boy: “Look, there’s a man on the street screaming at himself.”
dog: …
boy: “Wait — he just said I lynched him.”
dog: …
boy: “But I didn’t. Do you think I should go argue with him about it?”
dog: …
boy: “Yeah, you’re right. It would be pointless.”
dog: …
boy: “You’re a smart dog. Good boy.”
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
Powered by WordPress.
This post just proves that you can’t let go of the Limbaugh kerfluffle. Please! Let it go. Doggone!
Haile Tsada (ee7fbc) — 3/23/2009 @ 6:33 pmToo much nuance for me. I come here for the hypotheticals.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/23/2009 @ 6:39 pmIf you shop the various shelters, you might come up with a smarter dog!
AD - RtR/OS (39b1d4) — 3/23/2009 @ 6:40 pmIs this apophasis, or paralipsis, or praeteritio? I can never tell those apart.
Ken (c97a0c) — 3/23/2009 @ 6:43 pmMaybe you should try ‘Knock Knock’ jokes before these subtle but pathetic nuance jokes.
Haile Tsada (ee7fbc) — 3/23/2009 @ 6:44 pmA priest, a rabbi, and an imam walk into a bar. The bartender says, “What? Is this a joke or something?”
Wasn’t the dog supposed to hump his leg or something? Or at least give a new meaning to the phrase “yellow journalism” by peeing on someone’s L.A. Times?
Xrlq (62cad4) — 3/23/2009 @ 6:44 pmIs there a point for any of this?
I”l have to say your recent infatuations (Sullivan, et alia) make me question why I have you on the regular rotation.
Larry Sheldon (86b2e1) — 3/23/2009 @ 6:56 pmUh, and your point would be exactly…what, Larry?
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/23/2009 @ 6:59 pmThe Professional Victim™ can throw a pity party, but we don’t have to attend.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:07 pmDead swans floating limp
nk (326199) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:08 pmIn a pond gleaming faintly
I’m going fishing.
Hey, nk, I like the poem. Here is my Bad Haiku:
I guess it depends on the intent.
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:16 pmOK, Patterico, this one was funny.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:17 pmAnother dog: You do understand that “to give someone rope” is a metaphor, don’t you?
Another boy: What’s a metaphor?
Another dog: I dunno. What’s a matta for you?
nk (326199) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:19 pmGood one, nk. But Al Sharpton’s dog would disagree about anything involving “rope” being a metaphor.
But then, it depends on whose carbon offset is Gored, as we saw the other evening.
You are a subtle person, sir. I am learning to appreciate that fact.
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:27 pmPatterico:
Now, I could understand if the boy were arguing with a talking dog!
Dafydd
Dafydd the Satyr (db2ea4) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:27 pmGood movie, A Boy and His Dog.
Even better book by a terrific author, Harlan Ellison.
Horatio (55069c) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:27 pmBut, just as with most congresscritters, “talking” does not mean anything that makes sense. It’s like that old Far Side cartoon where the scientist designs a helmet that “translates” dog language. So on the outside, the dog is barking. But the helmet translates every bark to “Hey!”
But then, I am not a philosopher nor literary critic. Wittgenstein not withstanding.
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:30 pmComment by Eric Blair — 3/23/2009 @ 7:27 pm
Thank you, Eric. But like I have said before, you have to respect your audience. To some people you take the trouble to illustrate figures of speech. To others … well, “You’re an idiot” is as good as a nod or a wink.
nk (326199) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:31 pmLOL — too funny! nk, you’re a blessing. Pat, you’re a blessing and a good host. Both of you keep up the good work.
h2u (147639) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:37 pmHoratio, that was Don Johnson’s finest moment.
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:38 pmRacists one and all, bringing Al Sharpton into the discussion.
Don Johnson and Jason Robards were good in a boy and his dog. I liked the ending.
Billie Jack, now there was a movie.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:39 pmnk, what is the Monty Python line?
Hmmmm. But what is the intent?
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:41 pmdaley, I respect your choice, but Chuck Norris would use Billy Jack’s eyeteeth for cufflinks.
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:42 pmyeah, but I’ll always have a soft spot for Sonny Crockett…gotta love a guy who keeps an alligator on a sailboat
Horatio (55069c) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:43 pm…and to name the gator Elvis….
Horatio (55069c) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:45 pmHoratio – The Ferrari was pretty sweet as well.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:48 pmOh yeah..and those 80’s clothes…
Horatio (55069c) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:50 pmCastillo rocked, too.
And I liked that Ted Nugent and G. Gordon Liddy had roles on the show.
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:52 pmCastillo did rock…
Horatio (55069c) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:53 pmGlenn Frey, Sheena Easton…
Daleyrocks,
You know that line where Billy Jack says, “I’m going to” [one of my homies sticks a sharpened screwdriver in his liver, he falls on the ground gasping] … “if you had only left me finish, I was going to say ‘I’m going to take my right foot’ [my homie pulls out the screwdriver and sticks it in again] … “damn you’re ruining some great lines here” [sirens, my homie leaves the screwdriver in and runs off in some Nikes he shoplifted].
nk (326199) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:53 pmThe eye candy also did not hurt.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:54 pmnk – I screwed up the spelling. I remember. My right foot…upside your left ear…and there’s nothing you can do about it.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:58 pmI can only imagine, nk, how Chuck Norris would have dealt with the mob of homies.
