first suggested that all judges should be fired?

    Wait–a previous commenter said they should all be fired? Oh, that makes it totally okay! You’ve turned me around 180 degrees on this! Idiot.

    Our disagreement is not caused by a failure on my part to fully condemn Deb Frisch and her actions. It is caused by a failure on your part to fully condemn making terrorist threats against judges (and by extension, our free society). Wearing a shirt that calls for judges, journalists, or “snitches” to be executed is not in the least bit funny.

    Calling for the murder of judges, because you don’t like the decisions they make, is despicable. It’s a tactic that’s been used by almost every terrorist group and almost no one else. It puts you in league with the Klan and other anti-civil rights groups, it puts you in league with the Nazis. Threatening to murder judges is an immensely serious attack on our free society. And no matter how many “moonbats” say vile things, that doesn’t let you off the hook.

    Daryl Herbert (9512bf)

  45. being in bed with Deb Frisch

    Now, that is something I’d be conscience-bound to denounce.

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  46. This is exactly the kind of slime certain people have chosen to wrap themselves up in: accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being in bed with Deb Frisch.

    How on God’s green Earth did you infer that from this?

    Remind me never to leave a child in your care. But if I ever need a Justice sitter, I’ll look you up first.

    My point is simply that if you don’t understand the difference between the threats, I wouldn’t trust you with the care of a child. But since I think you vastly overestimate the threat to the Supremes, I’d let you watch them.

    In bed with Dr. Debmento? Ewwww… How did you arrive there? And did you leave warning beacons in your wake, to save future travellers from your fate?

    Pablo (efa871)

  47. Daryl:

    Know any lawyer jokes? Guess those are terroristic threats against the legal system, the cornerstone of American life. I mean, lawyers are a key part of the legal system, so suggesting that 2000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea “is a good start” clearly puts me on the same level as KKK Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd, right?

    So, if George Carlin or Jon Stewart make comments about what to do with judges, we should equate them with Charles Manson making comments about actresses?

    Misha is no Carlin or Stewart.I stopped reading him, precisely because I got tired of his hyperbolic shtick.

    But his comment, in a thread about judges, which follows immediately after a comment calling for all judges to be fired, is somewhat different from a commentor who begins “How old is your child,” and over the course of several messages proceeds to “I hope nothing happens to your kid,” to “You live in CO, Jon Benet Ramsey’s dead.”

    Indeed, deb’s continued references to “ramseying” Goldstein’s kid suggests that this is a somewhat different view and concern than even “We support our troops when they shoot their officers.” (Which, btw, I do not believe indicates that even the sign holder is calling for mutiny.)

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  48. [Comment from Deb Frisch deleted. Deb Frisch banned. — Patterico]

    WW (a09e95)

  49. Deb,

    At the very least, you have a compulsion issue. Go get some help. Considering the disgusting suggestions that you made at Jeff’s place, I find it appalling that you would think he’s somehow to blame for whatever his son might find Googling.

    I see your site’s down. It’s a start.

    Dan Collins (eac760)

  50. http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/19154.php

    Was that one your favorite?

    Dan Collins (eac760)

  51. I see this thread is about my unfortunate experience trolling at count cockula’s masturbatorium but i don’t have time to read all the drivel.

    Mmmm … no.

    It’s not always all about you, Professor Unemployed. This thread is about the utter dishonesty of some commenters on the left.

    Oh, wait … maybe it is all about you.

    In either case, relating repeated rape/murder fantasies about a toddler to that toddler’s father is not “trolling”. It borders on (and may indeed be) criminal.

    Now you’re ranting on about what this kid may find on the internet?

    Your repeated fetishizing about said child anywhere someone will give you room to mutter is just making you look worse and worse, a feat few of us thought possible. At least you have *that* going for you, if nothing else.

    Abraxas (828688)

  52. Oh, sheesh. The disgusting degenerate pervert (Comment # 49) is trolling here and Patterico is not around to delete her. Angry Clam, you have posting privileges here. Where are you when we need you?

    nk (d7a872)

  53. nk,

    I think it ought to be left up, because it’s illustrative. Also, because it may constitute evidence.

    Dan Collins (eac760)

  54. I think Deb is talking about this. Not sure what she means about cleaning it up. I should think making it into its own post way back when was exacly the opposite.

    My only guess is, we just changed hosts and some of the links to old comments are missing a ? in the path. The actual path to the actual comment left by John Wesley Hardin.

    But I haven’t “cleaned” anything. Why would I? I didn’t write the filth.

    Jeff G (881746)

  55. Dan,

    I cannot disagree with you about the evidence part. I also want her put away. I have also come to think that she may be her own solution. She may be a trust-fund baby. If she is not, she is on a downward spiral in which her support system is attriting away: Her family is dying off. Her friends and lovers are leaving her because she is getting too nutty, too old, too ugly for them. She will soon be jobless, moneyless and homeless. Just another baglady ranting at passersby.

    nk (4cd0c2)

  56. Hey, Dan. That’s the Tucson newspaper acknowledging that Frisch’s comments were disgusting:

    A reading of the text online reveals that Frisch’s comments, in my opinion, were inappropriately rabid and, as I earlier described them, insulting, mean-spirited and hate-laced.

    Gotta give the paper some credit for that.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  57. nk–

    There’s enough of that, in my opinion, already. I really do want her to get help. If Jeff were to press charges, and that were to get her the help she is obviously begging for, it would be worthwhile, though a pain in the ass for Jeff.

    Dan Collins (eac760)

  58. I think Deb is talking about this. Not sure what she means about cleaning it up. I should think making it into its own post way back when was exacly the opposite.

    My only guess is, we just changed hosts and some of the links to old comments are missing a ? in the path. The actual path to the actual comment left by John Wesley Hardin.

