Patterico's Pontifications

3/19/2009

Points of Agreement on Interpretation

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:32 pm

I’m going to reproduce part of a comment I left at Jeff Goldstein’s site, because I think it’s important to note our points of agreement on issues of interpretation:

1) Interpreters should try to divine the speaker’s true intent.

2) Intent is whatever the speaker meant.

3) The speaker is not necessarily the most reliable interpreter of his own words.

4) It is perfectly justifiable to tailor one’s presentation to suit the audience.

5) If you fail to communicate your position to the audience because you failed to signal your intent properly, you should clarify.

6) Speakers have no responsibility to self-censor to prevent unreasonable and bad faith misinterpretations of their words.

Jeff and I agree on all of this.

The differences, I think, lie in 1) debates over matters of degree in situations where there are no absolutes, and 2) differing interpretations of specific fact patterns.

This hardly seems like earth-shattering stuff, in terms of the applicable principles.

The debate, I think, starts when people try to apply these principles. You can mock hypotheticals, as Jeff repeatedly does, but I happen to think they are valuable for crystallizing the differences between people in an abstract way.

Not everyone agrees; such is life. Don’t want to answer the hypotheticals or consider them? You can move on to the next post. That’s fine with me. Offended by them so much that you hate the blog? That seems like a bizarre reaction, but if it’s yours, you can move on to the next blog.

I have enjoyed the discussions here occasioned by my hypotheticals, joined by people who wish to talk with me in good faith. Those are the people with whom I will continue to speak. I am going to stop talking to others; life is too short to speak with people whom you know are not going to debate you in good faith.

POSTSCRIPT DESIGNED TO DRIVE LAWYER-HATERS ABSOLUTELY INSANE: There is indeed a parallel to be drawn between analyzing intent in language and analyzing intent in criminal law.

Consider the defendant charged with attempted murder, where intent to kill is the issue. The prosecution must prove the defendant’s intent was to kill. The defendant will attempt to raise a reasonable doubt about his intent, by pointing to evidence that his intent was not an intent to kill (or gaps in the prosecution’s evidence on that issue).

Regardless of what the arguments are, his intent was his intent. Either he meant to kill or he didn’t. This intent was fixed at the moment of the act. It cannot be changed by subsequent interpretations. This is like intentionalism: the speaker meant what he meant.

In a courtroom, nobody can know the defendant’s intent with 100% certainty. All the jury can do is strive to learn his intent based on his actions. Often they can reach an interpretation that they are confident is right — and it may be one different from that offered by the actor. The jury might also agree with the defendant’s interpretation, if it appears reasonable in light of the totality of the evidence. And under the law, the actor gets the benefit of any reasonable doubt. If two interpretations are both reasonable, you choose the one that favors the defendant.

This is all true in the realm of interpreting words as well. You can’t ALWAYS trust the speaker’s interpretation. You make the best possible judgment you can based on the information available to you. And you should take the speaker’s intent into account — and if two interpretations are both reasonable, and one is offered by the speaker, you choose the one that favors the speaker’s stated interpretation. This is the principle of charity.

In either process, it’s critical to understand that any interpretation must strive to learn the actor/speaker’s intent. You can’t begin the analysis unless you understand that.

But once you understand that basic point, the real interest lies elsewhere — in how to use the available evidence to interpret intent.

That’s where the rubber meets the road. And that’s what I want to discuss with those of you who are operating in good faith.

There are lots of interesting nooks and crannies there to explore. And as long as I’m interested enough to write about them, and you’re interested enough to read and comment, we’ll explore them. Maybe not for “the rest of our [bleep]ing lives” — but for as long as the discussion remains interesting to the parties in this conversation.

And if it’s not interesting, there’s always going to be a post where I blast Obama and/or the L.A. Times. That’s the bread and butter of this site and I’m not giving it up.

284 Responses to “Points of Agreement on Interpretation”

  1. (please indulge my geekiness, but I just remembered this)

    “Star Trek: The Savage Curtain (#3.22)” (1969)

    Abraham Lincoln: What a charming Negress. Oh, forgive me, my dear. I know in my time some used that term as a description of property.

    Uhura: But why should I object to that term, sir? In our century, we’ve learned not to fear words.

    Darleen (4e02c9)

  2. Too bad you and Jeff cannot do one of those Vulcan mind melds. I know intent is not an absolute because I say things and occasionally find people interpret it wrong. Sometimes it is their interpretation that is off and sometimes it is my delivery that is off (more of the former of course). Sometimes it is both.

    But Jeff is right that this current game has been rigged to favor the house and if we do not challenge that eventually we will lose. Obama gets passes that Bush never did. Dodd and Frank can engage in what appears to be out and out corruption and get away with it. And politics are just a tiny part of all of this. This bias is more endemic and expansive than that.

    My seven year old got bullied by a bigger kid at school. No big deal, the kid was holding his arms and making him punch himself in the face. So he pulled away and punched him in the stomach.

    My kid got in trouble.

    My wife had to go in and meet with the teacher and get some lecture on how violence is zero tollerance. We had to explain that our son is told never to start a fight, but he can physically defend himself within proportion if attacked. We might as well have said our kid is going to pack a Glock to school. I get why people homeschool.

    So I went home and told him what he did was good. I told him to do it again if it happens again and I gave him the talk about proportionality, and got him an ice cream to make up for the bullshit feminization he had to go through at school. Why isn’t the Scranton Scrapper Plugs Biden defending my boy? Why isn’t there a White House council on Men and Boys? It is boys who are the endangered ones right now.

    Joe (17aeff)

  3. Speaking of the bread and butter:

    Teaser: I’ve got an exclusive interview with John Ziegler about the LA Times’s talk radio story from earlier this week. Just need time to put it together.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  4. Uhura: But why should I object to that term, sir? In our century, we’ve learned not to fear words.

    Interesting concept — we could talk about that a lot.

    Sounds like some people are working up some OUTRAGEOUS OUTRAGE over Obama’s “Special Olympics” comment, Darleen. Join with me, won’t you? in denouncing the political correctness of such OUTRAGE?

    I mean, we can agree that it was a boneheaded thing to say and that you shouldn’t have a tin ear when you’re supposedly famous for your clear speech. Depending on the identity of the famous guy, that is.

    But OUTRAGE over this? Seems like perception matters to some only when they don’t like the speaker. Me, I’m consistent: I criticize Rush and Obama both, without getting worked up into a lather about either.

    But I think it’s stupid — really liberal-type stupid — to go over-the-top OUTRAGED about some dumb remark like this. Allah is correct about that. I agree with him there. Mock Obama. Laugh at the idea that he’s a good communicator. But leave the outrage to the idiot liberals.

    How ’bout you, Darleen? You’re an opponent of P.C. attitudes. I can only assume you’re with me.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  5. I’d love to see more specifics on that talk radio story. It read like a parody of typical LAT “reporting”.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  6. For the last time, I answered the hypothetical you left on my site. You raised it for those too lazy to check out your dog hypotheticals. Or for those, like me, whom you couldn’t get to care about them.

    But here. Answered.

    I also answered what you said you think is important and why. And you breezed right over my answer, acted offended, took your ball and went home.

    I really do think you’ve gone insane.

    [Recovered from the spam filter at 7:26 p.m. on 3-20-09. — P]

    Jeff G (40465d)

  7. And yes, the “special Olympics” comment doesn’t deserve an outraged response, just eye-rolling and a sardonic guffaw.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  8. Ziegler had a lot of interesting stuff to say. I may not be able to write it up until the weekend.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  9. Patrick, O deserves all the mocking and scorn he’ll get for being so tactless. Especially since it’s sort of disgraceful for him to be simpering and flirting on late night TeeVee talk shows…
    (Now more than ever ™.)

    I think Treacher and ASHQ have done a creditable job so far, don’t you?

    SarahW (fdd722)

  10. And yes, the “special Olympics” comment doesn’t deserve an outraged response, just eye-rolling and a sardonic guffaw.

    Indeed. I know the opponents of political correctness like Darleen will agree with me on this.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  11. Patrick, actually O’s remark was very insulting and unkind. What’s the word? Jerky.

    SarahW (fdd722)

  12. But I don’t mind his lame attempt at self-deprecation comparing himself to kids who struggle mightily to overcome and achieve in athletics. A lot of those kids can run faster than I can.

    I don’t mind him painting an image of himself as spastic and vulgar. Maybe it’ll drop glitter-scales from an eye or two.

    SarahW (fdd722)

  13. The Special Olympics comment was a foot-in-mouth blunder. No more, no less. I don’t believe intent to mock anyone but himself was behind his saying it. Hypersensitivity doesn’t serve objectivity too well. Besides Mr. Obama is doing far more consequential things that really do deserve our outrage.

    Dana (137151)

  14. Patrick, O deserves all the mocking and scorn he’ll get for being so tactless

    Mocking for sure. Scorn . . . depends on what you mean.

    I scorn him for being a crappy communicator.

    I think the comment was in poor taste, no doubt.

    But if people start up some phony outrage machine that they would never ever fucking start up for a conservative, then they are frauds out to get attention.

    Which ties in nicely with the Ziegler interview. His view of John and Ken is that they just pander to the audience.

    It’s easy for conservatives to do that nowadays. Just scream at Obama for everything he does even if you have to tie your principles into pretzels to do it. Pandering 101 says principles don’t matter.

    Your audience will cheer you on. So it’s a pretty ball-less move.

    Luckily, most conservatives I see are taking the correct approach. Mock Obama for being an idiot and can the OUTRAGE.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  15. “And if it’s not interesting, there’s always going to be a post where I blast Obama and/or the L.A. Times. That’s the bread and butter of this site and I’m not giving it up.”

    So why don’t you drop this stupid “Interpretation” argument and start getting back to the bread and butter; OUR PRESIDENT IS GOING ON FUCKING LENO AND ACTING LIKE AN ASSHOLE AND THE LA TIMES WILL HAVE AN ARTICLE ABOUT HOW NICE HE LOOKED ON TEEVEE?

    I’m just sayin’.

    [Answer: because, as Jon Stewart said to Tucker Carlson, I’m not your monkey. Move on to the next post if you don’t like the one you’re reading. — P]

    Tman (ea2948)

  16. Sarah W, do you really believe his motive in making the comment was to pointedly insult and be unkind toward those in the Special Olympics while he was on national television?

    Dana (137151)

  17. SarahW,
    Of course what Obama said was unkind and also thoughtless, especially on national television. But such a gaffe pales in comparison to the monumental screwups Obama’s making on a daily basis.

    Let’s not get distracted.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  18. Besides Mr. Obama is doing far more consequential things that really do deserve our outrage.

    Damn straight. As Allahpundit noted, the truly outrageous thing he said was that Geithner was doing an “outstanding” job.

    Dana has it just right.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  19. Sarah W, do you really believe his motive in making the comment was to pointedly insult and be unkind toward those in the Special Olympics while he was on national television?

    There’s no way that was his INTENT, SarahW.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  20. But if people start up some phony outrage machine that they would never ever fucking start up for a conservative,

    No, the outrage is over the fact that the MSM double standard means he won’t pay for this, whereas Bush…

    …well, you know the routine.

    dicentra (19eef0)

  21. Dana beat me to the punch — because I was writing that Obama’s screwups dwarf such a gaffe, and then I reworded it so as not to be seen as making fun of dwarfs, in the context of Obama’s remark. That cost me an extra minute or so.

    I am not making this up.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  22. Break it down now, Dana
    He implied he was a crummy bowler, that was his intention.

    His comparison wasn’t really so apt, as a lot of special olympics athletes are really quite adept athletes, despite the challenges they work to overcome. Not as spastic and gimpy and inferior as oh so self-deprecating Mr. Elegant meant to say he was.