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/23/2009 @ 7:59 pm“Good boy“?
What did you mean? Who is a boy?
/endsarc
Ed from SFV (7da696) — 3/23/2009 @ 8:00 pmActual Conversation between Olbermann and Maher:
They decided that Glenn Beck is dangerous and will incite someone to kill Obama.
Now I am not a huge Glenn Beck fan, but I occasionally listen to him on the radio. I have never seen his Fox Show. I saw his CNN show once or twice. But I never heard him say anything even remotely threatening about anyone.
I think we can all agree that Maher and Olbermann are utter mendoucheous scumbags to slander Glenn Beck that way.
What do you think?
Joe (17aeff) — 3/23/2009 @ 8:12 pmI had the good fortune to spend a lot of time in Miami during those years..the eye candy was quite edible…
Horatio (55069c) — 3/23/2009 @ 8:15 pmIt’s nice to know how Olbermann and Maher went on record disapproving of a play seeming to urge the assassination of GW Bush, right?
Dissent is patriotic! Except when the person you like is in charge. Then dissent is treasonous.
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/23/2009 @ 8:16 pmI think we can all agree that Maher and Olbermann are utter mendoucheous scumbags to slander Glenn Beck that way.
What do you think?
Comment by Joe — 3/23/2009 @ 8:12 pm
I think that 1) they should report him to the Secret Service; and 2) they did him a kindness by giving him a “Miranda warning” so he would stop incriminating himself.
nk (326199) — 3/23/2009 @ 8:19 pmJeff G. is crazy and you’re an asshole. That about sum it up?
Vox Dei (40298b) — 3/23/2009 @ 8:19 pmYou are a giver, Vox. And if it can get the discussion beyond all thus, great.
Mike LaRoche speaks highly of you, and I enjoy your web posts.
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/23/2009 @ 8:22 pmI’m thinking that link doesn’t make the case you think it makes lawyer boy.
SEK isn’t saying you didn’t lynch him, he’s saying Jeff is a hypocrite for complaining because Jeff did the same to him.
Man! I would sure hate to be an innocent man in court with you as prosecutor. You would still try and send me to prison, even if you knew I was innocent.
Or are you going to apologize to Jeff for accusing him of making death threats?
Knowing he did no such thing…
lee (aa20a5) — 3/23/2009 @ 8:25 pmLee – Did you have a point, asswipe?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/23/2009 @ 8:30 pmPatterico did Jeff a favor, you assholes. He shut him up before he went too far. It kind of pisses me off because it lessens any case against Jeff for crossing state lines to violate my civil rights, and possibly a case of self-defense should I need it, but I’m getting over it ….
nk (326199) — 3/23/2009 @ 8:30 pmRachel Madcow was laughing that the US lost to Japan in the World Baseball Classic, and then had the temerity to mock MLB calling their championship the World Series. Can you get less American than that?
JD (42fcdb) — 3/23/2009 @ 8:34 pmEveryone loves a whiner –
EricPWJohnson (c0d683) — 3/23/2009 @ 8:35 pmBeck responds to Maher
Beck felt the need to defend himself when accused of being “dangerous” to Obama.
Joe (17aeff) — 3/23/2009 @ 8:36 pmhermeneutic shard
wheeler's cat (9645a6) — 3/23/2009 @ 8:38 pmfragging the theory of forms
meaning in meltdown
You were the one with the rope.
All Jeff threatened was to out who you really are, since you were so familiar(you think) with who he really is. I’ve heard Patterico has done the same, and I don’t don’t think you need to cross state lines to do it.
Actually, I believe it was you, nk, who was talking of interstate travel to meet up with Jeff.
That’s probably different though, like dissent to a progressive.
And daleyrocks, I never wiped you!
lee (aa20a5) — 3/23/2009 @ 8:41 pmGood men too, not misunderstood assholes like Rush and others.
Joe (17aeff) — 3/23/2009 @ 8:55 pmnk-
“Patterico did Jeff a favor, you assholes. He shut him up before he went too far. It kind of pisses me off because it lessens any case against Jeff for crossing state lines to violate my civil rights, and possibly a case of self-defense should I need it, but I’m getting over it ….”
So now it’s convicted because he would have committed a crime? I’m willing to listen to both sides here, but that statement is a piece of work. Are you serious or did I miss the sarcasm?
Dave E. (4e84bb) — 3/23/2009 @ 9:09 pm“Are you serious or did I miss the sarcasm?”
Oh, he’s serious although he may deny it now. It’s a pattern with Patterico through his friends. That and banning the subject of his comments from responding while his good friend nk regrets that he will possibly be unable to do violence to Jeff G. (self defense, OF COURSE!).
Patterico must be loving the irony of banning Jeff G. while his “oil boy” (heh) issues thinly veiled threats.
This blog has just gone to hell in a suitcase. I used to enjoy it. Now, it’s just another Andrew Sullivan type blog.
You would think, after what Jeff G. went through recently with that crazy liberal lady threatening his children, that Patterico would discourage slimy comments about the same man’s family. But no, he encourages it.
