Patterico's Pontifications

5/30/2009

Patterico Banned from BillOReilly.com

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:24 pm

I wish I could share today’s “BillOReilly.com blog posting” . . . but my membership has been terminated:

Due to violations of the Terms and Conditions of BillOReilly.com attributed to your account, your Premium Membership is hereby terminated effective as of the date of this notice. The termination is final and any attempt to use the site or to renew membership either directly or indirectly will similarly result in termination and/or blocking use of the site.

I’m not sure what terms and conditions I supposedly violated. I never posted any comments (or “blog postings”) on O’Reilly’s site. All I did was quote (and screencap) two embarrassing comments from the message boards.

Oh, wait. I just reviewed the Terms and Conditions again, and I believe I have found the relevant language: “4. Do not expose Bill O’Reilly as a rank hypocrite.”

OK, then.

UPDATE: Thanks to Hot Air and Instapundit for the links.

113 Responses to “Patterico Banned from BillOReilly.com”

  1. Don’t forget to dispute the membership charge with your card company for their breach of contract.

    SPQR (72771e)

  2. Cheezit Crackers. He’s done it now.

    SarahW (fdd722)

  3. DUDE. He’s gonna get it. No joke. He’s going to have to ban all of us…

    interestingcreature (e8507f)

  4. According to the notice I received, I will receive a credit for the prorated portion of my $4.95. Which, since they allowed me to be a member for all of two days, means the total charge should be about 33 cents.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  5. What.a.narcissistic.thin – skinned.self-righteous.two-faced.douchebag.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  6. Patterico, nonetheless, charge back the whole thing. In the world of card processing, chargebacks matter. They cost him more than just the 4.95.

    SPQR (72771e)

  7. Priceless

    JD (8d3f8f)

  8. wait, so you get banned, but Senior Goat-Love gets a pass?

    Does the man understand the meaning of the word “irony”?

    Jewels (dec12d)

  9. My condolences………….NOT!
    lol, who cares?
    ;)

    wheeler's cat (c4bfc1)

  10. [...] The follow-up this post from yesterday: Patterico has been banned from BillOReilly.com. [...]

    Eric Berlin » Blog Archive » Gosh, I sure didn’t see this coming (317d33)

  11. BOR is just following Bambi’s lead in how to stifle criticism. In this case it’s not alleged to be racist, of course, it’s alleged to be discriminatory against someone merely because they are a fatuous loud-mouth with the IQ of a large pile of barnyard effluent. How dare you Patterico!!?

    sherlock (916775)

  12. 9. Mr O’reilly

    SarahW (fdd722)

  13. 9. Mr O’reilly

    SarahW (fdd722)

  14. “According to the notice I received, I will receive a credit for the prorated portion of my $4.95. Which, since they allowed me to be a member for all of two days, means the total charge should be about 33 cents.”

    Sounds to me like you had a valid contract and that they’re now in breach.

    I’d sue the bastards.

    Dave Surls (ef5416)

  15. oreilly is a fraud so is fox news.

    tyler (19d7cf)

  16. Do you have to return the exclusive Bill O’Reilly.com loofah? That alone mght be worth 33 cents on eBay.

    ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

    Vermont Neighbor (efb5a9)

  17. tyler is edumacated so is his kitty now he has to take out litter box now

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  18. BOR has been on my shit spit list since last Oct. He is a HUGE BO fan. He, and his show, become more liberal sympathetic every week. If he keeps it up there will be a home for him at MSNBC soon!

    Jim (b67335)

  19. You work there is done.

    kaf (525681)

  20. He wants to get another interview with Obama. He thinks he is really open minded or something. Twisted

    Jane (debb14)

  21. I guess you could tell Mr. O’Reilly he is not welcome at your site, either.

    Between the two I know which I would miss most.

    On the other hand, I’m sure our peerless leader would be happy to assist Mr. O’Reilly in several ways:
    1. Demonstrate and teach graciousness by allowing him to visit PP’s anyway
    2. Demonstrate what blogging is really about and how it is done
    3. Help him get straightened out on multiple topics by the brain-trust here, which provides superior analysis than his show anyway.

    Then, after a month and he can no longer get through the day without checking in…

    get your 33 cents back.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  22. What delicious irony. Patterico is whimpering and raising the victim banner because Bill O. has adopted Patterico’s practice of banning under false pretense, a la Jeff Goldstein.

    Just a lovely contrast in role play.

    I give Bill O. credit for having way more class. No phony “death threat” smears. Just a bigger bully, at worst.

    Mike Jackson (a7da41)

  23. 21 how does it feel to dangle amongst the dingleberries of the anal region hair of both O’Reilly and Obama?