    I just think he’s a jerk is all.

    SarahW (fdd722)

  23. He insulted them by implying they are the very definition of uncoordination and lack of grace and skill.

    Kinda jerky, yeah.

    SarahW (fdd722)

  24. Pat, no he didn’t go out of his way to do anything but make himself seem a swell guy, on TV. I would thing that was a FAIL.

    SarahW (fdd722)

  25. or think

    SarahW (fdd722)

  26. Andy Levy said that the joke was directed at the fact that Leno was applauding his 129. I think the idea was “You’re applauding a poor performance because you’re patronizing me.” Didn’t watch it and don’t know if that interpretation is right, but it rings true.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  27. SarahW:

    It was a big fail. What he said, although he didn’t intend offense, was certain to cause reasonable people to be offended. He should have taken that into account and been more careful with his words. We can agree on that because he’s a liberal.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  28. That’s kind of a distinction without a difference, should that be the case, Patterico.

    Still the same insulting implication about “special Olympians are patronized and praised despite poor performance” in that case.

    But Hey, if he was going for ” I’m a tin-eared haughty doofus”, TOTAL WIN.

    SarahW (fdd722)

  29. SarahW,

    The important thing, I think, is that whether you’re outraged or not, you should use the outrageous nature of his remarks as a weapon against leftists. That would be a proper way to react, no? I think we approve when leftists do that to us.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  30. Sarah W, I agree his comparison didn’t work on one level (aside from being insensitive and cloddish) but not necessarily because Special Olympians are adept athletes but rather Special Olympics itself represents a collective whole of those with varying disabilities and in our society it’s just a red flag – don’t go there. We treat with care. I do believe he knows better but his mouth got the better of him. No teleprompter, what’d you expect?

    If you believe him to be a jerk from the get-go, it’s more difficult to cut him slack for something not necessarily mean spirited but rather just one of those foot-in-mouth moments…

    Dana (137151)

  31. We can agree on that because Obama is not a nice person.

    SarahW (fdd722)

  32. But Hey, if he was going for ” I’m a tin-eared haughty doofus”, TOTAL WIN.

    Good one.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  33. If you believe him to be a jerk from the get-go, it’s more difficult to cut him slack for something not necessarily mean spirited but rather just one of those foot-in-mouth moments…

    The Other are always jerks. We cut slack to our own and give the worst interpretation to The Other. This is what we do.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  34. We can agree on that because Obama is not a nice person.

    He is, in fact, a liberal and a Bad Man. If he said something, the worst possible interpretation is accordingly always the correct one. I’m feeling my OUTRAGE building!

    I like your “tin-eared haughty doofus” remark best. He certainly comes across like a buffoon at times, for a guy so Great With Words — huh?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  35. What are the points of disagreement? The methodology of determining intent?

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  36. His remark WASN”T outrageous though, just kind of beneath his station in life. Kinda…jerky. The think I wouldn’t mind at all from a Sarah Silverman or Sean Penn.

    It’s kind of icky for him to go on Leno in the first place.

    SarahW (fdd722)

  37. “a liberal and a Bad Man. ”

    Giggety, Patterico, I think I made it clear I was distinguishing “liberal” from “not nice”. You are a tease.

    SarahW (fdd722)

  38. What are the points of disagreement? The methodology of determining intent?

    No. I think they have mostly to do with interpretation of intent when the speaker knows he will offend reasonable people. In such cases, perception may matter or not, apparently depending on the political party of the perceiver. Obama offends? OUTRAGE! Rush offends? OUTLAW!

    I had worked on discovering the specific points of theoretical disagreement. I no longer really care. But I thought I’d note the points of agreement, because a lot of people have been misled on the points I outline.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  39. I think I made it clear I was distinguishing “liberal” from “not nice”.

    Is there a difference? Liberals are deranged. Surely you knew this.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  40. Green spewing White House fountains.

    sdferr (8643ba)

  41. Okay.

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  42. Obama’s political isolation is one reason for his malaprops. His entire life is based in a small, insular corner of Chicago politics. To succeed on the national scene, Obama needs his entourage to sculpt speeches to reach beyond that niche. So when Obama strays too far from the First Teleprompter, he’s lost and babbles silly and thoughtless things.

    That isolation could also help explain Obama’s needless and undignified decision to pick a fight with Limbaugh. Among his zealots, the evil folly of El Rushbo is dogma like the Immaculate Conception.

    I’ve found a sure way to get a stunned reaction from one’s MSM peers: Start a sentence with, “When listening to Rush Limbaugh this morning. . .”

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  43. The Other are always jerks. We cut slack to our own and give the worst interpretation to The Other. This is what we do.

    Because the proverbial deck is stacked against Us, we always end up looking the bigger jerks. But no matter, we all end up looking like jerks to some varying degree. I think the left just gives us more to work with.

    Dana (137151)

  44. His entire life is based in a small, insular corner of Chicago politics.

    And he also has received no pushback and too much approval in his grooming to get to the top. No one challenged his thinking, forced an issue and made him think original thoughts as he sought to work through an issue. Ultimately no iron sharpening iron. A disservice to him as much as he is doing a disservice to us.

    Dana (137151)

  45. I think it actually speaks volumes louder that the POTUS, early in the history of his administration, appeared on a friggin’ late-night entertainment talk show to begin with.

    Schlock, baby!

    The office of the US presidency once commanded a certain level of respect. But in the ongoing Hollywoodization of the White House, everything is becoming smaller, flunkier, cheesier and dumber than ever before. A mix of the counterfeit and a bad, broken-down reality.

    Mark (411533)

  46. The office of the US presidency once commanded a certain level of respect. But in the ongoing Hollywoodization of the White House, everything is becoming smaller, flunkier, cheesier and dumber than ever before. A mix of the counterfeit and a bad, broken-down reality.

    On some level, I don’t think this dude really gets the fact that he is the President.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  47. Patt

    Of course I’m not OUTRAGED!!!ELeventy!!1!

    However, large, throat-choking heaps of wild, outrageous mocking in the form of faux outrage is more than appropriate, it is damned morally obligatory as an offensive weapon. Barry wanted to be hip and funny and fell flat on his face and he wants a Mulligan because, dammit, he ALWAYS gets a Mulligan because he’s a Black man born of a single, teenager white girl who Grew Up In Hardship and He Won(tm) so the MSM will do as they always have done and cover for him.

    They owe Him!!

    Barry’s mirror suit has slipped and his gigantinormous ego along with his charming narcissistic schtick is revealed. His “lipstick on a pig” directed at Palin, his “middle finger” scratching at Hillary, his comment on Jessica Simpson’s weight, his (and Michelle’s) crass snubbing of PM Brown, his wife and young sons, his staff “forgetting” to invite Dana Rohrabacher to the Obama town meeting in Rohrabacher’s OWN DISTRICT — add to that his attempts at policy by trial balloon — ie charging vets for their war wounds to raise cash causes him an Emily “nevermind” Litella moment.

    The man has never had to really DO anything but show up and make pretense to leadership and then have his minions clean up the mess.

    No, sir. My OUTRAGE is reserved for the idiots who voted him in who should have known better. But I cannot mock this supercilious Teen Fanzine Prezznit with the soul of a looter and the work habits of tuna-sated cat.

    Darleen (4e02c9)

  48. The TOTUS should be mocked and ridiculed for this. I do not think his intent was to offend. I just think that when the TOTUS is not in front of the POTUS, he is not the great “speaker”/reader that he has been made out to be.

    As I noted previously, what gripes me most about these kinds of things is that if the party was reversed, the ginned up outrage would dwarf what we will see since the TOTUS is pure of heart. Had Bush done this, it would be different. Period.

    JD (ae93de)

  49. “but I cannot mock enough this ..”

    Darleen (4e02c9)

  50. However, large, throat-choking heaps of wild, outrageous mocking in the form of faux outrage is more than appropriate, it is damned morally obligatory as an offensive weapon.

    It is undeniable. We must seize Obama’s meaning from him and advance false interpretations of his intent, to use against him and his ilk like a weapon. This is the imperative; by God, they did it to us and we will do it to them.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  51. The speaker is not necessarily the most reliable interpreter of his own words

    ?? HUH ??

    Who better to interpret words than the person who spoke them? I would agree with your other tenets, but this seems a bit of a stretch. Unless the person in question is speaking out of ignorance on a subject, and misspeaks based on incorrect context or terminology, then they can and should be corrected by those with greater knowledge of the subject.

    But giving anyone other than the speaker greater weight in interpreting intent would seem to feed the problem, not solve it.

    Steve B (5eacf6)

  52. Hey Patt

    Mocking doesn’t mean I’m seizing his intent, it means I don’t give a rip about his intent … what he said was stooooopid and in the totality of his mean-spirited remarks mocking needs to be used to prick that overinflated ego and to humble (I’m not counting on it, to be sure, but a girl can dream) his syphocants. It would be interesting to see at what point Chris’s “tingle up my leg” turns into a trickle down it.

    Darleen (4e02c9)

  53. SteveB

    The speaker could be lying.

    Ever see “The Usual Suspects”?

    Darleen (4e02c9)

  54. BTW Pat,

    Do you want to give another Mulligan to Obama over “forgetting” to get an invitation to Rohrabacher?

    How many Mulligans does he get?

    Darleen (4e02c9)

  55. Patterico – People just hate your hypotheticals. They’re meaningless, repetitive, too long, plus they force people to think about issues in ways they haven’t before. The whining and avoidance from the PW crowd is really the mirror of what they were pissed off at you for doing when Jeff started this whole debate by attacking one of posts. You didn’t directly engage his argument, at least initially, and people there got upset. Guess what, people are doing are doing the reverse now but fail to see TEH IRONY.

    I’m looking at you blowhard and Darleen.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  56. Don’t even know what you’re talking about, Darleen. What Mulligan did I give him and what is this controversy you’re speaking of?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  57. Patterico – People just hate your hypotheticals. They’re meaningless, repetitive, too long, plus they force people to think about issues in ways they haven’t before.

    It’s that last part that made it interesting to me. But I also sense that there is people can sense that the hypos are pushing them in directions they just don’t want to go, and it causes them discomfort.

    Whatever. Their call. I said all along nobody owes me an answer.

    Guess what, people are doing are doing the reverse now but fail to see TEH IRONY.

    Yeah, there’s a lot of that going around. By the way, did you know it’s OK not to give a shit about Obama’s intent, but just use his words against him as a cudgel?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  58. The speaker is not necessarily the most reliable interpreter of his own words

    ?? HUH ??

    Who better to interpret words than the person who spoke them? I would agree with your other tenets, but this seems a bit of a stretch. Unless the person in question is speaking out of ignorance on a subject, and misspeaks based on incorrect context or terminology, then they can and should be corrected by those with greater knowledge of the subject.

    But giving anyone other than the speaker greater weight in interpreting intent would seem to feed the problem, not solve it.

    It’s quotes like this that make me glad I wrote the post.

    Yup, SteveB. It’s true. I was confused about it myself a while back but somewhere in the debates I got it. The idea that the author determines intent does not mean he determines interpretation.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  59. I wouldn’t go quite so far as to say the hypotheticals are meaningless. But I found them excruciating.

    There were sometimes unspoken assumptions and lacunae (such as not mentioning the boy’s age in the dog-calling scenario) that diminished their value. Plain back-and-forth was better to clarify meaning. Jeff G.’s statements and restatements were helpful. And in the end, as you said, the differences between you two are not as great as they seemed at first.

    Of course, it’s your blog, and if you post another hypothetical I’ll try to slog through it, as long as I don’t have a headache at the time.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  60. “I’m looking at you blowhard”

    Excellent. In this very thread I asked P. to tell me where he found disagreement. Over at PW I asked P. to state his position in the positive.