No real man would do that, and no decent lawyer would defend it.
Mike Jackson (a7da41) — 3/23/2009 @ 9:29 pmThe mean people are starting to make me appreciate the obtuse people. For the children, obviously.
carlitos (efdd90) — 3/23/2009 @ 9:37 pmThere is a word for the type of behavior some of you seems to relish engaging in.
Joe (17aeff) — 3/23/2009 @ 9:45 pmSo….we all get lectures on intent and meaning, based on feelings and not facts. Fair enough. The contemplative and fair minded Mike Jackson advances the following:
Yep, that really helped matters. Each of these points is, to put it mildly, skewed and inaccurate. And yet we have Mr. Goldstein claiming that Patterico lacks honor.
Um.
It seems that people other than the Left have a “narrative” that must be followed. And it surely does seem to follow our good friend Saul Alinsky’s dictates, doesn’t it?
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/23/2009 @ 9:54 pmEric Blair – I was not aware that you were friends with Senor LaRoche. Good guy, he is.
JD (42fcdb) — 3/23/2009 @ 10:00 pmHe is a good guy, indeed. His heart burns with a Texian conservative flame, and yet he still tolerates my more middle of the road views.
I check out his blog and FaceBook page often, to see what he is up to. We have the whole academic PC nonsense in common.
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/23/2009 @ 10:04 pmMike Jackson – Do you visit here often?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/23/2009 @ 10:06 pmAh, Mike L. Thanks for mentioning his name. I’m going to drop into his blog and say howdy.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/23/2009 @ 10:13 pmThe dog’s teleprompter doesn’t seem to be working.
Official Internet Data Office (63580d) — 3/23/2009 @ 10:16 pm“And it surely does seem to follow our good friend Saul Alinsky’s dictates, doesn’t it?”
Awwwww, poor Patterico. Poor nk. It’s just not fair that they get some of their own medicine. And it definitely doesn’t help matters!!!!
“Mike Jackson – Do you visit here often?”
Daily, for several years.
Mike Jackson (a7da41) — 3/23/2009 @ 10:20 pmTruth to Power, Mike Jackson? Do you genuinely not see how much you sound like the opponents you claim to despise?
I don’t think that Mr. Goldstein, nk, or Patterico received any kind of medicine. In fact, I think everyone lost.
And who gained? Please consider that, as you try to rack up points and pursue Purity of Essence.
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/23/2009 @ 10:28 pmdaleyrocks turned me onto this place MJ!
Larry Craig (17aeff) — 3/23/2009 @ 10:30 pmDaily, for several years.
Mike – Then why didn’t you read the relevant threads? It sure sounds like you didn’t based on your comments. Your butt buddy Larry is calling you too. That’s probably blowhard again tonight. We got the wide srtance patrol from PW now, NTTAWWT!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/23/2009 @ 10:49 pmdaleyrocks,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/23/2009 @ 11:01 pmThey’re just showing fealty to Dear Leader, who is constantly searching for signs of disloyalty.
“Do you genuinely not see how much you sound like the opponents you claim to despise?”
That is what the quotation marks and the heh were for, but you didn’t see the connection between that and nk’s little fantasy, eh? I’ll try to slow down.
I directly and clearly use nk’s smear of Jeff G., in quotes and with clear indication that I am using it to mock his use of it, and you come back all offended that the conversation has deteriorated and honor besmirched.
Save it. Defend Patterico’s actions all you like. I think he is being cowardly and dishonest. And I think he knows exactly what damage he has done with his faux “death threat” smear and that it was deliberate. Banning Jeff G. from defending himself on the same website where he is smeared is just icing on the cake. It would be safe to say that at this point that Patterico just disgusts me. You want to defend such a person? Go right ahead.
Mike Jackson (a7da41) — 3/23/2009 @ 11:03 pmAnd while you are at it, could you explain to me what reall led to the Rand-Branden falling out? I never really got that.
fat tony (83f355) — 3/23/2009 @ 11:31 pmWow. Thanks for slowing down. Good thing you aren’t being impolite to me, or judging without thinking carefully. But then, being polite isn’t all tough, is it? The Left pushes feelings over facts, and I am sure seeing it from you and your granfaloon right now.
Your response to the SEK situation says it all: it’s different when it’s your guy. It always is. Fine.
Again: everyone lost in this “battle.” And your guy isn’t exactly covering himself with glory, maturity, and broad appeal on his website right now. But then, the faux-tough guy stuff really does work in the political arena, right? Truth to power, and if I don’t like it, I’m a wimp and not a REAL conservative, like you.
Right.
Guess who won with this great battle? The Left. You should feel great about that, because even when Leftists win elections, it’s better than having people who don’t believe just like you in office. And yet we criticize the Left for having litmus tests.
Good luck with your OUTLAW meme, and your purity of political essence. I just hope your kind of narcissism doesn’t cost us more elections. And here is where we differ, most of all: if I am wrong (and your path is the correct one), it would be a good thing. You cannot conceive that you might be incorrect. Can you?
Anyway, since this is such a sucky website, I’m sure I won’t see you around. Best of luck to you, building a broad consensus that can win elections, using your approach.