    Geraldo and O’Reilly make a lovely couple. Is Colmes still with Hannity? Alan was ignorant, but at least had a little class.

    aoibhneas (55634c)

  24. Mike: Back off with the Jeff Goldstein stuff. He and Patterico have worked it out. Water under the bridge and all that. Let it go.

    Patt: Caught your act on NARN today. Good stuff. O’Reilly needs to be taken down a peg when he deserves it, and this time he definitely does.

    dicentra (5fbaa0)

  25. argh- the numbers changed..I was adressing Mikey Jackson and not MD in Philly. Nice that Mike is so innocent of those pedophile charges at least, but his plastic surgeon rots. Funny how so many blacks are excelling in no.1 spots and Mikey wants to be a honky.

    aoibhneas (55634c)

  26. I used to like O’Reilly. Lately I’m tuning him out. He’s become increasingly loud, pompous, boorish and tiresome. He won’t let his guests get a word in edgewise even when they agree with him. I think in a few months Glenn Beck will eclipse him in ratings. He’s clear high on his own fumes.

    Fred (e8096e)

  27. But I have all of this popcorn! (No, I won’t send it to him, I’ll eat it myself.)

    htom (412a17)

  28. You guys (HotAir) and this site…you’re lying about what happened. If you came to my site and told bald faced lies, I’d ban you too.

    Never did OReilly smear any website- when reading the comment from HotAir, he simply said “Hussein- that’s the president” and moved on. There was no smear, and he never claimed that all sites should never tolerate any negative comments, as he specifically said his own site gets hit with these savage comments that make it through filters.

    If you guys can’t be honest about all of this, then stop complaining maybe?

    Joshua Taj Bozeman (013f8c)

  29. Regarding Jim—comment 18. Exactly my feelings. There’s being fair and then there’s bending over backwards to rationalize someones behavior. O’reilly started doing the latter and I no longer even listen to him.

    edddie (e83f1f)

  30. Joshua Taj Bozeman,

    Here’s a description of O’Reilly’s first segment.

    He says: “OK, I’m gonna read a couple of co — now, these are from bloggers.” Note: he explicitly says these come from “bloggers.” He then reads a comment from Free Republic, which he says is “probably the roughest right-wing web site.” That comment is about how it might be a good thing that Sotomayor has diabetes. O’Reilly concludes: “That’s pretty nasty.

    He then continues: “This comes from HotAir.com.” In the background is a quote, under which are the words “HotAir.com blog posting.” O’Reilly then reads: “Unqualified, militant, and socialist.” He strongly emphaizes the word “socialist” in a sarcastic manner. He gets to the part which calls Obama “Hussein” and has to stop to explain that it’s a reference to the President.

    In context, he clearly portrayed the “bloggers” who he claimed wrote the “blog posting” at Hot Air as idiots who wrote something inappropriate. That is a smear. If you disagree, that’s fine, but calling me and the bloggers at HotAir.com liars just reveals you to be someone who goes over the top with his rhetoric, without bringing along facts to justify it.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  31. Joshua…

    Straw man….

    Try again to make a point….

    reff (ee9f7a)

  32. “I’m not sure what terms and conditions I supposedly violated. I never posted any comments (or “blog postings”) on O’Reilly’s site.”

    “If you came to my site and told bald faced lies, I’d ban you too.”

    What we have here is a failure to communicate.

    Dave Surls (ef5416)

  33. Call the ACLU and see if they will take your case.

    jfshaughnessy (2327cb)

  34. What we have here is a failure to communicate.

    What we have is Joshua’s failure to listen.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  35. What we have here is a half – cognitive, gap – toothed plankton, as amply demonstrated the last time it posted.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  36. He says: “OK, I’m gonna read a couple of co — now, these are from bloggers.” Note: he explicitly says these come from “bloggers.” He then reads a comment from Free Republic, which he says is “probably the roughest right-wing web site.” That comment is about how it might be a good thing that Sotomayor has diabetes. O’Reilly concludes: “That’s pretty nasty.

    I seem to remember reading some comments from kind-hearted liberals wishing that Justice Clarence Thomas would get heart disease and drop dead. I’m sure O’Reilly covered that, too.

    Socratease (488635)

  37. Joshua, you gotta get your mind right … and I mean right. Is your mind right, Joshua?

    carlitos (7d2345)

  38. The whole O’Lielly (an Al Frankenism I never thought I would utter) episode smacks of a Jeff Goldstein stunt. It’s not just that he doesn’t live up to his own standards, that’s a failing of everyone who isn’t a saint, it’s that you’re somehow to blame for pointing it out and because he’s fighting the good fight, he doesn’t even have to make the attempt. It’s like how Goldstein signed the internet code of behavior agreement and then refused to live up to it because no one else did. I mean, do your standards mean anything or not?