    This word “teh”, I don’t understand it.

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  61. Of course, I’m not offended by Obama’s comment, I know what he meant. He made fun of himself, in a very conventional way. Other people take offense much more easily than me though, Obama seems to be one of them. When it’s convenient.

    Maybe I’m confused, I’m a bit of a retard.

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  62. “In this very thread I asked P. to tell me where he found disagreement.”

    And I said:

    “I think they have mostly to do with interpretation of intent when the speaker knows he will offend reasonable people. In such cases, perception may matter or not, apparently depending on the political party of the perceiver.”

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  63. If you want me to be serious, just look at the first sentence.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  64. “I think they have mostly to do with interpretation of intent when the speaker knows he will offend reasonable people. In such cases, perception may matter or not, apparently depending on the political party of the perceiver.”

    The first sentence I tentatively offered as a positive statement of your view over at PW. Something like, “As a speaker’s conception of the listener’s likely perception informs their speech, in an area of ambiguity, we might look to a reasonable listener’s interpretation as a proxy for intent.” Is that what you’re kinda sorta saying. As an interpretive methodology. If not, am I even close to your view?

    As to the second sentence, it doesn’t apply to me. Obama could have gone a few degrees farther and if I didn’t think he was speaking with malice, I would have given him a break. Except, once again, to point out that he isn’t the most steadfast advocate of giving people the benefit of the doubt.

    Still, I’m not sure what “teh” means.

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  65. And, hey, I admit it, I find Allah’s conception of “politically savvy” to be a funny thing. It’s hard to predict where he’ll come down on any given case.

    It’s doubly funny that someone we refer to as Allah, blasphemous to a few hundred million, is involved in the conversation to start with.

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  66. “If you want me to be serious, just look at the first sentence.”

    Of the comment, of the post, of the blog? Which first sentence?

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  67. Okay, one last comment before I go to sleep.

    P, obviously you have and will once again deal with Muslims in the courtroom.

    On this very blog, you link and speak with someone called “Allah”. On friendly terms, no less. I’ve not once read a comment or blog post from you castigating this Allah, someone that you know is offending some members of the Islamic faith.

    Now, this much we know for certain, Allah could go with any name he wants, any name whatsoever. Yet, he went with Allah, knowing the offense he was causing. Many names available, but Allah was the choice.

    Should you now withdraw from any case that ever deals with a Muslim? Is this prejudicial?

    Me? I’d say no. Whether it was popular or not. Whether it polled well or not. If someone tried to pull you from cases because you wouldn’t disassociate yourself from the religiously intolerant, I’d say no.

    What would you say?

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  68. Darleen –

    Perhaps if we make a distinction between “interpretation” and “deconstruction.”

    If the speakers INTENT was to deceive you (by lying), how are you going to interpret that, without prior knowledge of his intent, or perhaps character and history?

    Doesn’t really fit the argument. The concept is that a speaker, making a good-faith and well-intentioned attempt to communicate, should not be (excessively) bound by the spurious interpration imposed on his words based on THEIR agenda, rather than HIS intent.

    My point is that putting greater credence on third party interpretation than on the speakers intended meaning is like arguing with someone about WHAT they meant!

    Sadly, we’ve probably had these conversations, usually with a spouse. “But I didn’t MEAN that your are an insuffereable cow….”

    “YES YOU DID!”

    Interpreting a falsehood requires more DEDCUTION than interpretation.

    Steve B (5eacf6)

  69. A failure to convey the appropriate mean, should fall back on the speaker to provide a better METHOD of communicating, or use different syntax or language.

    A failure to do so, resulting in a continued misunderstanding by the listeners says that either the speaker sees the listener as so obviously off-base that it wouldn’t do any good to try and restate, as the listener has already made up their mind to be offended, regardless, or that the speaker could care less what the listener things, and isn’t interested in being properly understood by the complaintant.

    Though I hesitate to reinfuse Rush into this, I suspect that the first example more accurately typifies his response to the incident.

    Steve B (5eacf6)

  70. Have you heard Sean Morey’s “He said, She Heard? NSFW or for young ears.

    nk (0a1ba0)

  71. But Obama did say “Tim Geithner, you are doing a heck of a job!

    Nuiance! Maybe Allah will come back and not be outraged.

    Joe (17aeff)

  72. 1) Interpreters should try to divine the speaker’s true intent.

    Stop right there.
    This simply isn’t going to ever happen given the IQ and education demographics of the electorate, and also because it requires an investment of energy on the part of interpreters.
    It is magical thinking on the part of conservatives that interpreters would expend either resources (which may may too limited to divine intent anyways) or energy.
    The MSM is wholly a creature of the evolutionary marketplace….providing easily digestible attractively sensationalized info packets. In order to compete you have to do the same.
    Goldstein sensibly realizes that a competitive approach is nonviable, so he prefers to outlaw out.

    wheeler's cat (9645a6)

  73. Patt

    Don’t even know what you’re talking about, Darleen. What Mulligan did I give him and what is this controversy you’re speaking of?

    To clarify, the “you” was universal as in “How many Mulligans does one want to give Obama?”

    And I guess you missed reading the transcript of Obama’s “townhall” meeting in Costa Mesa, where he introduces all the Important People at the beginning but curiously

    Give the Lieutenant Governor a big round of applause. (Applause.) We’ve got the Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, who is here. (Applause.) Got an outstanding member of Congress, Representative Loretta Sanchez. (Applause.) Now, this is not Loretta’s district, this is actually Dana Rohrabacher’s district. AUDIENCE: Booo –

    THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no, we actually — our office screwed up and I think didn’t get the invitation to him on time, so he’s not here. That was a screw-up on our part. So I want to let him know we’re sorry about that, and I want everybody to give him a big round of applause, it’s his district. (Applause.)

    How many “screw ups” does this Good Man get before it becomes apparent that he figures he can be as nasty as he wants and snub others with impunity because he knows it won’t be covered in the MSM.

    If a British PM’s child cries over a cheap White House plastic helicopter and a NYTimes reporter refuses to hear it, did it ever happen?

    Obama is supposed to be POTUS, not some Rock diva demanding green M&Ms and bottles of Fuji Water in the greenroom at all times when He’s on set.

    Darleen (4e02c9)

  74. daleyrocks

    I answered each of Patts excruciating hypos on point yet he never addressed my real world examples.

    No whining or avoidance, just frustration at the realization that I thought I was dealing in a debate but found out I was only being cross-examined (and the lawyer doesn’t have to answer any questions).

    Darleen (4e02c9)

  75. First off, I’m not bothered by Obama’s attempted joke. I’ve laughed at similar jokes from others, albeit better executed.

    But in response to this:

    It is undeniable. We must seize Obama’s meaning from him and advance false interpretations of his intent, to use against him and his ilk like a weapon. This is the imperative; by God, they did it to us and we will do it to them.

    I think you’re missing the bigger picture here. Responding this way isn’t ironic or hypocritical. And it doesn’t prove that non-intentionalist interpretation is acceptable. (Assuming that is what you’re arguing. I’m not really sure at this point.)

    Wouldn’t this be considered a good tactical move? Assuming the final goal is a more widespread use of intentionalism, isn’t this the correct response? This will force the opponent into using our own arguments to defend themselves. His allies and defenders will have to argue intent, thus further legitimizing the argument for future use by us, as well as marginalizing the acceptability of non-intentionalist interpretation.

    The risk is that the opponent accepts the non-intentionalist interpretation and responds accordingly. “I’m insensitive. I’m sorry. I’ll work to better myself.” This response effectively reverses the tactical advantage, and damages our goal. However, in this case, I’d wager the opponent would never respond this way. In fact, he hasn’t. The White House response argues intent.

    Mob (2fea0c)

  76. Also, he was *constructively* insulting the performance of Special Olympian bowlers by comparing his performance with theirs.
    A minor point I made last night – many SO athletes turn in objectively decent or superior performances.

    SarahW (fdd722)

  77. From the comments thread on Jake Tapper’s post

    My daughter called me this morning after hearing about President Obama’s “Special Olympics” comment. Through her tears she said, “We have worked so hard to break this stereotype. I can’t believe President Obabma would put us down.” She and her fiance have cerebral palsy and work tirelessly to focus public perception on the positive abilities of individuals with disabilities. What a thoughtless comment by the leader of our country.

    * * * * * *

    I’m the mom of a special needa child, now grown, and this was callous. I’ve heard enough “retard” jokes to last a lifetime, thanks, and dried my daughter’s tears over them plenty of times.

    Has he ever been to a Special Olympics? Those kids likely have more guts, determination, and drive than he does. Shame on him.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  78. O challenged to a bowl-off.

    If it isn’t too far beneath him ( not nearly the gravitas conferred by a Tonight Show gig) , accepting would be the best PR to be got at this point.

    SarahW (fdd722)

  79. Darleen @73

    I. Did. Not. Know. That.

    “No whining or avoidance” – Heh. Amazing you can even put this in a comment!

    he never addressed my real world examples – Your real world examples were served up outside the hypos, at least the ones I recall on this site.

    “found out I was only being cross-examined” – That’s usually the way the hypos get teased out. And are you telling me there is no cross examination at PW? Seriously?

    Sounds like more whining and complaining. Also frustration at your inability to control the direction of the debate which is a nondebate in your eyes.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  80. Pendleton.

    Just caught on last night to the fact that you’re blowhard.

    Good of you to talk to an “insane” “liar” like me. (No, you didn’t say that.)

    By “first sentence” I meant of the previous comment.

    “As a speaker’s conception of the listener’s likely perception informs their speech, in an area of ambiguity, we might look to a reasonable listener’s interpretation as a proxy for intent.”

    Before the debates with Jeff I might have agreed to something like that phraseology. But what I would have MEANT, and what I now know I should say to be clear, is something different. Because “proxy for intent” is not accurate.

    I might say something like:“As a speaker’s conception of the listener’s likely perception may inform the speech, in an area of ambiguity, we might look to a reasonable listener’s interpretation — an interpretation known to the speaker to be a likely interpretation — as evidence of the speaker’s intent as we interpret his words to learn his intent.” Don’t hold me to that hastily scribbled response, but it seems more or less right.

    Much has to do with societal reaction and what’s appropriate, too.

    In criminal law (there he goes with the lawyer stuff again) we hold a murderer equally accountable whether he a) intended to kill or b) knew the likely consequences of his actions were deadly but b) acted with deliberate indifference to those deadly consequences. If I bash you in the head repeatedly with a brick and can convincingly argue that I didn’t intend to kill you — I just knew you’d probably die and I didn’t give a shit — I still go to prison for life if you die.

    Oddly, however, I don’t if you live. Because for *attempted* murder, INTENT to kill is absolutely required.

    So there are parallels that cut both ways.

    That help?

    Patterico (536ba9)

  81. I suggest that Patterico and Jeff always kiss and make up after their disagreements and we, who take one side or the other, end up looking like assholes. Let’s just let the kids sort it out by themselves from now on.

    nk (0a1ba0)

  82. Does Pendleton mean blowhard or are they just each others’ blog bitches?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  83. Darleen,

    You most certainly did not answer my hypos as written. You answered the parts you wanted to answer — the parts least likely to challenge your assumptions. I didn’t answer your question because you didn’t answer mine.

    You’re under no obligation to do so, of course. But you shouldn’t claim to have done so unless you actually have.

    Instead you seem more intent on repeatedly invoking my profession so you can claim I’m being overbearing, thus setting you up in your favorite posture of defiance. I WILL NOT BE FORCED TO ANSWER! Well, nobody said you were. But it’s a neat trick, as it turns a refusal to discuss the issue into a Principled Stance Against The Man.