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/23/2009 @ 11:33 pmMaybe a nice shot of Stoli and a good nights sleep will help you. Just trying to be helpful. 🙂
Don Bear (f304dd) — 3/23/2009 @ 11:38 pmHey, Don. You buyin’?
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/23/2009 @ 11:39 pmDeath threat?
Joe (17aeff) — 3/23/2009 @ 11:39 pmBrother Bradley
Mike K
Eric Blair
May I just compliment you on your mature efforts to head off or diffuse this nasty affair. I don’t mean to slight others but I was particularly impressed by your efforts. You are the true friends of your host here and I had to pay my respects. I don’t know if there were similar friends on Jeff’s site as I don’t go there much but the folks from both sites who stirred this up far past the original row, which was shameful enough in itself, are no friends of either host.
The original issue that started all this is only a footnote now but the two groups are still flailing away at each other as the trolls from each site gleefully egg them on.
And the left laughs.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/23/2009 @ 11:39 pmMachinist, I have said it to many times: what makes Axelrod smile are the kinds of things we should avoid.
This kind of business is one of those things. It’s making Carville giggle, irritating as that sound can be.
Disagree with one another and move on, sure. But this “purity” nonsense will lose us elections. And for some people, that will be fine. The Left, I understand.
But some of my conservative friends would rather lose 100% of something than win 75%.
YMMV.
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/23/2009 @ 11:44 pmSir, I won’t even comment on the original issue except to say the two of them should have been mature enough to stop short of the personal comments and just make their cases to those who came to their sites and let the other do the same. It rather seems they stopped thinking with the big heads at some point. Friends would have tried to part or calm them, as you did. Too many others found it amusing to fan the flames into a conflagration. I don’t see that either host has advanced their case or their reputations by what has happened. Each day I come here to mourn the casualties on both sides and I see the juveniles and trolls are still stirring it up.
I am sad.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/23/2009 @ 11:51 pmAbsolutely, Machinist. I am sad, too. I don’t expect everyone to agree. But things have gotten personal, and everyone loses from that. Except the Left. And the trolls and juveniles that you mentioned, who seem to delight in anger and disorder.
Do you remember Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment? During the 80s, I had to hear how stupid and senile and warmongering Reagan was, repeatedly. If you get a chance to read that collection of his correspondence that came out a few years ago, it is worth your time. He knew a lot about bringing different people together, focusing on their similarities and not their differences.
Not a stupid man, nor an impractical one. And folks on the Right REALLY need to review that 11th Commandment.
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/23/2009 @ 11:56 pm“Good luck with your OUTLAW meme, and your purity of political essence.”
LOL
Wow. There is a lot of criticism in your full comment, about a lot of things that I didn’t address. I guess you had some filler material that you needed to put somewhere.
“Truth to power, and if I don’t like it, I’m a wimp and not a REAL conservative, like you.”
Laugh out loud…again. Who are you responding to?? Bizarre.
I’m here to express my disgust with Patterico’s actions and lack of ethics. Oh, and cowardly banning the subject of his smears.
Lastly and best of all:
” …if I am wrong (and your path is the correct one)”
If you love something, let it go…
bwahaha. This is great stuff.
Mike Jackson (a7da41) — 3/23/2009 @ 11:57 pmEric Blair, I have read some of them and intend to get the rest. I have been very impressed with Reagan’s intellect and wisdom as well as his character. I regard him as one of the five greatest Presidents in our history.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/24/2009 @ 12:01 amLooking at the current occupant of the office, the phrase “Hyperion to a satyr” comes to life.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/24/2009 @ 12:14 amIt’s worth your time, Machinist.
Your comments about folks who stir the metaphorical pot are particularly apt.
Eric Blair (61dcb2) — 3/24/2009 @ 12:18 am“They’re just showing fealty to Dear Leader, who is constantly searching for signs of disloyalty.”
Bradley – They have received their talking points and marching orders. It is very much like an invasion of Obamatards.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/24/2009 @ 12:26 amOn that note, good night.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/24/2009 @ 12:30 amDoes anyone else find it amusing that, despite banning me, Jeff and company’s attacking me, even though his larger argument is that Patrick’s done him Great Harm by banning Jeff and letting his commenters attack him? I think there’s a literary term for that, but I’m not as smart as I think I am, so I don’t remember what it is.
That said, I think it’s funny that I’m not banned anymore. I mean, he did write this, but I suppose because I took him at his word — that he’d delete what I wrote and not let me post anymore — I’m unprincipled. Probably a liar, too. However, Dan told me a while back that I could comment on his posts, and I did a couple of times. But given that with EE — the software I use at The Valve and which, if I remember right, Jeff uses at PW — I can ban commenters from my posts, I took that as meaning Dan unbanned for his posts. And with this honest admission, I give Jeff the loophole he needs to take the higher ground. C’est la vie, though: for some people, dignity matters more than having the last word.
Also, since there’s this whole “Patterico and his commenters are in bed with A DIRTY LEFTIST THEY SHOULD KNOW THEY’RE IN THE WRONG” meme starting, let me show you what the commenters here think about me, if I may.
daleyrocks: As usual, you make untrue assumptions denigrating the experiences of others. Your attitude of superiority is really one of the reasons I don’t care whether or not I’ve annoyed you in the past. I know the new liberal illuminati have taken over and we’re supposed to give them a chance, but SEK, it’s people like you who give them a bad name. You do have a hard time with self reflection, brooking dissent and admitting you are wrong.