    But I haven’t “cleaned” anything. Why would I? I didn’t write the filth.

    But it sure would be nice if you stopped hopping around from blog to blog posting this stuff.

    Jeff G (881746)

  59. Pat,

    Yeah, I agree. I said it ironically, because in a post a few days ago she had pointed the original article out as being her favorite one of the 3 or 4 she had links to. And she is compelled to circle round and round, and inevitably read the comments.

    Dan Collins (eac760)

  60. I guess that’s your filter going wonky again.

    Dan Collins (eac760)

  61. I have taken it down entirely.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  62. I hadn’t read this guy before, but I think he bears watching:

    http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2006/07/shooting-frisch-in-barrel.html

    Dan Collins (eac760)

  63. I’m sorry, Dan, I disagree with your Comment #48. A rabid animal desperately needs help too but it is too dangerous to be allowed in a position whereby it can bite anyone. Until its own disease renders it harmless, all precautions should be taken against it.

    nk (4cd0c2)

  64. The filter came up with my last comment. I just hit “back” and “refresh”. My comment was posted.

    nk (4cd0c2)

  65. nk–

    I’m sure you mean 58. I just feel my heart twinge when I see old ladies pushing shopping carts with their belongings and muttering to themselves. That seventies business of freeing the mental patients on grounds of their rights was terrible, and we still live with the consequences. Also, one of my sons has childhood onset schizophrenia.

    So this is something that we’ll just disagree over.

    Dan Collins (eac760)

  66. Oh, Pat–I meant the post and repost of Jeff’s comment at 55 and again at 59

    Dan Collins (eac760)

  67. Dan, your Comment #66:

    I’m not sure we disagree. I did not pull all that stuff about mentally ill people becoming lost once they lose their support system from my imagination. I’m just not ready to feel sorry enough for Ms. Frisch to disregard her potential to do harm. I believe it was President Reagan who turned the mentally ill into homeless in the early ’80s. I disagreed with him then and I disagree with him now. I am a father too. My reason for living is to take care of my child.

    nk (ca8012)

  68. nk–

    No, you’re right. That happened under Reagan. But the legal groundwork for all of the court challenges to mental institutionalization occurred earlier, as did the academic idea that these people were differently mentally enabled, so to speak, happened earlier. I think that Ms. Frisch is in a hell of her own making, certainly, but I think that her obsessions and compulsions are really beyond her control, as well.

    Dan Collins (eac760)

  69. So, let’s lighten things up:

    I grew up in a Lower Slobovian neighborhood and there was a bar where I would go in for a drink or a six-pack.

    One evening, I walked in and said, “Hey guys, I heard this great Lower Slobovian joke”.

    The bartender looked at me and said: “Look, buddy, I’m a Lower Slobovian. And all these fourteen other customers here are Lower Slobovians. Especially, that six-foot-six, three-hundred-pound guy there dancing with the jukebox.”

    And I said: “OK, OK, I’ll tell it slow.”

    nk (47858f)

  70. Bwahahahaha!

    You know, I grew up in Milwaukee in a predominantly Lower Slobovian neighborhood, so that’s especially rich to me. I found them to be fine, hardworking people with a penchant for large collections of garden ornaments and given to playing Liberace records at all hours of the day. I must confess that I found their custom of adding curdled milk to pilsner disgusting.

    Otherwise, of course, I renounce your jest in a pro forma way.

    Dan Collins (8b6bc2)

  71. “I believe it was President Reagan who turned the mentally ill into homeless in the early ’80s.”

    If you really want to blame anyone for the mentally ill being tossed into the streets, you can start with the advocates for the mentally ill who didn’t think they should be institutionalized. That started back in the 1970s. The original reasons were just; there were lots of people being locked away who could function well in society as long as they stayed on their meds. The problem is that the courts wound up ruling that virtually ALL mentally ill people should not be institutionalized and insurance companies jumped on this bandwagon, as well. Hence, by the early 1980s, you had many, many people on the streets who were simply incapable of functioning in society. As a matter of criminal law, it’s interesting to note how the law changed after John Hinckley.

    In Deb’s case, I’m not sure if she’s truly mentally ill or just somebody who went way over the line in some fit of bravado. I read most of her early stuff and thought it was the typical B.S. stupid lefties come up with. And she got her chops busted for it. Perhaps she decided to escalate the rhetoric to differentiate herself from the average stupid lefty. In any event, she’s discovered that you can’t do things like that, even in the virtual world, and face no consequences in the real one.

    sharon (fecb65)

  72. […] I long ago deleted the content of comment she left on my site, under the moniker “WW” (”Word Warrior”); it’s still linked here. I preserved the original text in a Notepad file. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Strange Comments from Eugene, Oregon (421107)

  73. Firstly, the nubile tactic to quest beyond hope that we have meaning is just a poor excuse to type. I do not need reasons to pour my soul into a computer, I do need reason. Let’s presume for a moment we love America, and believe in free enterprise, speech, et all. How do we impove life for the middle class (which is the only standard that makes sense). Do we make the rich poor, or the poor rich? Lost to either hope is someone willing to actually work, obtain, and do what every LEGAL American has access to. The truth becomes apparent when you extrapolate myth from folly, you have a huge base of mindless hopefuls, that you use them as such is sick minded. Of course, the debate will keep them at bay, they are whom you rely on to keep your power. Of course they rely on you to keep them powerless. Brilliant usage of human waste.

    rik (d8da01)

  74. I am sure that post will cause a bruise, no offense intended…I was venting

    rik (d8da01)

  75. male spanking male contacts uk

    djohlhbewu (0da072)

  76. It was Reagan who cut aid to homeless in the 80’s
    Chuckhttp;//pop2go.com

    Chuck (9a6805)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4249 secs.