    Patterico (e434d6)

  84. If nobody minds:

    Your wife asks, “Does this dress make me look fat?”

    You think it does. But if you say “Yes”, you will be a liar. You will actually be saying, “I don’t love you or respect you, the mother of my children, and I don’t care if I hurt your feelings”. If you say, “No, you look great”, that is the real truth. Not the politically-correct truth. The truth in your heart and mind.*

    *If you were to say, “I’m not sure. Take it off and come over here while I think about it”, it will be the truth in your glands, as well. 😉

    nk (0a1ba0)

  85. You answered the parts you wanted to answer — the parts least likely to challenge your assumptions.

    Patt, I didn’t answer them the way you wanted me to. You were trying to shape my testimony and I didn’t fall into it and yes I answered ON POINT, you just didn’t see what you had already assumed.

    Indeed, here it is each point fully addressed and not one tittle of response.

    Darleen (4e02c9)

  86. Patterico @80 – I don’t believe she had any intention of answering your hypotheticals and I don’t think I’m misinterpreting her intent in any way, in spite of what she claims otherwise. Heh.

    There is a lot of that going around as you noted in response to my earlier comment above.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  87. “how the hell can anyone know before he or she has answered a blog poll, or adequately responded to the litany of carefully-crafted, completely irrelevant hypotheticals we’ll be subjected to for the rest of our fucking lives?”

    Stop torturing us Patterico!!!!!

    How can I not respond to an unread blog post? Does not an unread blog post written in a forest constitute subjecting people to its contents. You fail to understand my meaning, which is my usual and convenient way of ending debates I don’t want to continue.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  88. Plus a whole lot of whining!!!!!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  89. I answered Patrick’s dishonest charge that I hadn’t answered his hypotheticals last night. I linked to said hypothetical and to my response. I also linked to my response to his dog hypothetical. The comment has been removed with no notice.

    I further linked to a comment in which Patterico explains what he believes is important and to my response to that comment, which broke down Patterico’s argument in a way that offered him a chance to respond, but he refused.

    I called him a liar for continually suggesting I didn’t answer his hypotheticals (his post contains no mention of the comment that is now missing, and he doesn’t bother correcting people like daleyrocks who continue to pretend I haven’t dealt with what Pat himself has said is a different issue from the one I happen to be interested in).

    Instead, he deleted it. With no notice.

    He’ll likely give some reason filled with indignity, but the fact of the matter is, I provided links to every charge I made. I left it up to his readers to decide.

    He decided they couldn’t be counted on to do so, I suppose. So into the dustbin of history it went, and he soldiers on, pretending to discuss what he doesn’t quite grasp, hoping upon hope that at some point he can tie all this back to Rush Limbaugh and his earlier arguments.

    Plus, I told him he had gone insane.

    But that’s just my opinion — which I take it by the deletion Pat doesn’t much value.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  90. And now it’s back.

    Wonder why it garnered no responses?

    Jeff G (40465d)

  91. Glitch in the system, Pat? I saw the comment last night. And yet it wasn’t here when I wrote the above comment.

    Also, it garnered no replies. Or even mentions.

    For those who haven’t seen it, it is available #5 above.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  92. Jeff – What the fuck are you on about now?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  93. Right.
    Okfine, ya’ll just continue wilin’ out on the “biased” media and whining about stem cells and semiotics, and meanwhile some serious evil shit is going down.

    Yesterday, while Congress and the media were obsessed with the $165 million AIG bonus outrage, the Fed decided to create another $1.2 trillion of U.S currency. Numbers like this can seem absurd. How much bigger is $1.2 trillion than $165 million? Think about what gaining or losing $1,000 would mean to you. $1.2 trillion is to $165 million as $7 million is to $1,000. That’s how much more important the Fed’s action was.

    But, by all means, let Don Patterico Quixote and Goldstein Sancho Panza continue their futile tilting at the windmills of change.

    wheeler's cat (9645a6)

  94. Jeff G.
    These glitches happen to my comments all the time — first there, then not. Flaky software is the most likely explanation, not malice.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (e24bda)

  95. It was there for a while, though, because I saw it.

    And you’ll note that both Pat’s post and daleyrock’s continued propagation of this fiction that I didn’t respond have not been corrected.

    I find this incongruous with someone claiming he’s after good faith debate and answers to his queries.

    I haven’t told him what he wants to hear, and I don’t like being told what I have to answer before my position can be understood (nothing in the dog examples troubles my position at all).

    I have answered repeatedly in good faith. Pat just doesn’t like my tone.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  96. JeffG, the comments here can be buggy. This happens to me pretty often – sometimes they never appear to others while I can see it.

    carlitos (efdd90)

  97. WordPress has developed AI and is fomenting discord between Jeff G. and our esteemed host.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (e24bda)

  98. They each know each other’s email. Nuff said.

    nk (0a1ba0)

  99. “And you’ll note that both Pat’s post and daleyrock’s continued propagation of this fiction that I didn’t respond have not been corrected.”

    Jeff – Absolute total bullshit. Quit your juvenile, petty, vindictive, whining. It dimishes you. Please point out where I said you failed to respond NOW.

    I pointed specifically at blowhard and Darleen.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  100. Everyone:

    In the post I say:

    “I have enjoyed the discussions here occasioned by my hypotheticals, joined by people who wish to talk with me in good faith. Those are the people with whom I will continue to speak. I am going to stop talking to others; life is too short to speak with people whom you know are not going to debate you in good faith.”

    I trust my intent was clear.

    Patterico (fead1e)

  101. Anyone who wants to take the “Pro” position on the question: “Resolved: Patterico should engage a person who calls him ‘insane’ and a ‘liar,'” you can save your effort, as my mind is made up.

    Enough said on that.

    I’ll leave it to the reader to judge whether Darleen answered my hypos as asked. I’ll even be happy to answer hers in a similarly complete way:

    Darleen, of course people should not be politically correct, and I would disapprove if they were. But people should be polite unless there is a good reason not to be. There is a difference.

    Answered. Maybe not in the way Darleen wanted. But I think she works for a D.A., and you know how *those* people are. I’m not at her beck and call, y’know. MY TESTIMONY WILL NOT BE SHAPED!!!

    Patterico (7786b5)

  102. Or Patterico, if I didn’t find the wording of a couple of the questions within your hypotheticals to my taste and chose not to address them, I could consider that answering them of course!11!!eleventy!!!11!!!As opposed to avoidance!!!!11!!!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  103. Hey, you know what I could do as a blogger? In order to control the terms of a debate or stifle it, I could tell my loyal commentariat that if they visited someone else’s blog to continue the discussion they would be doing me a disservice.

    I’m not sure what you would call that – juvenile, petty, controlling?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  104. Darleen,

    I clicked your link. I expected to see your selective answer to the hypotheticals I posed, which related to a boy and his dog — to my knowledge never answered y you or Jeff Goldstein.

    Instead I saw an answer to four questions I had posed which I do not consider to be hypothetical questions. Indeed, when I first linked them from a comment at Jeff’s blog, I described them as straightforward questions as opposed to hypotheticals.

    Is the possible source of confusion that you are calling “hypotheticals” the four questions that I do not consider to be hypotheticals?

    Patterico (b0434c)

  105. Pendleton:

    On his old blog, Allah made it quite clear that the target of his mockery was the group described as radical Islamic terrorists. There is no other reasonable interpretation.

    Patterico (79524e)

  106. Off for a couple of days now. Play nice kids. And Jeff, stop misrepresenting my intent.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  107. What are “reasonable people” and who is the defining word on what “reasonable people” are?

    Both sides of the aisle are pissed off about Obamas and Rushes latest remarks. Both sides of the aisle are rolling their eyes at HIS IDIOTNESS, as they are at HIS EIBN KING .

    Seems to me that you and Jeff/PW are just trying to fight over who gets to define, or “interpret” , if you will, what IS, IS.

    J.W. (774f62)

  108. Have fun, daleyrocks!

    Jeff G. may be so used to dealing with trolls that it has impaired his ability to deal with differences of opinion, compounded by balky software that, if it were sentient, would be considered to be maliciously sowing discord.

    I have said harsh things and made unfair accusations that, in the fuller light of knowledge, make me cringe. So let us all who consider ourselves non-trolls doubt a little more our own infallibility.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (615d0f)

  109. “There is no other reasonable interpretation.”

    We beg to differ. We’re not so charitable. Don’t you care that we’re offended?

    Local CAIR office (7f8d26)

  110. I what I find OUTRAGEOUS is the fact that POTUS even has time to bowl, that lazy SOB.

    ML (14488c)

  111. On some level, I don’t think this dude really gets the fact that he is the President.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/20/2009 @ 12:06 am

    Just saw this comment by Patterico and was pretty surprised. Said the exact same thing on two sites today, including this one, before I saw it. Glad I’m not the only one who’s noticing.

    It’s like he just be his old self and go on the same spring breaks and not have any extra accountability in his words or in his actions. ???

    Just out of curiosity, who else gets this or a similar impression?

    no one you know (65b7aa)

  112. I’ve been thinking he’s confused President with Court Jester.

    htom (412a17)

  113. It’s like he just be his old self

    Ummm….that should be “WANTS TO be.” Just want everyone to know that this was a completely unintentional typo. LOL Honest Native American!

    no one you know (65b7aa)

  114. On some level, I don’t think this dude really gets the fact that he is the President.

    I don’t think he has a grasp that decisions he makes have extraordinary broad reaching consequences, for better or worse. It’s as if he still believes himself operating in a small insular world that loves him.

    Obama is supposed to be POTUS, not some Rock diva demanding green M&Ms and bottles of Fuji Water in the greenroom at all times when He’s on set.

    Supposed to be? A charming if not antiquated notion. C’mon! He is hip, cool, and fights for the right to carry a Blackberry.

    Dana (137151)

  115. I don’t think he has a grasp that decisions he makes have extraordinary broad reaching consequences, for better or worse.

    I don’t think he fully grasps that for better or worse, the decisions he makes have extraordinarily broad reaching consequences… edit, edit, edit…

    Dana (137151)

  116. I found the comment in moderation, along with 16 others.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  117. We beg to differ. We’re not so charitable. Don’t you care that we’re offended?

    No. Sorry you’re having such a difficult time understanding this.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  118. Make that 27 others. There was a second page of comments in moderation.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  119. Patterico,
    The commenting problems with your blog, while not quite as dysfunctional as the Obama White House, are still aggravating. Sometimes, my comments show up immediately. At other times, I can see them listed on the right-hand side with recent comments, but when I click them they’re not there in the post.

    At other times my comments don’t appear at all, and there is no way to determine what has happened. Then an hour or so later they show up and I am commenting with no problems.

    I am not accusing you of some diabolical plot to undermine my priceless comments or drive me insane. This is just a plea for you to sic some techies on the issue.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  120. At other times, I can see them listed on the right-hand side with recent comments, but when I click them they’re not there in the post.

    That is a function of the SuperCache, which I must turn on during a huge link or the site goes down. Unless someone wants to pony up $500/month for hosting (I already pay $150/mo.) I have no other choice.

    If any techies want to help out for free I’d love it. I spent $1500 recently moving the site because I had to do it in a hurry for reasons a friend doesn’t want me to discuss. I don’t have a lot to spend on techies.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  121. Let me make this clear: this is not a bleg for money. My PayPal accounts are screwed up and I need to fix the sidebar anyway, so if you tried sending me money I would have to reject the payment. So don’t take it that way. Take it this way: for now, you just have to deal with it. Sorry.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  122. That was unclear. The PayPal links go to the wrong account. Inevitably people try to send credit card payments to an account that can’t take them. So I don’t want people sending me money right now because it will go to the wrong place.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  123. I just sent you $1,000 and you’re telling me you have to reject it? As a show of good faith, I think you should give me free legal advice for, say, the next five years? Deal?