Eric Blair: I think SEK describes a version of the syndrome I posted about earlier. But the ironic part is that most of the Left (and I honestly don’t know how extreme SEK has been in the past leftward, politically) did precisely the same thing that SEK is describing…toward GW Bush. And they often seem unaware of the fact that they are doing so. Instapundit makes jokes about this often, with some justice.
Patterico: Your comment strikes me as similar to the kind of mind-reading that Jeff G. purported to do about me — and it’s just as off-base. Perhaps you have a specific reason to be suspicious of his motives, but I think you’re really reaching, just as he was in describing my intentions.
Moreover, as anyone here (or who has ever read me) will tell you, I hope that everyone involved in this debate has their heart broken, that Obama succeeds, that liberalism prevails, and that conservatives don’t win another election until my great-great-great-great-grandchildren are long dead. Of course, anyone who reads what I write knows this, but that apparently subtracts from (adds to?) my credibility, what with me “endorsing” Patrick’s politics and all.
But the fact that I’m disagreeing with Patrick instead of Jeff is because Jeff said he’d banned me. I suppose I should’ve been an ass and tested him, but what can I say? I’m no Jeff Goldstein.
SEK (4f263c) — 3/24/2009 @ 1:08 amSEK – You were not banned. He has said so repeatedly.
JD (fc0239) — 3/24/2009 @ 4:41 amForget it, guys. Jeff will never let up until he has driven Patterico off the internet. He’s not satisfied not to be Patterico’s friend anymore. He doesn’t want anyone to be Patterico’s friend anymore. And it started quite a while before this (but it took me a while to see it).
If I’m hurting Patterico’s cause, I’ll butt out. But I want to hear it from Patterico and not from Jeff’s pack. Because, otherwise, it would be to enable their goal, namely, to drive Patterico’s readers away.
nk (326199) — 3/24/2009 @ 4:51 amI’ve been following this argle-bargle and I just can’t figure out what it was that set off Goldstein. No matter, though; he was set off.
True that this delights “the other side.” It would suit me strongly to never hear the word “RINO” again. This drive for a conservative orthodoxy is getting mighty bloodthirsty.
Aron (474155) — 3/24/2009 @ 5:39 amOur brilliant TOTUS cannot pronounce Orion…to him it is OAR-ee-on. How would evil BishHitler have been perceived had he been that clueless?
I saw Playboy offered Sarah Palin $1 million to pose nude in the magazine.
National Geographic is offering Michelle Obama the same amount.
I denounce myself.
And isn’t it lovely that Conservatives are fighting amongst themselves? The most ethical dem govt. ever and Rethugs are in disarray. Barney Franks for POTUS. Does he even have teeth or does he take them out for great gumming hum jobs?
aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 3/24/2009 @ 5:54 amSpeaking of love, is lovey emperor condom miffed with his messiah? And why are we paying China stimulus money for condoms to send to 3rd world shiteholes and costing alabama workers their jobs?
This entire affair is marked by childish silliness on all sides. Jeff seems to be drifting into paranoia and incoherence. Patterico is being disingenous and petulant. Both sides are being aided and egged on by their respective commenter mobs. Both are playing the left’s game by attacking each other instead of the common enemy. Jeff seems to know no other style besides aggressive antagonism, and Patterico still apparently wants lefties to think he’s a sweetie. It’s silly and sad, because I’ve enjoyed the work of both men. My hope now is that they have the sense to just ignore each other and let this counterproductive bullshit die down. As Ace pointed out, this is all just dancing to Axelrod’s tune.
radar (722e7d) — 3/24/2009 @ 6:19 amfwiw –
Jeff’s criticisms of Patrick’s postings mirror Patrick’s criticisms of the LAT’s oped pieces and reportings.
For example, what Patrick posted above could just as easily have been posted by an LAT reporter/writer about Patrick.
Go figure.
–
BumperStickerist (2515d5) — 3/24/2009 @ 6:44 amPatterico said the LAT lynched him? How did I miss that post?
nk (326199) — 3/24/2009 @ 6:57 amSEK – I freely acknowledge you and I are usually at odds. It is typically because you arrive with a high and might attitude filled with polysyllabic profundity. Once someone unpacks your words in comments like that, there’s often not much there there.
On nonpolitical subjects you can be very amusing.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/24/2009 @ 7:05 am“Jeff’s criticisms of Patrick’s postings mirror Patrick’s criticisms of the LAT’s oped pieces and reportings.”
Bumperstickerist – I’m not seeing it. The track record of both sires is open to examination in this case and not hidden. Jeff is crying foul but ignores his own blog.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/24/2009 @ 7:09 amMachinist,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/24/2009 @ 7:11 amThank you for the kind words. Eric Blair is right, nobody wins in this dispute. Again, thanks to Patterico for his near-superhuman patience with all the trolls and distractions. His tenacity serves him well.
