Patterico Accused of “Hypocirsy” (UPDATE: Accusation Deleted)
An occasional commenter named Duke, who blogs at Oraculations, has a post titled HYPOCIRSY, THEY NAME IS PATTERICO:
Another phony big shot posing as the defender of free speech, the arbiter of free speech etc., has deleted my comment critical of a post of his, a post that is admittedly phony. He admits he has posted an “edited” hit piece on Chris Matthews, one which makes Matthews look drunk and stupid. Who would do such a thing? Coulter? Limbaugh? Hannity? No. It’s Patterico, the holy one. Why? Because Matthews doesn’t say things Patterico likes. Those of us on the Right who preach free speech, honest debate, and integrity lose another round. The piece on Matthews borders on slander, but because the sacred Patterico is a lawyer, one can assume that he has stayed on the legal side of that disgraceful hit piece. My critical comment, and we can presume all others critical of Patterico’s disgraceful “Hitler Dancing in Paris” edited video, have been blocked.
I’m a “big shot”?
There is a simple explanation for what happened — as I could have told Duke, if he had just asked. Duke’s comment was caught in my spam filter — for what reason, I do not know. I hadn’t put it there. Regular readers know that it is not uncommon for legitimate comments to get caught in my overzealous spam filter. I rescued Duke’s comment from the filter and published it (you can read it here), and left a comment on Duke’s site at around 6 p.m. yesterday, explaining what had happened. I suggested that the next time he thought one of his comments had been deleted, he might try a polite e-mail rather than a screechy blog post.
It has now been well over 24 hours since I left my comment at Duke’s site — and despite his advocacy of free speech and open comments, my comment there has not been approved.
Oh, the hypocirsy!
P.S. Duke’s claim that my post is “slander” is utterly ridiculous. The post opens with this line: “Via Allah comes this video, which uses video editing software to make Chris Matthews appear drunk on the air.”
Does Duke have even the first clue what constitutes slander — (or libel, for that matter, since my post is in written form)? The holy Patterico says “no.”
UPDATE: Duke has deleted the post, and e-mails to say that he didn’t see my comment for technical reasons. Same problem regarding my e-mail address. Fair enough.
It’s still a ludicrous criticism of my post — but that’s fine. I get plenty of those.
Does this mean we should call you “His Holiness Patterico” from now on, or would you prefer something more down-to-earth like “Big Shot Patterico”?
DRJ (863f9f) — 3/10/2007 @ 9:31 pmOr spelling, grammar, structure or punctuation, for that matter. But maybe they’re optional now.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 3/10/2007 @ 9:33 pmYour holiness is established by your forbearance from the altogether appropriate double-“[sic]” in reprinting the title of his post. I could not have resisted that urge; the darker angels of my law review past would have seized control of my judgment.
Beldar (24e978) — 3/10/2007 @ 9:38 pmYou had to be a big shot, din’cha.
Anwyn (a130c1) — 3/10/2007 @ 10:00 pmWhy do you hate America, Patterico?
The Liberal Avenger (b8c7e2) — 3/10/2007 @ 10:03 pmOur big shot host wrote:
Just in case some of our hypocirtical host’s other readers think that’s bogus, I just wanted to note that the Akismet anti-Spam filter that I use catches things that I simply can’t figure out why were considered to be spam. One of my frequent commenters (I’ve got about eight of ’em) gets caught in it with some regularity, and a guy styling himself Phoenician in a Time of Romans (who drops by only occasionally, and is much more of a regular on Pandagon) gets caught up in the spam filter almost every time. “Overzealous” is a good description, but the spam is so bad that something has to be used.
(I oppose capital punishment in all cases, but am leaning toward making an exception for spammers — and I want the Streltsii of Tsar Ivan IV to be the ones performing the executions.)
Dana (556f76) — 3/11/2007 @ 4:42 amPat, you’ve probably quintupled-quardupled-triple whammied his hit count anyway, so he ought to be grateful.
Dana (556f76) — 3/11/2007 @ 4:44 amDana keeps his hand in his pocket when checking Patterico’s traffic stats.
The Liberal Avenger (b8c7e2) — 3/11/2007 @ 4:46 amSlander, libel, hypocrisy, hypocirsy, flotsam, jetsam … it’s all the same. C’mon people, let’s not let silly little things like facts get in the way of a good argument.
aunursa (cc8eb9) — 3/11/2007 @ 6:13 amHeh. He deleted the post.
Dwilkers (4f4ebf) — 3/11/2007 @ 6:43 amSay it ain’t so, Patterico…say it ain’t so…
fmfnavydoc (9bff5d) — 3/11/2007 @ 8:48 amit’s good to be a big shot. welcome to the club!
assistant devil's advocate (f8eef0) — 3/11/2007 @ 9:59 amNot to worry. LA doesn’t.
McGehee (5664e1) — 3/11/2007 @ 6:23 pmAll hail the holy Patterico!
Where do we pray for divine intercession? I need a speeding ticket fixed…
Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien (d1d13d) — 3/12/2007 @ 5:10 pmHmmm, I wonder if Duke had any problems when the Mainstream Media News Operations had any problem, when they speeded up Rush Limbaugh to make it seem like he was making fun of Michael J Fox’s Parkinson’s Disease. That’s not some comedian on the web, that’s the Mainstream News Media.
Jabba the Tutt (1e3558) — 3/14/2007 @ 4:49 am