Patterico's Pontifications

3/25/2007

Meeting Mailander, Fikes, Mike K., McVey, Etc. — and Almost Meeting David E.

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:25 pm



So I met Joseph Mailander, of the Martini Republic web site, at Cathy Seipp’s funeral.

He didn’t do any of the things that have annoyed me about him online. He didn’t suggest that I was a racist (because I oppose illegal immigration), or suggest that I shouldn’t have my job (because I am a “racist,” because I oppose illegal immigration), or imply (without evidence) that I blog on County time (which I don’t do).

Instead, he just shook my hand and thanked me for my recent post praising an excellent music review on his site. And I responded that it was a very good post.

Then someone dragged me elsewhere, and the conversation ended. But I thought to myself: wow, that guy seems pretty nice in person.

And I know Cathy Seipp always said he was, so I’m not alone there. (She said: “I actually have rather a soft spot for him.” And in person she told me that he had been quite nice to Maia — when I chided her for inviting Mailander (but not me) to Maia’s graduation party. Cathy responded that Maia had actually been the one handling the invitations, and Maia liked Joseph. So that made sense. Plus, I gather that Mailander was a neighbor of Cathy’s. So there you have it.)

I also saw David E., but I didn’t get a chance to say hi. Actually, I didn’t. See the UPDATE below.

Incidentally, David E. recently e-mailed me, asking:

While you’re perfectly free to ban me from posting on your site, don’t you think it’s a tad much to comment on my writing while CONTINUING to ban me, thus preventing me from making any reply?

He was referring to this post.

I thought he had something of a point, although he has done some of the same things Mailander has done in the past, like suggesting that I should be fired, claiming without basis that I am a racist, etc. You know, you can’t stop people from saying that kind of thing on other sites. But somehow, I just don’t feel like paying bandwidth costs to have people read such tripe.

I really want to let David E. back on. I keep hearing that he’s a good guy in person, and part of me wants to lift the ban. And, in fact, I would be thrilled to see all of the Seipp commenters commenting here more regularly. I met some of them at the funeral, including Mike K., Bradley J. Fikes, and Gary McVey.

But I just don’t need people threatening my job on my site. Or calling me a racist or a liar, completely without basis. Do it elsewhere. I can’t stop you. But I should pay for that? As they say: feh.

UPDATE: It turns out that I didn’t see David E. after all. He e-mails to say that he didn’t go.

Before you play the “they all look the same to Patterico” card, I have a few things to say in my defense: 1) I never met the guy before, and was going off a hazy memory of pictures seen online months ago; 2) the guy I saw, I viewed from 100-150 feet away; 3) David Scott, who has met David E., says that it looked like him from a distance; and 4) I really, really expected to see him there — so I didn’t even question it when I saw someone who resembled him.

24 Responses to “Meeting Mailander, Fikes, Mike K., McVey, Etc. — and Almost Meeting David E.

  1. I don’t know the full history of your interactions with Joseph M. and David E., but – from what I’ve seen in the comments section over the past few days – I’d have to say that you do seem a bit thin-skinned about criticism. If you can’t take the heat, you probably shouldn’t be dishing it out.

    Now I’ll probably be banned for saying that.

    Oregonian (edc644)

  2. You’re banned.

    Just kidding.

    Patterico (04465c)

  3. Patterico,

    And, in fact, I would be thrilled to see all of the Seipp commenters commenting here more regularly. I met some of them at the funeral, including Mike K., Bradley J. Fikes, and Gary McVey.

    You got it! I read your site constantly anyway, and am fascinated by your coverage of the LAT’s latest scandal/nonscandal.

    We Cathy’s Worldians will be having a meetup in the not-too-distant future. You’ll be sure to get the details. Right now, we are thinking of Traxx, the restaurant in Union Station. (The idea being to make this event as accessible as possible).

    As for David E., I devoutly hope for a rapproachment when he sees you don’t have horns.

    Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4)

  4. To the extent anyone is threatening my job or calling me a racist or liar, I’d prefer it to be on my own blog. That way I’d be sure to see it, and be able to respond to it, and not come off as a censorious thin skinned wuss.

    aplomb (4c3235)

  5. What is your name, and what do you do for a living, my courageous but currently anonymous friend?

    Patterico (04465c)

  6. Amazing the courage demonstrated by these anonymous commenters.

    Patterico (04465c)

  7. First point: Goodbye, Cathy Seipp. You will be missed.

    Second point: Aw, I don’t blame Pat for throwing people off for challenging his suitability for his profession. That can be a sensitive point for someone who has given up over $1 million over the course of a career to do this kind of work.

    Further, bad stuff can happen from blog-real life intersections, and those people who hint at making those intersections ought to get banned. Let ’em play on another playground.

    Third point: It’s good to see Bradley J. Fikes around. Hope to see you more, Bradley.

    –JRM

    JRM (355c21)

  8. Very nice, Patrick. But believe it or not, you and I are going to end up, I think, on the same side of more than a few local issues, such as affordable housing, and the wisdom of a “Marshall plan against gangs,” and also regarding Martinez.