Those who wish to keep this childish controversy going are free to go back to PW and vent their enormous spleens to their heart’s content. But those among the regulars here have made it clear that we’re sick of this sh-t, tired of this sh-t, and sick of your particular brand of sh-t. Take it outside, go scream at innocent passers by, go down to the local shelter and scare the puppies – after all, you’re real men, and you don’t have to take any sh-t if you don’t want to – so be men of action, and do something constructive with all that anger.
I was not aware that you were friends with Senor LaRoche. Good guy, he is.
Mike was one of the regulars over at Cathy’s World, JD – and I miss his insights quite a bit these days. But he was driven off by a particularly nasty troll who wasn’t reined in by some of his other like – minded trolls, and we lost the group dynamic shortly thereafter. Ain’t gonna happen here, not again.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/24/2009 @ 7:23 amDmac,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/24/2009 @ 7:30 amYou talk as if Mike L. were departed from the blogosphere. Happily, he’s very much around.
I’m disallowing the entire “lynching” argument on the basis that “I’ll bring the tree” – which is Jeff’s end of that line – is comedic.
Unless Jeff has the tools and machinery to relocate and transplant a tree of sufficient diameter and height to lynch a grown male. In which case, get a restraining order.
I’ll stand by my generalization that Patrick’s reacting (in general) towards Jeff the way the LAT reacts towards Patterico.
Also, there’s more than a whiff of ‘pon my troth! – to Patrick’s responses. If you can’t detect it, it’s because you’re around it so often. As for Jeff – and, while I comment here on occasion, and at PW … and at AoS, and JoM at times …
yeah, he can be a bit of a prick and hyperfocus, but usually it’s in situations where somebody visits PW – dishes it out, and then decides they can’t take it.
.
BumperStickerist (2515d5) — 3/24/2009 @ 7:35 am“If you can’t detect it, it’s because you’re around it so often.”
BumperStickerist – I would say the same to you regarding your reading of Jeff. The whole death threat and banning incident is minor in the scheme of this disagreement. Jeff is blowing it out of proportion as an excuse for the embarrassing closure of his blog. I also comment at PW less so at JoM and Ace so I’ve seen you around. If you haven’t read the relevant thread here, I suggest you do so.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/24/2009 @ 8:10 amI read the thread, and I’m not reflexively defending Jeff. I think Jeff makes a valid point about the ad hominem stuff directed his way — and I’m familiar with the recent public goings-on with Karl when he was guest-posting at PW and was present backwhen during the “Birth of the Jeff’s Cock Slap” and, less fortunately, during “The Afterbirth of Jeff’s Cock Slap”
I think I’ll start gardening more.
fwiw, these blog-tiffs tend to have a “forgive, but remember” aspect to them. Eventually, in the interest of time, maybe the commentariat could develop a shorthand way of summarizing these incident:
Codes:
1A – You’ve misinterpreted my argument
1B – You’re the suckiest suck who ever sucked.
1C – et cetera.
…
BumperStickerist (2515d5) — 3/24/2009 @ 8:23 am“You would think, after what Jeff G. went through recently with that crazy liberal lady threatening his children, that Patterico would discourage slimy comments about the same man’s family. But no, he encourages it.”
– Mike Jackson
You would think, after what Jeff G. went through recently with that crazy liberal lady threatening his children, that Jeff G. wouldn’t have gone off and endorsed attacks on Obama through the man’s children. But he did, even if he didn’t write the attacks himself – which makes him a massive hypocrite or a tone-deaf retard. And if you really are a regular reader of this site and the comments that appear here, you ought to know that involving children in political disputes drives nk (rightfully) insane.
Leviticus (68eff1) — 3/24/2009 @ 9:47 amNot arguing with Goldstein is not the same as banning him.
My take on this whole issue is that you seem to believe that it is better to avoid a head-on collision with those who want to be the code interpreters to serve their own ends; to combat this, you think it’s smart to take into account the likelihood (or virtual certainty) that they will misinterpret what you say to fit their own agenda when making your argument. If the object of the argument is persuasion, not necessarily of the adversary, but the wider audience, this is to me a fair point.
Goldstein, it seems, does not believe in yielding ground to those who would (self-servingly) interpret what someone says because once that ground is lost, it’s difficult to reclaim, and the self-serving interpreter is going to do it anyway. On top of that, the offending interpreter can then use that position to mount further attacks on your speech, once this beachhead is established. Which is also a fair point. You may counter, if I may continue with the military analogy, that you may lose the war if you win this battle; better to retreat from this particular fight.
Both positions seem to assume different views about your audience and the point of the discourse. Reasonable people can disagree. That said, since there’s no adjudicator in this fight, it can’t be settled to anyone’s satisfaction, and I’m another audience member throwing my two cents in, for better or worse.
I’ve been following this dust-up as someone who checks Ace, you, Protein, NRO, Treacher, etc., when they should be working. Also for the record, I think Goldstein is right on this and you are wrong, and that your “death threat” issue is overwrought. Also for the record, I like your work, especially the unmasking of Greenwald’s sock puppetry, and you are, I believe, a force for good. As are Protein Wisdom and the other thought leaders mentioned.
And the point of this post?
First, I hope that the first parts of the post demonstrate that I’m not some troll, or am hiding behind a ‘let’s all get along’ banner in the hopes that you’ll mend fences just for the sake of doing so (I have a view). Or that I hate you. I don’t.