    Olbermann (remember the Howard Dean “Don’t call a sitting president fascist!” episode?) shows the same (willful?) blindness.

    Fritz (05ef42)

  39. I went to Free Republic and looked at their response. The owner of the site posted an entry blasting O’Reilly. In fact the owner has diabetes himself and has lost a sister to that disease. It isn’t like he approved of the comment. That is just what happens when you open your site for comments from readers.

    What I hate about O’Reilly is his “I’m above all of you” attitude. He slams the right and the left and pretends to be so much better than everyone.
    He isn’t a liberal!
    He isn’t a conservative!
    He is Bill O’Reilly! He is superior to you all and if you disagree, well you are just stupid!
    I ignore his show and I hate falafel sandwiches.

    Rachel (d2110d)

  40. Joshua,

    you are misconstruing the entire argument with your straw man. The issue here began with O’Reilly accusing Hot Air in a “blog posting” of bigotry by using the name Hussein and then just tarring them with the negative extreme right blog name.

    After Hot Air and Patterico pointed that out, then O’Reilly claimed that it is the blogger’s responsibility to monitor all their posts as O’Reilly claims he does on his own site. All Patterico did was visit O’Reilly’s site and show what a hypocrite he really is. Then, O’Reilly used his power to silence someone that was making him look badly by restricting Patterico from viewing his site so Patterico couldn’t continue to embarrass O’Reilly by pointing out other comments on his site.

    That clear enough for you? Or would you rather continue insulting people that are trying to have a civilized discussion?

    NJRob (95c583)

  41. “What we have is Joshua’s failure to listen.”

    That’s often the case when there is a failure to communicate.

    Dave Surls (ef5416)

  42. Maybe this is just a ploy by BOR to get an extra $500 in new subscriptions….

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  43. You did a great job of exposing the hypocrisy of Bill O’Reilly. It’s one thing to criticize a blogger for their own statements, but to hold the comments of their viewers against them is unreasonable. O’Reilly may be comfortable with draconian like censorship, but I’m certainly not.

    Some of us value the net as a source of unfiltered opinion, even though it can include repugnant statements by some. The answer is not censorship. The answer is to engage and challenge those who put forward repugnant statements, because, even though a statement may be repugnant, it has potential value in determining truth. O’Reilly clearly isn’t a fan of John Stuart Mill, but he should give chapter 2 of On Liberty another read.

    StickeeNotes (2a0aaa)

  44. Terms and conditions:

    Section 1. Intellectual Property…

    - The Site Materials may not be copied and posted on any other web site.

    I don’t know if that was on there before or if it was recently added — the T&C does specifically state they can change the terms at any time effective immediately!

    However, it is a completely crappy (sh…y) thing to do — thus eliminating any possible criticism.

    Get someone with a membership to give them to you if you think you can fight any copyright issues.

    My respect level for the self proclaimed internet cop just dropped to all time low levels.

    Arrogant a!
    David

    LifeTrek (d258cb)

  45. He’s been playing to BHo for some time. He’s not partial or impartial. He’s disingenuous.

    Vermont Neighbor (efb5a9)

  46. LifeTrek,

    As it happens, I copied the entirety of what I agreed to when I signed up. Here it is:

    When using the Message Boards you may not do ANY of the following:
    a. Restrict or inhibit any other member from using and enjoying the web site or services;
    b. Post or transmit any illegal, abusive, hateful, defamatory, indecent, libelous, obscene, pornographic, profane, threatening, harassing, embarrassing, unlawful, vulgar, or other information of any kind that violates applicable law or regulation or which harms minors in any way, including, without limitation, information that constitutes the following:
    - Infringement: Information that violates or infringes upon the copyright, literary, privacy, publicity, trademark, service mark or any other personal or property right of any person or entity or which discloses any trade secret or confidential information.
    - Software: Software or materials that contain viruses, corrupted files, or similar programs that may damage the operation of another’s computer or BillOReilly.com.
    c. Post advertisements of solicitations for business, except in areas expressly designated for such purposes and in accordance with the express rules and regulations established by BillOReilly.com.
    d. Post chain letters or pyramid schemes,
    e. Impersonate another person or manipulate headers or identifiers so as to disguise the origin or content of any posting, or
    f. Do any act which interferes with or slows the operation of BillOReilly.com or related services.