    Excellent.

    SEK (072055)

  124. Bradley and others. You could work on it from your browser’s end. For example, my phishing filter crashes the Patterico link one out of two times. Well, I set up tha link and I know that this is not a phishing site. So I just click twice to disable the phishing filter when I want to click here.

    nk (814cbe)

  125. But if you have a cookie that your site tries to implant that some visitor’s firewall or filter finds malevolent, that could be costing you considerable traffic, Patterico.

    nk (814cbe)

  126. Anyway, it’s at #6 if you want to see it.

    Make sure to click the links. See what “Answered” links to. See what is described as acting offended, taking my ball, and going home. It’s my last words at Protein Wisdom and I thought they were respectful.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  127. Well, I’ll just bear with the comments system as it is. You put a huge amount of effort into this blog as it is, and I’m grateful.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  128. It’s my last words at Protein Wisdom and I thought they were respectful.

    I get indecent proposals there. Like I’ve said before, it’s flattering but given my family situation and prostate condition I have to decline them.

    (I know, I know, I said I’d stay out of this, but what ______ _______ is the __________ of ________ ___________?)

    nk (814cbe)

  129. One of my own comments was among the 28 caught in the filter. The other 27 comments were from 20 people other than myself, including: joker, Allahpundit (3 comments), Dmac, Mark (2 comments), Baxter Greene, ML, Ag80, JannyMae, j curtis, Joe, Jeff G, Pendleton, eaglewingz08 (2 comments), carlitos, Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., daleyrocks (4 comments), Xavier8, Ed from PA, wheeler’s cat, and aoibhneas.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  130. See, everyone! It’s a conspiracy!

    Seriously, Patterico, you know the saying: no good deed goes unpunished.

    Eric Blair (61dcb2)

  131. What, the first amendment doesn’t apply anymore? Fascist.

    carlitos (efdd90)

  132. It’s the retelling of Animal Farm, carlitos:

    “All animals are created equal…but some are more equal than others.”

    The other relevant bit is interesting. In battling one’s opponents, do not become their equivalent.

    The Right should be better than the Left. Respond to lies, of course. But we are supposed to support one another.

    It’s like all the folks who carried on about how “just the same” Obama was compared to McCain. Pure exaggeration. And now we know the truth. And we are finding out more every day.

    Oh well. Purity of Essence above all.

    Eric Blair (61dcb2)

  133. My comment should have stayed there, I cant proof read for crap and even with live preview.

    Regrading # 6, I clicked the “Answered”, which was just a non-answer and not very funny mocking.

    I also think Jeff was a bit quick to claim that Patterico was deleting his comments, I have only been visiting this site for 6 months or so and I have never seen anything to suggest Patterico does that. This site is not LGF, sorry for that last passing shot.

    ML (14488c)

  134. I have responded to the accusation that I deleted the comment here.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  135. “We beg to differ. We’re not so charitable. Don’t you care that we’re offended?”

    “No. Sorry you’re having such a difficult time understanding this.”

    Excellent. That is exactly the right answer. Don’t give in to bullies who use their delicate sensitivities as a weapon to shut you up.

    Now, consider extending this approach past Allah.

    Local CAIR office/Pendleton (7f8d26)

  136. A problem I have encountered with comments other than the moderation filter thing, is that on threads that generate a lot of responses, I get a lag-time on my monitor showing what I am typing – the more comments there are, the longer the lag-time is. I have typed a comment that filled this entire box without it showing up until one or two minutes after I entered the last stroke. I have no idea what causes it, and it only happens here at PP. I am open to suggestions.

    AD - RtR/OS (5fb16f)

  137. Now, consider extending this approach past Allah.

    Already have. You’re not reading what I’m saying.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  138. I am open to suggestions.

    Massive donations, or patience.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  139. Well, this problem has presented itself for some time now, and has contributed to limiting my participation somewhat, and I only mention it since so many others have voiced concern about the moderation filter, which can be a real drag.
    But, it’s like my PC is trying to digest everything on the site, and the long threads just slow it down like it’s stuck in molassis. I thought that when I went from dial-up to DSL this type of problem would be gone. But, as I said, it just rears its’ ugly head here with long comment threads.
    And, I’m going to send you money?
    You’re the one with a job!
    So, I’ll just have to have the patience of Job.

    AD - RtR/OS (5fb16f)

  140. AD, if you are confident that you have enough hard memory (chips), then check to make sure you are operating on your Windows’s default settings. Also clear out your browser’s cache at least once a week, including temporary files and cookies. I also have DSL and when it slows down I “repair” my connection. What it does is it momentarily disconnects my modem and reconnects it to the least busy server of my ISP. Good luck.

    nk (814cbe)

  141. Even when confronted with facts supporting a reasonable position, many here argue ad nauseum (and ad hominem) in order to prevent admitting error or admitting their position is, at best, shaky.

    Juss the way we make’em nowadays. Never say sorry, never say you are wrong and only your outrage matters.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  142. P.S. Also, what anti-virus/anti-malware are you running? Norton and McAffee’s resident shields were slowing down my computer, a lot, and I switched to Webroot.

    nk (814cbe)

  143. OMG liberal wordpress AI alinsky tactics.

    imdw (39db4e)

  144. nk…
    junked Norton a long time ago, but just added a McAfee product (Spyware Detector), and I have AVG running for virus protection. I do an AVG scan about once a week, SD daily, and a Windows cleanup/defrag monthly.
    Curiously, last night when I posted #138, I experienced no display lag, now it is about 20 characters behind my fingers.

    AD - RtR/OS (6252e2)

  145. …more on 138/145…
    As I said, this phenomena only appears on long-comment threads (like here), but doesn’t appear when making comments about the Beverly Hilton this A.M.

    AD - RtR/OS (6252e2)

  146. Patt

    I answered your dog hypos on your own blog post. I did NOT avoid them. Infact I addressed them more than once, on point, on both your blog and at PW.

    You keep asking them to be addressed again and again and I can only believe at that point I must not be answering what you want to hear.

    Added to the fact that what you seem to want to hear from the hypos has little to do with what JeffG was arguing — I interpret that based on your closed post where you still fail to understand the basis of the debate. You have conflated manners with context, and come up with

    But we can’t use that as an excuse to say to hell with everyone who isn’t already rabidly committed to our side.

    Which is straw of the first order, because it is “to hell” with allowing language hijacking … be it through Political Correctness, allegations of “code words” or the demand that Perception Rulez!!!

    You don’t allow gangbangers to use your garage as a meeting place in hopes that they will see your good intentions and not demand to move into the house and sleep with your daughter. Don’t grant Leftists their “offended OUTRAGE” and grant them that you’ll change your speech in hopes they’ll then allow you to present your case.

    Darleen (4e02c9)

  147. Darleen,

    Stop acting the victim. If people don’t like your message, it’s not always because evil people are twisting your words. Sometimes it’s because you fucked up in you delivered it.

    I don’t need to be lectured not to sanction people twisting my words, and you’re the one constructing the strawman to suggest that I am.

    And you answered the questions the way you wanted to answer them, not the way they were asked. Don’t play me for a fool by suggesting otherwise; I’m not stupid. That’s the only way you’ll ever answer them and I recognize that. I’m done asking you to, so why don’t you just drop it.

    Patterico (7b1a36)

  148. I believe the discussion was about persuasive speech. At least that’s how Patterico started it. If Jeff saw it “through a glass, darkly”, it is an argument against Jeff’s own theory of intentionalism.

    Saying that your slogan may not be a persuasive argument, is not the same as allowing your opposition to hijack the language. It is closer to you liking the sound of your own words and ideas more than trying to change people’s minds.

    “The fool in his heart has said ‘There is no God'” is for the faithful. “Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” is an argument to convince the Devil himself.

    nk (814cbe)

  149. I’m not sure anyone else has said it before, but I think this whole kerfluffle between Jeff and Patterico started because Jeff can’t get over Karl leaving Protein Wisdom for Pontifications.

    There seems to be some actual ill will from Jeff directed at Patterico on this debate on how to approach interpretation, and differences in opinion don’t seem to account for all of it. I think it’s a polite cop-out to say that Jeff “writes with passion” on this subject, when it seems more accurate to say that Jeff is writing passionately against Patterico in a personal manner.

    How much of this personal “intent to inflict harm” informs Jeff’s writing is obviously open to “interpretation”.

    joeschmo (34f1a6)

  150. P.S. And the proprietor of this site is Patterico. Not Patt, Pat, P., or Patrick Frey, Esquire. There is a decided lack of civility over where you are these days, Darleen.

    nk (814cbe)

  151. I think it’s a polite cop-out to say that Jeff “writes with passion” on this subject, when it seems more accurate to say that Jeff is writing passionately against Patterico in a personal manner.

    Yes, definitely. I gave Jeff the benefit of the doubt at first because I always saw him as a “chip on the shoulder”, over-intellectual, passive aggressive, who could take offense at “Good morning, Mr. Goldstein”, but who also presented good ideas in an entertaining manner. And in haiku, too. But I now think that these attacks, by Jeff, on Patterico are definitely malicious.

    nk (814cbe)

  152. Darleen,
    Jeff G. made a number of unfounded claims against Patterico, such as that he deleted Jeff G.’s comments because they didn’t show up, or showed up then disappeared. If you’ve read the responses, then you know a number of people, including myself, have experienced much the same thing. We didn’t immediately assume the worst of Patterico and make nasty accusations.

    I’ll concede that once or twice I wondered if I had breached some line and was being disciplined. But I exercised a little self-restraint, thought the matter over, realized such thoughts were paranoid, and dismissed them as unfounded.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  153. As for Karl leaving … my opinios is that he was driven out by Jeff’s “my way or the highway”. And I don’t know why Dan Collins is still there after the way Jeff treated his brother.

    nk (814cbe)

  154. We are not conceding an inch when we accept the fact that conservative spokespeople need to be clear-spoken — and thoughtful about how reasonable people will receive their words. I’m talking about speaking to common Americans. I utterly reject the view held by some that Americans not already utterly committed to one party may be ignored, while we preach bold words to an ever-dwindling choir.

    Nope, you need to do more than that.
    If you really believe in a competitive freemarket, then then you must believe in the competitive freemarket of information.
    The MSM delivers digestible attractively-sensationalized bite size packetized processed information.
    It has been proven by SCIENCE that sensationalism appeals to homosapiens sapiens, and also that unlearning something false takes work.
    If you want to be competitive, you must be pragmatic. For example, semiotics and intentionalism is just not digestible by the average american, no matter how much you scold and shout. Refusal to participate is total surrender. Refusal to evolve ideology in the face of cultural and demographic evolution is also certain doom.
    But perhaps you don’t really believe in freemarket principles for information. Certainly you do not believe in freemarket principles for societal values, given your continued attempts to impose antique social mores on other unwilling citizens of the Republic.

    wheeler's cat (9645a6)

  155. Patterico, I think trial lawyers call this catalepsis, greek for to be seized. Embedding something sensational or outrageous into the jury’s memory is far more important than getting it into the trial record.
    Instant memory for unusual or bizarre occurances is probably leftover hardwiring from the EEA, where it was likely a selective advantage.

    wheeler's cat (9645a6)

  156. You know, I live in Chicago, and I have half a mind to pay the $250.00 entry fee at Tony Cecchine’s Gym, just to snap some photos of some power-glutes using their submissive scissor holds. I could probably recoup the money by selling them to Andrew Sullivan.

    nk (814cbe)

  157. Oh, there you go being homoerotic again . . 😉

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  158. The last thing a man my age needs is another petrified part, Bradley. But if I only were thirty years younger …?

    nk (814cbe)

  159. I’m not sure anyone else has said it before, but I think this whole kerfluffle between Jeff and Patterico started because Jeff can’t get over Karl leaving Protein Wisdom for Pontifications.