Second, I think you committed a cardinal sin is in banning Goldstein. That’s what really rubs me the wrong way, especially using this “death threat” issue.
Bad form, sir.
This incident has made you look smaller. And that’s not good, not just for you, but for your followers.
No comment or further response necessary, but have at me if you will.
Sincerely,
A fan
Todd, the Sofa King (7dfb32) — 3/24/2009 @ 10:37 amYou were not banned. He has said so repeatedly.
JD, I’m going to resist the urge to use JG’s words in the link against what JG’s saying now, because the intent jokes are growing a little stale. Suffice it to say, when one adult tells another that he’s deleting what you write and won’t let you write anything there anymore, that’s a ban.
SEK (072055) — 3/24/2009 @ 10:43 amOther than a deleted link, there is nothing to suggest you were banned. Because you think you were banned does not make it so. It makes it easier for you to write your post, but it does not make it true.
JD (08ac3e) — 3/24/2009 @ 10:51 amOther than a deleted link…
…and the statement that I wouldn’t be allowed to comment there again…
…there is nothing to suggest you were banned.
That doesn’t make much sense. Again, I understand that some people want to win something on a technicality, but when someone tells me that they’re deleting what I wrote and that I won’t be allowed to write anymore, I interpret that as “SEK UR BANNED!”
SEK (072055) — 3/24/2009 @ 11:00 amAlso, daleyrocks:
I freely acknowledge you and I are usually at odds.
This wouldn’t happen if you weren’t so wrong all the time.
SEK (072055) — 3/24/2009 @ 11:01 amYeah, daley, if you would only come around to my way of thinking, you wouldn’t as convinced of my “asshattery.”
Scott, he “banned” me the same way, although I kept posting for another day. At that point he started deleting my posts….hey, contrary to popular wisdom, even I figured that out. It appears, and this is not contrary to popular wisdom, I am less of an adult than you are, but I had a similar experience.
timb (a83d56) — 3/24/2009 @ 11:10 amWhether or not you were actually banned is not a “technicality”. That you feel you were banned does not make it so. He has since been very clear on this. That you persist on making that claim is less than honest.
JD (08ac3e) — 3/24/2009 @ 11:10 amAnybody feel like this discussion echoes conversations from a high school girls locker room?
quasimodo (edc74e) — 3/24/2009 @ 11:21 amYes… but “Nature within her inmost self divides/to trouble men with having to take sides.” You stick with your people, even if you think the whole thing is silly or blown out of proportion or whatever.
So I’m with nk and Patterico. If Jeff G. was so sensitive to the notion of bringing children into adult disputes, you’d think he would’ve been smart enough not to endorse a post that did just that… but he wasn’t, and it pissed nk off in a way that seems justified to me. And here we are.
Leviticus (35fbde) — 3/24/2009 @ 11:27 amNever been in a high school girls locker room. While the girls were in there, anyway.
Todd, the Sofa King (54df94) — 3/24/2009 @ 11:28 amDmac’s pungent analogy of the putrefying equine carcass seems more apt.
The buzzards have gouged out its eyes, its belly is ripped open, shreds of gangrenous bloated bowel hanging out, gallbladder inflated like a balloon, ants and beetles swarming all over.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (0a7219) — 3/24/2009 @ 11:37 amYeah, but they just can’t help themselves, it would appear. Obsession, narcissism, whatever the root cause of this silly strum and drang may be, no one cares anymore.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/24/2009 @ 12:00 pm“My take on this whole issue is that you seem to believe that it is better to avoid a head-on collision with those who want to be the code interpreters to serve their own ends; to combat this, you think its smart to take into account the likelihood (or virtual certainty) that they will misinterpret what you say to fit their own agenda when making your argument. If the object of the argument is persuasion, not necessarily of the adversary, but the wider audience, this is to me a fair point.”
Does it matter to you that you have misstated my position? That’s not a rhetorical question.
I initially stated my position in a way that could be read as sanctioning speaking carefully to avoid unreasonable and bad faith interpretations. Then, when faced with a contrary argument that I found persuasive, I abandoned that position. That happened very quickly, and since then I have made it clear on numerous occasions. See my post on “Points of Agreement on Interpretation.”
I continue to believe that speaker should usually avoid formulations that they know are subject to reasonable and good faith misinterpretation.
So if we’re talking code word enforcers seeking to twist our words, then no, I don’t sanction that.
“especially using this death threat issue”
That was how it read to me at the time. The next day a couple of people I respect argued that they weren’t threats, and I agreed that might be true. The ban remains in effect for reasons I have explained.
Thanks for your comment. Please base your views of me on what I say and not what other people claim I say.
Patterico (b64723) — 3/24/2009 @ 12:42 pmAlso, I apologize to any of my commenters if it seems like responding to this individual is allowing the dead horse to be beaten further. But if someone comes on here and is polite but seems to misunderstand what I’ve said, I have the obligation to set them straight.
I suggest to Todd that if he disputes the finer points of the personal aspects of all this, please e-mail me. Everyone here has already heard it all and is tired of talking about it.
Patterico (cad5db) — 3/24/2009 @ 12:56 pmPlease base your views of me on what I say and not what other people claim I say.
Ummmmm…. in light of all that’s come before …
wow.