    BillOReilly.com does not control or pre-screen the files, information, or messages (referred to collectively as “Information”) delivered to or displayed in the Message Boards, unless otherwise noted therein, and BillOReilly.com assumes no duty to, and does not monitor or endorse Information within the Message Boards.

    BillOReilly.com reserves the right at all times to edit, refuse to post, or to remove any Information, in whole or part, that BillOReilly.com deems inappropriate for inclusion in the Message Boards. BillOReilly.com reserves the right to expel you from or suspend your access to some or all of BillOReilly.com for violating the law or this Agreement. Violators may also be subject to legal action.

    Neither BillOReilly.com nor Bill O’Reilly personally have any obligation to respond to any Information posted in the Message Boards, or otherwise transmitted to BillOReilly.com or Bill O’Reilly. In addition, by posting Information to the Message Boards, you automatically assign and transfer to BillOReilly.com all right, title and interest to that content (and if, for any reason, such transfer is not valid, you then grant to BillOreilly.com a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, or display the material) all without any obligation to you, whether by way of compensation, attribution or otherwise.

    Activities in the Message Boards are public and not private communications and may be read by others without your knowledge or permission. Although a particular area may have a policy of limited membership or access, BillOReilly.com shall have no liability if unauthorized persons nevertheless obtain access. Your use of the Message Boards is at your own risk so be careful about disclosing your personal information. If you are under 18 years of age, you must ask your parents permission before posting any personally identifiable information.

    BillOReilly.com will, in its sole discretion, determine if you have broken any of the use restrictions set forth herein or elsewhere disclosed by BillOReilly.com.

    I don’t see anything there about not copying stuff onto web sites — and I never agreed to ay such thing.

    I do find it interesting, however, that O’Reilly copies comments from Web sites on his show — but has inserted legal language purporting to prevent users from publicizing anything questionable that appears on his site.

    When I had my account terminated, I replied in an e-mail asking what “terms and conditions” I violated. I’ll let y’all know when and if I hear back.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  47. Some of us value the net as a source of unfiltered opinion, even though it can include repugnant statements by some. The answer is not censorship.

    Therein lies the key. We’ve heard for awhile now Obama’s plans to install yet another czar – an Internet czar. Bill is likely greasing his audience for upcoming segments in which he supports a crackdown of the Internet. Especially now with the no-criticize rule toward the stimulus, apparently applicable to lobbyists and regular folk.

    Vermont Neighbor (efb5a9)

  48. Perhaps the core of O’Reilly’s problem is in order to find his niche at Fox News, he has to be a philosophical chameleon. He has to be a person who really isn’t into the courage of his convictions as much as into soothing his thin skin, stroking his ego, and garnering good ratings by inciting controversy and pressing people’s buttons.

    Quite simply, O’Reilly appears to suffer from a form of Sybil Syndrome. As such, he’s more liable to misconstrue or misread situations, which is less surprising since a part of his thought process apparently does lean left.

    theunfocused.blogspot.com:

    If one actually takes the time to evaluate [O'Reilly] on the issues, he is quite moderate. I’ve heard him on several occasions on his show say something to the effect if he had to do it all of over again he would not support the war in Iraq but now that we are there we must be successful. That’s certainly not a hawkish “neo-con.”

    A few weeks ago I listened to a portion of his radio show and he was steaming mad about gas prices and railing against oil companies. He sounded like a populist, sorta like John Edwards. However, I don’t recall him call supporting the wind-fall taxes on oil companies. He also believes global warming exists.

    The only area I can see him as a ideological hardliner is more on social issues. He’s not for gay marriage [sic, per excerpt below]. He was on the “War on Christmas” band wagon. He targeted a Kansas abortion clinic doing late term abortions.

    However, his position is more nuanced on gay rights. He supports civil unions.

    In an interview with Mike Wallace he said he was for gun control and is also against the death penalty.


    Americablog.com, May 13, 2009:

    Bill O’Reilly went off the other night about how gay marriage could lead to goat, duck, dolphin and turtle marriage – oh yeah, and polygamy. It’s funny, then, that back in 2002, Bill O’Reilly told my friend Michael Giltz in a bombshell interview for the Advocate that he couldn’t care less about the issue of gay marriage. At first, O’Reilly told Michael that he was opposed to gay marriage. Then when pushed by the reporter, O’Reilly finally conceded:

    “Look, I couldn’t care less, to tell you the truth…. You want to get married? Knock yourself out. Go to Vegas. Have a good time. If you can get that changed, I’m not going to jump up and down and say I think it’s wrong, because I don’t.”