    That didn’t happen. Karl left PW well before he started posting here.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  160. It could be, and I believe it is, that Jeff wanted to ___ up Karl, and Jeff resents Patterico for not being the nasty, vindinctive, high-kicking, Jasmine-scented, G-string wearing, muscular-men grappler, that Jeff is, and allowing Karl to post here.

    nk (814cbe)

  161. You left out the armadillo aspect of your imagery, nk!

    Eric Blair (f2f4d2)

  162. I’m not going to play Jeff’s game, anymore, Eric. Jeff was nasty-funny. But now he’s just nasty-nasty.

    nk (814cbe)

  163. Patterico:

    Re: Karl posting at PP – I chose my words poorly there. Karl even guest posted at Hot Air before regularly posting here, so I should have said:

    “…Jeff can’t get over Karl leaving Protein Wisdom and then finding a new home at Pontificications.”

    My apologies for the incorrect implication.

    joeschmo (34f1a6)

  164. nk, I see your point. Bitter armadillos aren’t as much fun as ironic ‘dillos.

    Eric Blair (e5299a)

  165. I dunno that that makes a difference in Jeff’s sick little mind, joeschmo.

    nk (814cbe)

  166. AD – RtR/OS:

    …more on 138/145…
    As I said, this phenomena only appears on long-comment threads (like here), but doesn’t appear when making comments about the Beverly Hilton this A.M.

    I’ve noticed the same thing. I think it happens because of the increased traffic when Patterico.com gets a link from Hot Air, the Instapundit, and other high-traffic websites.

    Anon (eb4fed)

  167. I agree with joeschmo #150 and nk #152.

    Anon (eb4fed)

  168. Patterico said:

    “I stand by my position that Jeff is wrong as a matter of his approach. We need not walk on eggshells to avoid offending those who will take offense no matter what we say. But we can’t use that as an excuse to say to hell with everyone who isn’t already rabidly committed to our side.”

    While I agree that your tone is much more to my liking (and productive) than Jeff’s, I must fault you for your implied assertion that there is no middle ground between walking on eggshells and rabid committment.

    harkin (f9df5a)

  169. This is going to be my last word on the subject.

    Hey, just leave Jeff Goldstein alone!

    The man graduated with a Master’s Degree in English and could not find a job.

    He was lucky enough to find a lady to marry who brought home a paycheck.

    He even managed to make himself indispensable by making her pregnant. That guaranteed him a minimum of seven years as “Mr. Mom.”. Taking care of the job security.

    In-between, the poor guy has to find a way to fill his time. Blogging is one way and mixing it up with delicate guys slathered in Jasmine-scented sesame-seed oil is another.

    So just leave him alone. Otherwise, you’ll have to deal with me. And I don’t smell like Jasmine.

    nk (814cbe)

  170. nk, Andrew Sullivan has read your post several times, slowly, by now. Be afraid.

    Be very afraid.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  171. nk is one of the classiest people I’ve ever come across.

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  172. harkin,

    I understood Patterico’s point to be the opposite of what you state: IMO he thinks there is a middle ground between walking on eggshells and rabid commitment.

    Anon (eb4fed)

  173. Our esteemed host wrote:

    I already pay $150/mo. (for site hosting services)

    Gulp! I always hoped that my site would generate the kind of traffic Patterico’s Pontifications draws, but $150 a month sure seems like a lot for you to put up with all of us.

    By the way, you get 27.56 times the traffic I do, and are paying 25.71 times as much as I do for hosting services, so I guess it works out!

    The blogger Dana (556f76)

  174. nk, I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Jeff and his wife on many occasions over the years.

    I did not find your comment amusing.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  175. Blogger Dana of Many Names,
    I also boggled at the $150 a month number. He’s putting nearly everything he has into this blog mentally, and it’s eating a hole in his wallet.

    Thanks for your hard work, Patterico.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  176. SPQR, I contributed several times to Mr. Goldstein over that awful Frisch business. I am also an academic, and understand the ups and downs of that business. I understand your point, but I would gently suggest that Mr. Goldstein is not above quite harsh personal statements regarding those with whom he disagrees.

    Maybe it is time for everyone to extend one another more civility.

    Now that is OUTLAW these days!

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  177. Eric, I like Jeff personally but in his back and forth with Patterico, whom I am also fond of, he can take care of himself.

    I don’t find the references to Jeff’s family amusing however.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  178. When we see irrational attacks against Patterico, over a subject Pattterico knows a hell of a lot about, for example, how to get an audience to send a two-legged predatory animal to prison, the high-kicking Mr. Mom in Colorado does not get any breaks from me, SPQR.

    nk (814cbe)

  179. I agree, SPQR, and I am still upset over the Frisch business. But it is a tense time.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  180. nk, you don’t get it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  181. EB,
    Cheers for civility!

    But since Jeff G. might consider a plea for civility an underhanded attempt at semiotic, hermaneutic restraint and neutering of an Outlaw, I’ll settle for a lack of accusations that are factually groundless.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  182. Dear nk and SPQR: I enjoy posts from both of you. I don’t want to see things get nuclear. Pax if not Hax, folks.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  183. On a lighter note, every time I hear the word “hermaneutics” (and I do, on campus), I think about this:

    http://www.neuticles.com/index1.html

    It helps reduce the Fp (Pretension Factor) around here.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  184. nk, please, don’t let me dissuade you. Hold onto all that rage, press it into a tight little ball.

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  185. Brother Eric,
    From your link:

    Scar tissue is a micro-thin film that may surround the Neuticles making it feel firmer to the human touch. While this is not a concern to most pet owners the way to eliminate potential development is to gently massage the Neuticles weekly to break up any possible formations or to Neuticle their pet with the Neuticles UltraPLUS which features a special textured exterior which virtually eliminates the risk of potential scar tissue development.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  186. Patterico, you’ve met plenty of people at the courthouse.

    You getting a certain vibe off of nk, too?

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  187. Jeff had no problem with Moe Lane using Obama’s two little girls as foils over school vouchers. Fuck the outlaw kickboxer.

    nk (814cbe)

  188. Jeez, Bradley. This is the sort of thing that makes the Galactic Overlords stay away from Earth.

    What kinds of beings are we, to actually…well…

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  189. Jeff had no problem with Moe Lane using Obama’s two little girls as foils over school vouchers.

    nk (814cbe)

  190. nk, so you’re saying that you’re looking to settle the score? Think it’s a good idea to bring Jeff’s family into it?

    I can’t put my finger on it exactly. But, yeah, you’re giving off a bit of a vibe here.

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  191. Others, is nk a respected commenter around here? I haven’t been reading through the comments for long enough to know.

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  192. I read Patterico a lot more than Protein Wisdom. It’s not that I wish to take Mr Frey’s side or am somehow opposed to Mr Goldstein’s arguments; it’s simply personal habit. But this whole kerfuffle, not about whether conservatives disagree with liberals and the Obama Administration, but the methods by which we should express our disagreements, seems silly — and rather uninteresting — to me. There are so many conservatives, with so many nuances in their points of view, and with so many different ways of expressing themselves, that you can count on it: every method of expressing dissent from the liberal orthodoxy will be employed by someone. Regardless of whom gets in the last word on this, Mr Frey will express himself as he is accustomed to doing, and Mr Goldstein will express himself as he is wont to do. But this bickering between tow reasonably well-known conservatives has reached, and long passed, the point of being counterproductive.

    It’s really time to end this one. Maybe I’m wrong about this, but I’m guessing that most of Mr Frey’s and Mr Goldstein’s readers really don’t care who “wins.”

    (Identical comment posted on Protein Wisdom.)

    The somewhat annoyed Dana (556f76)

  193. You know, there’s really nothing to this fracas except that Goldstein’s subsidy ends in ten days and he is desperate for traffic to show to potential ad buyers.

    Add that to the fact that half of Goldstein’s commenters have become regulars here, and you have an angry, strange blogger fighting with Pat and fueling a feud out of pique and jealousy and not stupid things like “intentionalism” and interpretation.

    In other words, it’s all Karl’s fault (in Goldy’s eyes, not mine)

    timb (8f04c0)

  194. Patterico, you’ve met plenty of people at the courthouse.

    You getting a certain vibe off of nk, too?

    Comment by Pendleton — 3/21/2009 @ 8:09 pm

    I’m the defense attorney. His opponent. I am no outlaw. What are you, Pendleton?

    nk (814cbe)

  195. “What are you, Pendleton?”

    A guy who would never bring personal family references to a dispute, no matter how heated.

    Take moment of reflection, nk.

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  196. Others, is nk a respected commenter around here? I haven’t been reading through the comments for long enough to know.

    Comment by Pendleton — 3/21/2009 @ 8:23 pm

    I never give a shit if I’m respected, Pendleton. My words stand or fail on their own merits.

    nk (814cbe)

  197. TSAD,
    Honest disagreements can be useful. It’s the unfounded accusations of comment-tampering and nasty ad hominem attacks that poison the dialogue. And it’s disturbing to see the quarrel spreading to some of our esteemed commenters, such as nk and Pendleton.

    So yes, I wouldn’t mind a break. Let’s talk about something we can all agree upon, like the flawless, totally unbiased journalism at the LA Times.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  198. Mr Fikes wrote:

    our esteemed commenters

    Getting darned close to a copyright violation there! :)

    The particular Dana (556f76)

  199. TPD,
    Heh.

    With glass of White Zin at hand, I am about to toast our uberblogger, Patterico.

    WHEREAS:
    Patrick, Frey, Esq, being insane enough to devote countless hours of his life to political/social blogging, and

    WHEREAS
    Said Frey, under the nom de blog Patterico, has attracted a motley crew of followers who likewise insanely spend countless hours reading his posts and talking with each other, and

    WHEREAS
    Patterico has enlightened the blogsphere with relentless attention to facts and exposed numerous falsehoods in the MSM, especially the LA Times, even gaining corrections, and

    WHEREAS
    Patterico has provided a convivial home for refugees from the late Cathy’s World and The Festering Swamp, and

    WHEREAS
    Patterico has not received nearly enough support for his blogging work, which has consumed time and money, and doubtless many of his hair follicles,

    IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED

    Patterico is a boffo dude, one of the doughty who contribute to and uphold civilization, and is worthy of a celebratory toast and appreciation in whatever beverage is on hand.

    DRINK UP!!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  200. Pendleton, are you blowhard?

    If so, you’re a fraud. You pretend to be Mr. Reasonable here and you play to the crowd at PW.

    If not, then say so. You’ve said things that would cause me to believe you are.

    And Pendleton: lay off nk, regardless. He doesn’t give me any vibe other than that he’s honest. And if you’re blowhard, then that’s more than I can say for you.

    Patterico (f438a5)

  201. Bradley,

    Don’t you mean, instead, to raise a toast to those “esteemed” people who baselessly call me a “liar” and “insane” without any accountability whatsoever for their false statements?

    Patterico (588c98)

  202. Patterico,
    Of course not! I was trying to give you some support. I apologize, I obviously screwed up what was intended to compliment you.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  203. C’mon off it, P.

    blowhard=pendleton, which I made clear in response to daleyrocks earlier. My actual name isn’t blowhard, btw.

    Do I play nice here because I’m in your forum? Yes. Do I slag you off at PW because you’ve slagged us off? Yes.

    Do you think it’s cool that nk is taking personal, familial shots Jeff? I know you don’t. I simply know it. I know you think he’s a dick for doing so.

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  204. Pendleton,

    I’m sorry to learn you’re such a fraud.

    Get off my blog.