Is it okay for us to base our views of you on what we think you might say?
…
BumperStickerist (2515d5) — 3/24/2009 @ 12:57 pm“This wouldn’t happen if you weren’t so wrong all the time.”
SEK – Check. I don’t understand what you mean and I don’t understand what Jeff G. means. I also don’t understand what I mean according to Jeff. Time to go eat worms.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/24/2009 @ 12:58 pm“Is it okay for us to base our views of you on what we think you might say?”
BumperStickerist – There is still a teeny tiny speck of meat on that rib bone over there. Go for it!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/24/2009 @ 1:00 pm. . . green pus ooozing out the neck, centipedes crawling in its bloody mangled eye sockets, blowfly maggots wriggling in what’s left of the aorta, altogether yummy!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (0a7219) — 3/24/2009 @ 1:05 pmI’m on it like white on rice ..
… errrrr …. check that,
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=white%20on%20rice
phew … I’m safe. No racial connotations.
BumperStickerist (2515d5) — 3/24/2009 @ 1:08 pmI’ll paraphrase Ray Charles here (based on his classic “What’d I Say?” –
See the horse over there all beaten down;
You don’t have to whip it down
Hey, Hey
Hey, Hey
Hey, Hey, Mama now it’s allright
When you see that horse in misery
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/24/2009 @ 1:10 pmTime for you now to break it free
Hey, Hey
Hey, Hey
Hey, Hey, now what’d I say?
If a skydiver and his mother are about to jump out of a plane without a parachute and you tell them you hope they succeed…
oh forget it.
w3bgrrl (5b8906) — 3/24/2009 @ 1:27 pmAppreciate the response. To reiterate and summarize, my main point was that banning someone seems beneath you, and this is especially so in the absence of death threats or fighting words from the person banned.
re other points of discussion, I’ll use e-mail, not comments, to discuss this issue further, as you suggested, but I get the feeling the substance of it is best put in the past.
To close, I thought I was basing views of you on what you said, and don’t appreciate the snark. And if your earlier question wasn’t rhetorical, I’d sure like to see one that is.
Despite all that, your efforts are appreciated, and please keep up the good work you do, both on the blog and in your day job.
With hope, and a desire for change,
Todd
Todd, the Sofa King (7dfb32) — 3/24/2009 @ 1:46 pmI think many of you are missing the point of what has happened here. I don’t know who started this flame war, and, since I like both parties, I don’t want to know. But I think its bad.
The rules that work best for me are:
1) Stick to ideas, not personalities. If people are not engaging with the ideas and those people are deliberately misinterpreting your words, stop the engagement and move on. No more jabs, no more mocking. Its tempting, but harmful.
2) Don’t participate in namecalling. A derogatory name doesn’t provide any information for a person or persons to act on. It shows childishness (the bad kind). If you have to resort to namecalling, your position gets discredited regardless of its validity. You will have already lost.
3) If violations of 1 and 2 occur, ignore them. Continuing an unreasonable thread enables and empowers those who are unreasonable. Reasonable people will understand. Those are the people you want to cater to.
4) Don’t take sides personality wise. If you are sticking to ideas and civil discourse, you won’t need to. Ideas are true, partially true or not true completely independent of the messenger, so fights between the messengers are completely unnecessary.
5)If you realize you have an intractable disagreement over an idea, surrender quickly to that fact, and agree to disagree. Further discussion is pointless, and frequently harmful.
6) If you see two enemies fighting each other, let them finish the fight, then wipe out the winner in their weakened state. Corollary: Don’t start such a fight if there is somebody out there that will clean the winner’s clock.
Question: would you engage this lady? I wouldn’t. Ignorance that is obvious to reasonable people doesn’t deserve our time or energy. Put the energy into people who can be persuaded for maximum return.
Jeff (149fb6) — 3/24/2009 @ 2:06 pmJeff – Did you post the same comment at Protein Wisdom?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/24/2009 @ 2:24 pmHey everybody; long time no see.
How are things going here? It seems like just yesterday I was here, then Paterrico decided to twist a childish hack’s pathetic attack on a blogger Paterrico was debating into the perfect excuse for removing said blogger from being allowed to defend himself, because he couldn’t stand the thought of (gasp) losing an argument on the internet.
Needless to say, that was enough to make me take the first train out of this hypocritical hellhole.
So, how’s it going? I feel as if I’ve missed so much.
Patrick Frey's Honor (a479f9) — 3/25/2009 @ 8:52 pm“So, how’s it going? I feel as if I’ve missed so much.”
blowhard – How are you doing? That is you right?
“removing said blogger from being allowed to defend himself”
said blogger seems to be spending an inordinate amount of time defending himself and attacking Patrick Frey on said blogger’s own blog, just as he does with lefty blogs where he is not allowed to post. No difference really. He’s also directing blog bitches like you around the internet to make comments and telling them what to say and where to say it. I’d say the wrong person is whining about honor at this point, but like you, I don’t know anything.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/25/2009 @ 9:04 pmWere you looking in the mirror when you posted this, daley?
For your sake I hope you were; Patterico must have to buy new slacks monthly with all the workouts you give his zipper.
The first step is acceptance.
Veritas (c4d50f) — 3/26/2009 @ 9:56 am