    This was the same interview in which O’Reilly referred to anti-gay religious right activists as “fanatics” and “holy rollers” who were a bit “ridiculous.” O’Reilly went on to express his support for laws protecting gays in the workplace and more. Shortly after that, O’Reilly ripped a religious right representative, on camera.

    Mark (411533)

  49. If I could watch him less I would for sure do that cause of what a stupid stupid wanker this Bill O’Reilly person is. You know who I like is that dignified guy on Fox. Can’t remember his name. brb.

    happyfeet (2d133f)

  50. oh. Brit Hume. He’s very very good at doing the whole news thing, Brit Hume is. Mr. O’Reilly should tape his show and watch when he gets home so he can learn how to have dignity and appear intelligent. He could practice in front of the mirror maybe.

    happyfeet (2d133f)

  51. Anything posted on his blog cannot be reprinted w/o written permission. You can link to the post but you can’t reprint it.

    Some forums are like that. The idea is that you’re screencapping a post out of context to ridicule or embarrass the website owner. I found your post through a link, btw, and took the time to read the OP and the responses. Had my source simply screencapped the post it would have looked to me like you were just whining. Which you are, a little bit. Possibly with justification.

    Orion (ee6c2d)

  52. that dignified guy on Fox.

    Kiefer Sutherland?

    Vermont Neighbor (efb5a9)

  53. Had my source simply screencapped the post it would have looked to me like you were just whining. Which you are, a little bit. Possibly with justification.

    Whining? I’m laughing — at Bill O’Reilly.

    I know it’s fun to tell other people they’re whining, but it sorta takes away from your credibility when they’re clearly not.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  54. You know…it really is time that conservatives voiced their collective opinion on what a baffoon Oh Really, really is. The guy gives us all a bad name. I’ve practically quit watching FOX because of him.

    Franklin (9e35e5)

  55. [...] Patterico get a high-five from the Factor for his intrepid work in pointing out hateful comments?  Not exactly: I wish I could share today’s “BillOReilly.com blog posting” . . . but my membership has been [...]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » O’Reilly loses his taste for internet cops (e2f069)

  56. Joshua, as I’ve noted before, your local library has remedial reading materials – the librarian can show you where they are shelved.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  57. Hah. He doesn’t track his own comments, but he’s clearly watching your blog.

    Hey Bill, we know you’re watching. Just want you to know, I think you’re an ass.

    alien (2edc64)

  58. “Anything posted on his blog cannot be reprinted w/o written permission.”

    That’s a bunch of baloney.

    Dave Surls (ef5416)

  59. Patterico,

    You copied the message board T&C that I can’t get to, did you look at the general T&C when you enrolled (see my link or bottom right of front page — just curious because if they really changed it as a result of your postings then they are worse then the worse on the left. (And you are way powerful man!)

    Pinhead indeed, more like douche!
    David

    LifeTrek (d258cb)

  60. BillOReilly.com does not control or pre-screen the files, information, or messages (referred to collectively as “Information”) delivered to or displayed in the Message Boards, unless otherwise noted therein, and BillOReilly.com assumes no duty to, and does not monitor or endorse Information within the Message Boards.”

    Isn’t that in direct contradiction to what Bill O’Reilly said on his show?

    Evil Pundit (42e904)

  61. You copied the message board T&C that I can’t get to, did you look at the general T&C when you enrolled (see my link or bottom right of front page — just curious because if they really changed it as a result of your postings then they are worse then the worse on the left. (And you are way powerful man!)

    I don’t think so; the cached version of those Terms and Conditions (from the 27th) reads the same.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  62. He can’t take being wrong or being called out on his hypocrisy. What a blowhard. Every single episode ends with him pimping out BOLD AND FRESH. Enough already!

    Karen (996c34)

  63. Isn’t that in direct contradiction to what Bill O’Reilly said on his show?

    Yes. In fact, I already posted about that nugget of hypocrisy. (The link in question is in the post, hyperlinked to the phrase “rank hypocrite.”)

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  64. Wow. O’Rielly goes the way of Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs. Must be a trend.

    Scott in OC (f26589)

  65. It is not just the Obama administration…

    O’Reilly just Patterico from his web site! Hot Air reports! Discrimination and hypocrisy I say!

    Hey wait, when was the last time I remember someone gettting banned from Patterico? Hmmmm. It will come to me.

    Joe (17aeff)

  66. What hypocrisy. What outrage. That O’Reilly!

    Of course Patterico’s Pontifications never bans anyone! Right?

    Joe (17aeff)

  67. This is why I won’t subscribe to Bill’o’s crappy web site. He is worse than that vile Keith Olbermann when it comes to taking criticism over his comments and actions. What a petty old man he is. If he is going to comment about the internet then he should at least understand what it is he is commenting upon.