    Patterico (95b714)

  205. Jeff had no problem with Moe Lane using Obama’s two little girls as foils over school vouchers.

    We already had this discussion.

    It wasn’t Jeff’s post, Jeff didn’t read it, Jeff wasn’t responsible for linking, and Jeff is neither Dan Collins or Moe Lane.

    nk pretended to understand that last time I brought it up.

    Timb is a lefty troll who has nowhere else to go. He got booted from my site. So he has since taken residence wherever they’ll have him and taken personal swipes at me.

    I don’t much care, because on the scale of humanity, TimB is the Biggest Loser. nk on the other hand has decided to make things personal for reasons I don’t yet fathom.

    But if that’s what he wants, I’m cool with that. But people who’ve attacked me personally in the past haven’t much liked the way I respond.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  206. Jeff G.
    Have you apologized to Patterico yet for the groundless accusation that he deleted your comment?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  207. Mr. Goldstein, I have contributed to you in the past, while you were fighting that crazed harridan Deb Frisch. Your style is not mine, but I never attacked you for our differences.

    Deb Frisch is insane. Patterico is not. Please stop with the insults.

    This helps no one, other than Axelrod and his friends, who think all this is, to borrow from a couple of sockpuppeting trolls “Hilarious.”

    I guess you and anyone else can call me names if you need to do so. But no matter what you say to or about me, Patterico did not lie, nor is he insane.

    I think that folks on the Right have bigger fish to fry right now than pursuing Purity of Essence.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  208. If he didn’t delete the comment that I saw posted, I hereby apologize and make it known that if Pat says he didn’t delete it I believe he didn’t delete it.

    Which I might have said had comments been open on his latest post.

    Here will do, though.

    So yes, I now have. Under the circumstances, the fact that my comment was one of the ones eaten was disturbingly coincidental, but that’s what gives the coincidental its power.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  209. Evidently you missed Patterico in the comments at my site, late night, night after night, moving from taunts to pleadings, post after post after post after post.

    I don’t think he’s literally insane. Let’s just say I believed him to be becoming borderline obsessed with my addressing his dog hypotheticals. Which had nothing to do with my argument. As he himself noted.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  210. Pendleton acts offended, takes his ball and goes home.

    He has not been banned.

    The host has suggested he is not worth talking to.

    Patterico (030b04)

  211. I had my comment eaten around then and then I rephrased it and it went through but then both got published anyway laters. It reminds me of this weird email application from years ago where it would track your edits and you could send the email in a sort of animated typey way where the reader could watch how the email had been formulated … with all the scratchouts and do-overs and such and then just the final edit. It was a scary and also very cool concept.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  212. Jeff G.
    As I hope you’ve seen, a number of others, including myself, have stated that had our comments haved maddeningly appeared and disappeared, or just not appeared at all. So you’re not alone in being frustrated.

    But Patterico isn’t to blame. He’s frustrated at having people assume the worst possible about his motivations when something goes awry. With what you’ve gone through, you should have some empathy for him. An expression of that empathy would be gracious.

    And as Eric Blair says, the only ones who benefit from this are the left, who are doubtless rolling in the aisles. Let’s not give them such a spectacle, please.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  213. I have to say, that some of you have brought my family into this is stunning. To misrepresent my reasons for being a stay at home dad are even moreso, given that this has been the chosen attack of the lefty blogs for years now.

    It’s easy to do this kind of thing over the internet, and Pat once fought against that when the commenter was using a screen name. Say what you will about me, but I put my name to my opinions, and if I wanted to go after nk’s family (which I wouldn’t — my definition of “civility” differs from his), I’d at least have the courage to put my name to my post.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  214. Mr. Goldstein, I believe only one person has gotten personal with you here. And that person was chided for doing so. Even though I use a gutless pseudonym, I would never, ever involve a family member in any critique I present.

    Please use a narrower brush. Your style is different, but I would like to think our goals are the same.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  215. Odd, last two times I tried to comment I couldn’t.

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  216. I’ve gone through attacks from both sides, and that’s cool. I saw the comment posted, and then it was gone the next day.

    That comment spoke precisely to several accusations made about what I had and hadn’t done, so I was particularly irate that it was gone.

    But as with most of this stuff, that anger lasted only until the next NCIS marathon or some such, and I forgot all about it.

    I have now apologized, and the apology is sincere. I believe Pat didn’t delete my comment. I thought maybe he had because I called him insane, but I was wrong.

    So again, my sincerest apologies for that.

    Now, if I can get an apology for Pat’s having written I never responded to his hypothetical, we’d be back to even.

    Pat and I, that is. nk and I are gonna have a go at it.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  217. I believe only one person has gotten personal with you here.

    You forget Timb. And I seem to remember in another thread your having some fun with the homo wrestling business.

    Because really, only homos are into submission grappling as part of an overall fight system.

    But I take your point.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  218. Hey, it works now. Odd.

    When I tried to simply say “Okay” earlier to your request that I leave, I couldn’t, twice. Never had that problem before.

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  219. Please fix your moderation software. I’ll bugger off. But, you know, for others.

    Pendleton (7f8d26)

  220. The comments system is strange…particularly when something Patterico writes gets wider play (bandwidth?) I’m an academic outside of computer science, so I wouldn’t know.

    The NYT quoted Patterico today. Maybe that is part of it?

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  221. To be honest, Mr. Goldstein, I don’t like how I act when I comment too much, even here. And this is a positively Jeevesian environment, compared to PW.

    So you know what? If I have offended you, in any way, I apologize. Because I don’t know you personally. I know about some of your travails, and you and I have exchanged a couple of e-mails, years ago, about academic nonsense. But teasing gets out of hand very easily, and can turn nasty quickly. Electrons cannot convey context.

    Of course, when I say that, many posters tell me what a wimp I am, which only proves my point.

    And don’t even get me started with people like timb.

    Posting on a blog is like being a car: we think the windshield is magical and other people can’t see us talking trash.

    We all need to work together. I sense some very bad times coming quickly.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  222. Pat and I, that is. nk and I are gonna have a go at it.

    Until your passive-aggressiveness goes into its down-cycle and back its to up-cycle again?

    Forget it, Jeff. I don’t take you seriously anymore and I hope that Patterico will not either.

    nk (814cbe)

  223. We all need to work together. I sense some very bad times coming quickly.

    Worse, those responsible for leading the country during these bad times are frivolous and utterly out of their depth.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  224. Mr. Goldstein is cooler and smarter than you. The not specific you you. Me I made peace with that a long time ago. He’s the Jared Padalecki of blogging I think but that doesn’t mean there’s not a certain amount of room for Other Voices.

    Mr. Patterico is very stick to his guns and it’s fascinating to me cause I disagree with his take on offendyness and Baracky is a good man and all that.

    Mr. Goldstein is very teachable moment about this because as I read him he feels very passionately that people need to understand how this dirty socialist dehumanizing horribleness has come upon us. It’s not an oops this just sort of happens sometimes and we need to make it unhappen thing. This is for all the marbles and the people like Mr. Goldstein what really really feel that are so so important I think.

    I believe unabashed and strident rejection of everything Baracky and his hungarian sugar daddy stand for is not just very very honorable but it is a duty and the people what get offended need to look at themselves.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  225. I don’t much care how seriously you take me, nk. I make my arguments and people can take them or leave them.

    You decided to get personal. You assumed a familiarity with my family and my life that you didn’t have, and you proclaimed it publicly as if you had some special insights.

    You can try to minimize this all you want with toss-off lines about my “cycles.” Fact is, if anybody read your site and you got attacked as frequently and as personally as I do — and those attacks were attached to your name — you’d be a lot less dismissive of how it feels and what it takes to do this day in and day out.

    When people come after me like that, I don’t let it go. You should know that. So go ahead and pretend that it doesn’t matter. But it does. And at least some people here had the graciousness to call you out on it.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  226. There’s nothing I said about you that I did not learn from you, Jeff. You made it public. The implication that I made it about your family, and not about the way you chose to define yourself, publicly, in relation to your family, is your whiny, passive-aggressive bitchiness.

    nk (814cbe)

  227. I understand nk’s intent.

    I will not allow his intent to be seized by people seeking to twist his words.

    He intended to be provocative, and it was successful.

    nk is a good guy, and honest. I stand by him. But then, I have the context of knowing him (through the Internet) for years. Others don’t. And so, they will certainly defer to my superior understanding of his intent.

    Anything else would be rank fucking hypocrisy. And I know there are no hypocrites here.

    Patterico (bd7162)

  228. nk that’s not how you do it

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  229. I’ve had it with this guy, happyfeet. I have been a follower of his site for four years and I was always on the lookout that he would be offended by “Good morning, Mr. Goldstein”. Enough!

    nk (814cbe)

  230. It’s nice to be provocative but it’s more provocative to be nice, Mr. Patterico.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  231. It’s nice to be provocative but it’s more provocative to be nice, Mr. Patterico.

    An advocate of politeness!! I condemn you as David Frum-like and pronounce you a pussy!

    Patterico (c03012)

  232. Forget it, Jeff. I don’t take you seriously anymore and I hope that Patterico will not either.

    I think my feelings have been made quite clear.

    Patterico (c03012)

  233. I know, nk. You are on the right team and stuff but still I just think there’s value in how these guys challenge each other and that being dismissive of either of them is not helpful.

    Hah! I think politeness rocks except for where it’s silly, and I think a lot of us what have been educated and ensconced a certain way have our inner David Frum what bears keeping a close eye on. What is the role of politics in your life is not a question that people are asked enough I don’t think.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  234. Palate cleanser:

    Q. Why was the Egyptian boy confused?
    A. Because his daddy was a mummy.

    nk (814cbe)

  235. There’s nothing I said about you that I did not learn from you, Jeff. You made it public. The implication that I made it about your family, and not about the way you chose to define yourself, publicly, in relation to your family, is your whiny, passive-aggressive bitchiness.

    I never defined myself in any of those ways. That Pat is supporting you in this so he can make pretend nods to intentionalism reinforces that he still hasn’t understood the argument, but worse that he is hardly the good man he (and I) thought he was.

    Heated disagreement is one thing. Supporting when nk said? Well, that’s that.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  236. Oh, crap! I really did not intend the implication. It’s just a joke I heard a long time before and remembered because of a field trip to Chicago’s Field Museum two days ago.

    Honestly. Crap, crap, crap.

    [Shut up, nk. — ed]

    nk (814cbe)

  237. That Pat is supporting you in this

    He is not Pat. He is Patterico. Why can you not show that minimal level of respect?

    nk (814cbe)

  238. Don’t lecture me on respect, “nk”. You’re a fucking coward hiding behind a pair of initials.

    No one who’s read my site for any length of time can be confused about how I react when personal attacks on my family are introduced into these exchanges. You set out to do it, and you thought you’d get away with it because you’re in friendly territory and you hide your identity.

    Don’t count on it.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  239. There’s nothing I said about you that I did not learn from you, Jeff. You made it public. The implication that I made it about your family, and not about the way you chose to define yourself, publicly, in relation to your family, is your whiny, passive-aggressive bitchiness.

    I never defined myself in any of those ways. That Pat is supporting you in this so he can make pretend nods to intentionalism reinforces that he still hasn’t understood the argument, but worse that he is hardly the good man he (and I) thought he was.

    Heated disagreement is one thing. Supporting when nk said? Well, that’s that.

    Comment by Jeff G — 3/21/2009 @ 11:01 pm

    I don’t know anything about you, Jeff, other than what you have chosen to publish.

    Changing the subject closer to the subject we should be discussing: You painted yourself but there are two more steps. Your medium and its limitations, and my perception of your message.

    nk (814cbe)

  240. Hey if it wasn’t for Patterico, I would still be getting the LA times and cussing like mad at everyone of their bullshit terrorist shilling stories and the Palin derangement stories also.