    To be honest, most liberals who live in the City of Los Angeles could give a rat’s arse about the firing of Scheer. There are thousands of people like Scheer, any one of them will do in a pinch, so WTF was the big deal? Hey, most libs on my side of the City were only too happy with Martinez, who dared to stand up to the so-called “newsroom” at the LAT, the newsroom that seems more interested to grovel at the Mayor’s feet than to report any real news in the City. No liberal wants a newsroom like that.

    To be honest, I also marvel at my neighbors in Hollywood who, for instance, are obliged to say “I hate Bush!” every seven minutes, but who don’t question for a single minute why a forty-unit monstrosity is being built right down their block. The latter will impact their life far more than the former—it is time they tune into local issues—seven percent turnout in the last election was below pathetic, and it was certainly below either liberal or conservative contempt.

    “Slow growth” used to be a both a Democratic and a Republican mantra at the local level—now it is neither—what the hell happened?

    As per opinion editors, I don’t want anyone on my admittedly liberal “side” as much as I want someone who is interested in presenting the truth to the public. A person who is interested in the truth above all else is the best possible opinion editor, and the Times will be hard-pressed to top Martinez in that department.

    That man’s the best conservative
    who lops the mould’r’d branch away.

    –Tennyson

    Best to you.

    joseph (18f75d)

  9. You’re within your rights to comment on whoever you like, and to allow or ban any commenter you like. Just as he’s within his rights to do the same on his own patch of bandwidth.

    Jim Treacher (867a4f)

  10. Was D.E. there? I heard he wasn’t, and I didn’t see him. Super bummer if I missed him. He’s pretty mean to you, but it does seem odd to comment when he can’t reply. Though I guess he could comment on his blog.

    David N. Scott (71e316)

  11. I’m not sure. I saw a guy at a distance who looked like pictures of him that I’ve seen. But if not, then I’m opening myself up to another accusation of racism. Whee.

    Patterico (04465c)

  12. Hahaha… yeah, it’s a dilemna. It’s hard when you’ve only seen pictures.

    That guy really did look like D.E.’s picture online, though: grayish beard, suit, similar hair. But he seemed a bit heavier, maybe a rounder face, he had an earring, he came in with what sure seemed to be his wife and daughter…

    I sat next to him though so I probably got a better look.

    David N. Scott (71e316)

  13. Oh. Well, I saw him from a good distance away, probably 100-150 feet. Maybe it wasn’t him.

    Patterico (04465c)

  14. I’m looking at online images — I could swear it was the same guy.

    Patterico (04465c)

  15. David wasn’t there, and I was disappointed. He’s so interesting (which is a really weak way of stating it) about film. I’ve never talked with him about anything else, but why would I want to?

    KateCoe (0b3752)

  16. Patterico, I don’t think it matters one iota if others think you’re thin-skinned, who’s to say? Its your blog and a sharp insightful one at that. You’re the proprietor, you make the rules and determine your standards. I see them as quite reasonable.

    It is commonsense that if one is a guest on another’s blog and chooses to behave offensively then they risk getting banned. It speaks volumes that one who has offended to such a degree and hasn’t had the good grace to apologize or even recognize their bad behavior and instead whines about it on other blogs (or publicly). Perhaps if the banned blogger offerd an apology or at the least, evidenced some sort of contrition it might make a difference.

    (another from CW’s)

    Dana (a74c34)

  17. JRM,
    Thank you for your kind words.

    Dana,
    Nice to see another of the CW diaspora here.
    Also, what you said.

    Bradley J. Fikes (d61e91)

  18. You and Kaus have had your fingers pointed at the LAT trainwreck for so long…as much as the current dustup is a distraction from the paper’s real problems, you must feel a certain sense of vindication. Although the circumstances of our meeting could scarcely have been sadder, it was a pleasure and an honor to meet you face to face. (and BTW gals, Chris Noth has nothin’ on our Pat). We CW’ers have admired the Patterico site for years, and we do know something about pontification….

    Gary McVey (af935e)

  19. I wholeheartedly agree it would be nice if David E. could comment here again but I think that’s up to him and not Patterico. All David E. has to do is email Patterico with a polite apology or, if he doesn’t want to do that, a promise not to call Patterico a racist or charge him with blogging on government time. I’m suspect Patterico would consider reinstating David E. if that happened. Until that happens, however, I would hold off on the “forgive and forget” option.

    DRJ (6984d0)

  20. re the L.A.T.s implosion and ensuing coverage here and elsewhere in the blogosphere re the scandal or non-scandal, depending on one’s pov, it has made me curious about whether the public disection and commentary re it has inadvertently increased sales of the Sunday edition? It would be funny if it did.

    …sorry for going off point but I blame Gary McVey’s 18th post….its well known we from CW are ridiculously unable to stay on topic.

    Dana (228a48)

  21. … its well known we from CW are ridiculously unable to stay on topic.

    I resemble that remark!

    Bradley J. Fikes (d61e91)

  22. …we from CW are ridiculously unable to stay on topic.

    What topic? 🙂

    Mike in S.A. (6921d8)

  23. All David E. has to do is email Patterico with a polite apology or, if he doesn’t want to do that, a promise not to call Patterico a racist or charge him with blogging on government time.

    Have you ever considered going into science fiction?

    Jim Treacher (867a4f)

  24. JT,

    You mean the internet isn’t science fiction?

    DRJ (6984d0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0937 secs.