    Ray (582e89)

  68. When will reading comprehension come to you, Joe?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  69. @SPQR:

    Patterico, nonetheless, charge back the whole thing. In the world of card processing, chargebacks matter. They cost him more than just the 4.95.

    Well, you’ve got the theory right, but unfortunately it doesn’t work that way in practice. Chargebacks cost a credit card company (the company that issued the card) about $20 to process, including research, mailings, etc.

    So if a chargeback is less than $20, the issuing bank will generally decide on their own whether to honor it, and if so, they would eat the $4.95 since that would be less than the $20 to do the full chargeback process (contact the merchant, etc.). So the $4.95 won’t come out of O’Reilly’s pocket (or Fox or whatever).

    Brad Thomas (e8ef86)

  70. Bill O’Reilly = Closet Case

    Edward (4833e2)

  71. You are correct, Brad, as far as you go. However that’s not what I was refering to. Merchant processing accounts have penalty clauses for excessive charge backs. That’s what I meant by the comment.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  72. As I “pithily” told O’Reilly several years ago:
    “If you were half as smart as you think you are, you’d be twice a smart as you really are”!
    Glad to see he’s continuing to validate me.

    MikeD (6b1a34)

  73. Fox News fails at being serious for about 20 of its daily 24 hours.
    Geraldo, O’Reilly, Huckabee, Fox and Friends (sounds like a spin-off from Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood; reaches just about that depth}–none of them are ready for prime time.
    The only things on Fox ready for prime time–Fox Report, Glenn Beck, and Redeye–aren’t on in prime time.
    Which pretty much means that all the cable news networks are mostly fakes ‘n’ failures, ratings and/or reputations notwithstanding.

    organshoes (d5926e)

  74. Who knew one could buy so much entertainment for a mere 33 cents?

    Patrick (0f2255)

  75. dude, let this silly issue go and get a damn live. this is boring.

    d. everette (2f7802)

  76. I want to be on HotAir & Patterico’s side on this but… can you explain it instead of just labeling the situation? cuz i am SO lost…

    unless im missing something… Bill O’Reilly was a jerk and unfairly scolded HotAir for not banning offensive comments (admitting in his half-apology that “it happens to me too, but still” to paraphrase). so…to annoy O’Reilly, Patterico posts offensive comments on O’Reilly’s site and gets banned, per O’Reilly’s stated policy…
    why are you calling O’R a hypocrite?

    that makes no sense…………………………

    DrunkReport.com (184cf9)

  77. O’Reilly is no better than Allahpundit from Hot Air — and no less Machiavellian.

    Both he and O’Reilly punish those who disagree with them. They also LOOK for an excuse to censor those who expose their hypocrisy and lies.

    Thomas Jefferson (e5cbf5)

  78. I agree with Bill O’Reilly sometimes and other times I disagree. Like anyone, at various times he can be entertaining, enlightening, and irritating. But his pontifications about blogging and his apparent unwillingness to learn how it works are especially irritating. I hope he learns from this and quits treating the online community as unwelcome competitors.

    DRJ (2901e6)

  79. Bill O. is a pompous gasbag that I can live without.

    Tom (eaab4a)

  80. DrunkReport.com,

    Patterico didn’t comment at O’Reilly’s website, but he did point out here — at his own website, Patterico.com — comments left by others at O’Reilly’s website.

    DRJ (2901e6)

  81. DrunkReport – just how drunk do you have to be to claim that Patterico was banned for posting comments on O’Reilly’s site – given that he posted none.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  82. I think that some folks who have been banned elsewhere (or here) are working out their own issues on this subject.

    Patterico is more amused than anything else.

    Eric Blair (4b7714)

  83. The answer is not censorship. The answer is to engage and challenge those who put forward repugnant statements,

    It would help if anonymoous comments were eliminated.

    O’Reilly does believe in global warming. His reasoning? As he said the other day “just look at your thermometer”. His must be broken. Mine has been recording colder tempratures for the last two years.

    I have four problems with O’Reilly. He doesn’t do any research. He doesn’t let his guests speak. He doesn’t invite real authorities (I’m much more interested in listening to Lord Monckton than hearing O’Reilly’s uninformed views on Global warming).

    And he’s afraid of Obama or he’s an economic illiterate, or perhaps both. My goodness he gave him a B on the economy.

    Terry Gain (6b2a64)

  84. d.everette and drunkreport made me laugh. I wonder if they have figured out how to tie their velcro shoes yet.