    ML (14488c)

  241. “That Pat is supporting you in this so he can make pretend nods to intentionalism reinforces that he still hasn’t understood the argument, but worse that he is hardly the good man he (and I) thought he was.”

    Aw, nk. Isn’t it sad? I’m a liar, insane, and my pretense of good faith is a load of shit. But let’s pretend that we thought I was a good man, so we can pretend to be disappointed I’m not.

    Nothing transparent about this ploy.

    Patterico (2039b8)

  242. Y’all are just all about not letting this discussion descend into lighthearted banter.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  243. Don’t lecture me on respect, “nk”. You’re a fucking coward hiding behind a pair of initials.

    No one who’s read my site for any length of time can be confused about how I react when personal attacks on my family are introduced into these exchanges. You set out to do it, and you thought you’d get away with it because you’re in friendly territory and you hide your identity.

    Don’t count on it.

    Comment by Jeff G — 3/21/2009 @ 11:19 pm

    Only a whiny, little, jasmine-scented bitch like you would try to convert my comments about you into an attack on your family.

    as for your threats, ….

    nk (814cbe)

  244. Jeff G.
    Where did nk make personal attacks on your family? He personally attacked you, certainly, but where did he disparage anyone else in your family?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  245. Jeff G.,
    You also just undermined the effect of your apology, accusing Patterico — once again without evidence — of bad faith.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  246. “No one who’s read my site for any length of time can be confused about how I react when personal attacks on my family are introduced into these exchanges. You set out to do it, and you thought you’d get away with it because you’re in friendly territory and you hide your identity.

    “Don’t count on it.”

    Can we get the alleged personal attack on Jeff’s family? I might have missed it. I saw some tough jabs at Jeff, of the type that typically cause his commenters to say things like “don’t be so thin-skinned” and “man up” and “grow a pair.”

    Did nk really attack Jeff’s family?

    Really?

    Can we get a specific quote on that?

    Patterico (a0db72)

  247. You lied. I answered your hypotheticals and you knew that. That doesn’t make you a perpetual liar.

    You were acting insane. Not literally, as I’ve already said, but kooky obsessive about your hypotheticals. Which I answered.

    Your pretense of good faith with respect our engagement in this instance is a load of shit given the above.

    But I’ve never thought you a bad person.

    Until now, when you’re grabbing a hold of nk’s hand and acting like a tag team of bitches.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  248. Local radio host Larry Elder had a term: “victocrat.”

    It’s reserved for those who play the victim

    Pretending that one’s family has been attacked is a very effective ploy for the Victocrat.

    Brings in the sympathy and the bucks.

    But I don’t think it has happened here. And I won’t let my friend nk be smeared.

    Patterico (42173d)

  249. Hiding behind initials. ~ Jeff G.

    Although the comment was not directed at me, I “hide” behind initials and a nic at another site because I own my own domain and in less than ten seconds my full address and phone number is available through “whois” to sociopaths like Timb or any Moslem terrorist.

    Not a smart idea if you ask me or my wife.

    ML (14488c)

  250. I have no problem with that ML. Provided you don’t start taking personal shots of the kind nk decided to take here.

    I don’t think his make believe narrative about my life, which is filled with one falsehood after another, posted in public as if it these falsehoods were true, speaks well of my wife, as she’s portrayed. Nor would I imagine my son thrilled to learn he was conceived merely to keep me home a-bloggin’.

    I suppose now is the time for your little lawyerly parsings, but the bottom line is, those were lies that brought my family into a dispute over a blog debate in which nk wasn’t even involved.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  251. Ha. Victocrat.

    Coming from a guy who sees his honor impugned anybody dares disagree with him forcefully, it is to giggle.

    Which I’m doing.

    Hang on to your friend nk, Pat. He’s a keeper!

    Jeff G (40465d)

  252. I hide behind my initials because there is no “I”. nk as a person exists about as much as a shadow on a cloudy day. His posts stand on their own, for good or bad.

    But in this instance, I will be nk. And say, “Up yours, Goldstein. Bring it on. Have your lawyer email me, through my profile, and I will tell him where to file and serve process.”

    nk (814cbe)

  253. Lawyer?

    Heh. You’ve got it all wrong.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  254. Now they’re blabbering about how I was quoted in the NY Times — with Careful Attention paid to 1) whether I’ve ever been quoted there before (answer: yes), and 2) why I’m being quoted (answer: to say Obama has a tin ear and is a poor communicator).

    So, nk: it has now been brought to my attention that your claims about Jeff’s family are ones that he says are inaccurate. I don’t want to seize your meaning from you; can you clarify it for me? I can certainly see where a *reasonable* person might be offended by your words, but I’m not sure that I should care about that. Perhaps you meant to praise Jeff and we just attached the wrong meanings to your words. Perhaps you were telling it like it is. Can you clarify for us?

    Patterico (ca3801)

  255. And while nk “as a person exists about as much as a shadow on a cloudy day. His posts stand on their own, for good or bad,” I can assure you that Jeff Goldstein exists as a person, one who doesn’t like what you’ve written about him and insinuated about his family life.

    Your being Greek yourself, though, at least I understand a bit more about the oily grappling fantasies now.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  256. Ooh. Lookit Patty playing fun fun with intentionalism as he understands it!

    Isn’t it clever?

    Jeff G (40465d)

  257. Patterico

    You’re not serious, you can’t be.

    nk is indecent in this instance regardless of anything “reasonable” he has said before. He decided to attack Jeff through his family and you are going to defend it? Really?

    When did you become Amanda Marcotte?

    Darleen (4e02c9)

  258. I like the line about the bucks, though. You’re kinda stuck on that one, aren’t you, Pat?

    Jeff G (40465d)

  259. Patterico #255,

    I’m afraid that all I can say is “I have written what I have written”.

    nk (814cbe)

  260. Let’s sum up where we are, nk.

    Jeff has told us that he is going to settle a score with you, but not using the legal system? Threat of violence? Don’t know. Doubt you’d be scared of that, though, knowing you.

    Second, he appears to be trying to show that he knows who you are. Doubt you’re scared of that either.

    However, if you want me to ban someone who seems to be elevating this into threats against you in real life, I will. Up to you. I don’t really know Jeff’s intent here; I just have my reasonable perception of it. Which is meaningless, I think.

    Patterico (ca3801)

  261. Patterico

    When Sully decided to attack Sarah Palin by smearing the birth of Trig, making fun of her kids names, etc, wasn’t that using her family to attack her? I don’t remember you finding any of that hard to interpret.

    Darleen (4e02c9)

  262. You sure have, nk. And I’m confident I’ve interpreted what you meant based on your intent.

    Which is good. Because I like to have reasons.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  263. nk is indecent in this instance regardless of anything “reasonable” he has said before. He decided to attack Jeff through his family and you are going to defend it? Really?

    You’re really learning to use the tactics you decry, aren’t you, Darleen? “Code words” or do you have your own terminology?

    nk (814cbe)

  264. Damn, I just “googled” my name,

    google has every place I have ever lived, my age, the full names of me, my parents, wife and the name of my company with the correct address and phone number.

    I happen to have a unique name, so I cant hide behind a million Jeff Goldstein’s.

    ML (14488c)

  265. Good thing I have an about page, ML. Narrows things down.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  266. “He decided to attack Jeff through his family and you are going to defend it? Really?”

    nk has a funny sense of humor, displayed over years on this site. He is also a decent man. I choose not to believe that he intended to attack Jeff’s family, based on everything I know about Jeff and nk.

    If I were to become convinced that nk meant an attack on Jeff’s family, I would then tender a sincere apology to Jeff.

    I’m just not sure that’s what’s going on here. I think maybe Jeff needs to develop a thicker skin.

    Patterico (ca3801)

  267. what I really need to do is find myself a brand new otter

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  268. Go ahead and ban me, Pat. Get your lawyerly briefs all ready.

    You deserve the commenters you have. I deserve the ones I have.

    I’m happy with that outcome.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  269. However, if you want me to ban someone who seems to be elevating this into threats against you in real life, I will. Up to you. I don’t really know Jeff’s intent here; I just have my reasonable perception of it. Which is meaningless, I think.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/22/2009 @ 12:08 am

    No, please. Let’s give him all the rope he wants.

    nk (814cbe)

  270. nk

    You ever see me go after Obama’s girls? Chelsea Clinton? The spouse, partner or kids of any left-wing nutzcase I ever had a disagreement with?

    No and you’ll never find it because there are bright lines in political fights you don’t cross.

    You’ve put yourself in Andrew Sullivan’s clan. Congratulations.

    Darleen (4e02c9)

  271. A thicker skin? The wind blows past you too briskly and you drop a glove and challenge it to a duel.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  272. Jeff G,

    good point.

    ML (14488c)

  273. nk = The Other Sully

    Darleen (4e02c9)

  274. Oh, is knowing your name a hanging offense now?

    You bring the rope, I’ll bring the tree.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  275. I hope you’re not threatening that tree in real life.

    happyfeet (ba8a9d)

  276. “I don’t remember you finding any of that hard to interpret.”

    I know Andrew Sullivan and nk both, from their writings. They’re quite different, and I’m confident nk’s intent is not what is claimed by those who are twisting it.

    But please. Play the victim. It is quite revealing.

    Again, if I’m wrong, my most sincere apologies. But I don’t think I am.

    Consistent with nk’s wishes, I won’t ban Jeff. I think nk probably views Jeff’s apparent threats as not reflecting his true intent, just as I interpret nk’s comments consistent with what I believe to be his intent.

    Less whining and thicker skins, please.

    Patterico (ca3801)

  277. Jeff, you’re an idiot.

    Darleen …. talk to me again in another year after Jeff has messed you around like he did to Karl and Dan.

    nk (814cbe)

  278. His intent was obvious even to many of your own commenters.

    You’ve covered yourself in glory.

    But hey, you have a respectable position, so you can coast on the good will that grants you for a spell.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  279. “I hope you’re not threatening that tree in real life.”

    What do you think, happyfeet?

    Do you stand by someone who makes apparent death threats on blogs?

    Patterico (ca3801)

  280. I may have no choice to ban Jeff now that he seems to issuing a death threat on my blog.

    Patterico (023b5d)

  281. Talking out of your ass again nk? Karl wanted a certain commenter banned. That commenter was a friend of Dan’s. I felt it wasn’t my place to intervene, because at the time I thought the commenter added something to the site. Karl gave me an ultimatum. I told him to do what he must.

    Other than giving him full access to post on my site, I’m not really clear how I “messed” him around.

    Again, you presume to know things that you weren’t privy to, nk. But that doesn’t stop you from pontificating on them.

    Fitting place for you to land, I guess.

    Jeff G (40465d)

  282. This has ceased to be amusing.

    I’m on the phone now, but I’m going to go to the computer and close this thread. It’s all fun and games until someone issues a death threat.

    [UPDATE 3-23-09 6 p.m. Many have argued that the comment was not a death threat, even though it appeared to me at the time that it was. I have already said that, viewed in hindsight, it may not have been a death threat. Apparently some have missed those comments, which I made as early as 11:35 a.m yesterday. But at the time the comment was made, the hanging reference worried me, given that the thread was moving towards threats of outing a commenter and implied threats of some kind of violence. I’m not going to permit people to physically threaten others on my blog, and that’s what it appeared to me was happening when I made the banning decision. The banning was justified whether it was a death threat or not, and will remain in force. — P]

    [UPDATE 12-13-09: I still think the banning was justified, but with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear to me that I was mistaken in my honest belief that this was a death threat. I apologize for so badly misreading Goldstein’s intent. He is now unbanned.]

    Patterico (189c88)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7326 secs.