    JD (2d2bfc)

  85. O’Reilly does believe in global warming. His reasoning? As he said the other day “just look at your thermometer”.

    When you closely scrutinize what makes O’Reilly tick — what type of an ideological slant appears to give him innate comfort — he seems to be very, very squishy, to say the least.

    I will admit that O’Reilly can make a good case for that squishiness — ie, his claims through the years that he shouldn’t be categorized as a conservative, much less a dyed-in-the-wool Republican — because his gut biases apparently have led him to believe that gun control is okay, that capital punishment isn’t, and that same-sex marriage (minus his rhetoric of the recent past) is acceptable. IOW, when it comes to 4 basic, fundamental issues that enable one to analyze and rate the political preferences of a person, O’Reilly very well could have enough “closest-liberal” tendencies to be resentful of any anti-Obama fervor from the blogosphere or elsewhere.

    The following also suggests O’Reilly is an easy (if not foolish) grader, because giving a “B” to a president based on complex and nebulous factors like the stock market and perhaps even consumer sentiment is analogous to saying your friend must have a special gift — and deserves an “A” — because a trip with him to a major baseball or football game was blessed with nice weather.

    Townhall.com, Bill O’Reilly, May 2, 2009:

    I gave [Obama] a “B” for domestic policy, largely because the stock market has stabilized and recession panic is receding a bit. I then awarded Obama a “C” in the foreign policy category because he has little to show for his public criticism of America. The Obama people will tell you that the president “planted a seed” while speaking overseas, but his spouting off about America’s ills seemed weak to me.

    Finally, I gave the president a “C-plus” for leadership.

    If O’Reilly were as easy a grader towards hotair.com or patterico as he is of the current president’s domestic policies, this ridiculous flap of his wouldn’t exist.

    Mark (411533)

  86. “I think that some folks who have been banned elsewhere (or here) are working out their own issues on this subject.

    Patterico is more amused than anything else.

    Comment by Eric Blair — 5/30/2009 @ 8:13 pm”

    This is interesting…..just one minor discrepancy in this logic: exactly how is someone who has been “banned here” getting access to “work out their own issues” here? Hmmm – that’s not coherent or reasonably factual, is it?

    It’s nice that Patterco is amused – after all, isn’t that what’s really important?

    Thomas Jefferson (4e0dda)

  87. Heh. This is funny because I got banned in just the same way from Patterico.com, and it was also for making silly gay jokes! So it’s HILARIOUS to me that Patterico got banned for the exact same thing at o’reilly :).

    FWIW, if you get banned here, you just have to change your name and delete the patterico.com cookie, and then wait a couple of days for your ISP to re-issue an ip address. Then it’s back to normal.

    Kevin

    bob (2a907e)

  88. (same guy as above) Wait, maybe I didn’t even need to change my name. If you can see this comment, I didn’t. Just a head’s up.

    Kevin (2a907e)

  89. Hey, TJ: time for some medication. Lots of people who have been banned in the past for being jerks on this site find ways to post again under different names, and work out their little issues. It’s happened several times here.

    But you know that already, don’t you?

    Eric Blair (4b7714)

  90. Hi Bob or Kevin or whoever you are. I’ll take your word for it that you’ve been banned before, so consider yourself banned again.

    DRJ (2901e6)

  91. FWIW, if you get banned here, you just have to change your name and delete the patterico.com cookie, and then wait a couple of days for your ISP to re-issue an ip address. Then it’s back to normal.

    This is embarrassingly and pathetically desperate.

    Dana (aedf1d)

  92. I’m about as conservative as they come, and have always thought Bill O’Reilly was an overbearing, uninformed blowhard. Nothing new or inconsistent here.

    kcs (8260c8)

  93. [...] or as terrible as calling Obama “HUSSEIN” right?. Well, not really. The next day Patterico returns to Oreilly’s site to find this: Due to violations of the Terms and Conditions of BillOReilly.com attributed to your account, your [...]

    We’ll do it live! Bill O’reilly hypocrisy about hotair.com exposed even more | Fire Andrea Mitchell! (20d20a)

  94. Good work and thanks, DRJ, for the latest troll-flushing.

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

  95. [...] NARN show’s final segment. They quickly called Patterico when they read his Tweet saying that Patterico’s subscription as a Bill O’Reilly premium member was cancelled: I wish I could share today’s “BillOReilly.com blog posting” . . . but my membership has been [...]

    Let Freedom Ring » Blog Archive » Bill O’Reilly, Gutless Bloviator (f4f721)

  96. #79 — Comment by Thomas Jefferson — 5/30/2009 @ 8:03 pm

    O’Reilly is no better than Allahpundit from Hot Air — and no less Machiavellian.

    Both he and O’Reilly punish those who disagree with them. They also LOOK for an excuse to censor those who expose their hypocrisy and lies.

    -

    TJ, with all due respect, how exactly is that a censorship issue?

    If you were banned for example, you would still be completely free to continue your commenting (start your own blog, go to someone else’s blog, write a book, make a movie, write a letter, etc).

    Getting banned from a private website does not equal censorship (here is a place where they don’t play, and words like censorship have a whole different meaning than the trivial way you used it in this thread).

    Pons Asinorum (03ef30)

  97. Bloviator is too good a name for his shtick. He simply blathers with no logic at all. Are his shows scripted by a random sentence generator? That might actually be better. It’d be funny blather.

    {^_^}

    JD (16479c)

  98. I don’t think so; the cached version of those Terms and Conditions (from the 27th) reads the same.

    Comment by Patterico — 5/30/2009 @ 4:51 pm

    Then it’s all on you — great job panicking them into one of the most restrictive T&C rules out there.

    What a tool.
    David

    LifeTrek (d258cb)

  99. Patterico wrote:

    Oh, wait. I just reviewed the Terms and Conditions again, and I believe I have found the relevant language: “4. Do not expose Bill O’Reilly as a rank hypocrite.”

    OK, then.

    Reminds me of the scene in RoboCop when Dick Jones, the evil contract profiteer who runs the Detroit Police, pretends to comply with Murphy/RoboCop’s attempt to arrest him when suddenly, the secret directive preventing the arrest of company officials kicks in, almost ending Murphy’s life.

    Dick Jones got his in the end, too.

    L.N. Smithee (2b4230)

  100. If you didn’t get a refund of your fees, don’t forget to list them as a loss on your 2009 taxes.

    Daniel (5efd66)

  101. You see, BBV, THAT is the kind of thing that might get you banned. In fact, THAT is the kind of comment that Pat was exposing in this whole thing.

    otcconan (ca6672)

  102. Declaration Petition:

    Radical right-wingers like Patterico should be banned from all publications and internet sites. His continuous “assaults” on our writers, publishers, and programmers threatens our ability to express ourselves unchallenged. This national discourse must not be tolerated by our elitist-narcissistic-egoistical media that provides necessary content to enrich the lives of our viewers and readership.

    (signatures: LA Times, Bill O’Reilly, et al)

    Rovin (363536)

  103. BBV, that’s got to be the most tasteless comment in the thread to date. Here’s hoping O’Reilly airs it as an example of a “blog post” on that nasty right-wing website, Patterico.com.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  104. Joshua Taj Bozeman: “Never did OReilly smear any website-”

    Mr. Bozeman must be (in O’Reilly’s words) a Bill O’Reilly “Kool-Aid drinker! Kool-Aid drinker!”

    O’Reilly all the time phonily tries to equivocate edgy comments on conservative web sites with the violent bile left on Kos and the Huffington post – just to prove his “independence” and “fair mindedness”. What he is is a know-it-all contrarian blowhard.

    C Norman (c988f4)

  105. From Eric Blair:

    “Hey, TJ: time for some medication.(snip)
    But you know that already, don’t you?”

    Actually, no – I was not aware of that. However, if I have something to say – I say it. You seem to enjoy inferring things and hiding behind coyness.

    How manly of you.

    Do you have something to say? Or are you just trying to be coy? If you have anything useful to say, say it – or say nothing if you don’t.

    Thomas Jefferson (e5cbf5)

  106. Hax/Bunkerbuster/Fur Bikini/Dark Beergod has been banned again, and I am sending him the following e-mail:

    Hax/Bunkerbuster/Fur Bikini/Dark Beergod,

    The next time I catch you trying to sock-puppet on my site, I’m going to reveal your name and where you work. No, I won’t be “outing” you. You’ll be outing yourself.

    If you’re going to waste my time like this, people are going to know who’s doing it.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  107. Good old TJ wrote:

    If you have anything useful to say, say it – or say nothing if you don’t.

    That was amusing, coming from you, Thomas Jefferson. You were spending time dissing Patterico for no apparent reason. My suspicion is you are a sockpuppet of a banned commenter.

    But…as I say…you knew that already.

    Eric Blair (5a226d)

  108. FWIW – There appears to be another JD commenting here. That last comment from JD was not me.

    So now Hacks has been banned under 4 names?! Classic.

    JD (034f78)

  109. [...] Patterico get a high-five from the Factor for his intrepid work in pointing out hateful comments?  Not exactly: I wish I could share today’s “BillOReilly.com blog posting” . . . but my membership has been [...]

    Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » O’Reilly Is A Lame Punk (65df6b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8637 secs.