Patterico's Pontifications

7/31/2009

Balko Tries to Prevent Patterico from Reading Him

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:42 am

On Twitter, that is:

Balko Blocks Me

Was it something I said?

P.S. I suspect it was. I suspect Balko is annoyed at me because I have a habit of documenting when he omits or distorts critical information (as he did when reporting the facts of the Jimmie Duncan case), or when he makes a flat-out factual error (as he did in his recent response to me and Jack Dunphy).

I bet Balko wishes he could prevent me from reading his blog too.

P.P.S. Speaking of that recent factual error: is Balko ever going to correct it?

Recall the error: in a post that he put up both on Reason and his personal blog, Balko suggested that I wasn’t being straight with my readers, contending that I “neglected to include in [my] post” a phrase that (Balko claimed) undercut my argument. Only thing was, I didn’t neglect to include it at all — as I proved in this post, complete with a screenshot. The passage that Balko claimed I had omitted is right there, smack dab in the middle of my post. Let’s see that screenshot again:

Balko Wrong Yet Again

I have no idea where Balko got the idea that I had omitted that passage. But by saying that I had, Balko was able to use two separate web sites to suggest that I was being a little bit slippery and hiding information that supposedly undercut my argument.

I documented Balko’s error in a post at this blog published at 6:43 p.m. Pacific time Wednesday night. I rather suspect Balko has read my post, but just in case he didn’t, I left a comment about it on his blog at 10:10 p.m. Pacific that same evening.

The next morning, I left another comment concerning the error on his personal site, as well as a comment about it on the equally erroneous Reason post.

It’s not like Balko hasn’t been on the Internet since I pointed out the error. He has put up three posts since Wednesday night.

In fact, he has since participated in the same comment thread where I told him about the mistake. The morning after I left the original comment notifying Balko of his error, Balko posted a comment in the same thread.

In that comment, Balko responded to two commenters, Brad and Alex, who had expressed their belief that Balko had distorted Jack Dunphy’s recent post on the Henry Louis Gates matter. One of those commenters (Alex) also dinged Balko for credulously reporting certain stories that later proved to be false. In a five-paragraph comment, Balko defended his honor, and told those to go fuck themselves. (In a previous comment, commenter fluffy had said: “Brad and Alex, Go fuck yourselves.” Balko echoed the sentiment: “Brad, Alex: what fluffy said.”).

I’m sure Balko will claim that he didn’t have time to fix the error. But honestly: how long does it take to put a strike tag around an erroneous phrase in a post? Answer: a lot less time than it takes to write a five-paragraph comment telling your critics to go fuck themselves.

Is he waiting until nobody is reading the posts any more?

P.P.P.S. Blocking me doesn’t work, Balko. I can still see your Twitter feed on Google Reader.

UPDATE: Alex is the one who dinged Balko for his inaccurate stories, not Brad. The post has been corrected. Thanks to Brad for noting the error.

415 Responses to “Balko Tries to Prevent Patterico from Reading Him”

  1. That’s pretty sad on Balko’s part. Being a professional Libertarian, or professional ideologue of any stripe, can do that do you. That’s an example of why I’m suspicious of all ideologies, including my own.

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

  2. Only cowards and liars behave this way – now let’s see what his Trolls offer up as yet another pathetic defense.

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  3. Twitter is dumb. Why does RB have a twitter page and why do you follow it? Strange.

    Joe 2 (46cc0f)

  4. I like most of Balko’s work, but this is pretty ridiculous. Wish he could do good work a be fair at the same time.

    JAB (7e7343)

  5. I like most of Balko’s work, but this is pretty ridiculous. Wish he could do good work and be fair at the same time.

    JAB (7e7343)

  6. why he gotta be like dat?

    happyfeet (42470c)

  7. On the plus side, a new phrase has entered the Internet lexicon: “what fluffy said.”

    Patterico (7379cd)

  8. I don’t know this person. But I do know that when you involve your ego with your politics, you can go strange places. Like the progressives who continually defend the President for doing the same things that GWB did (which they hated).

    Politics is politics. But this post demonstrates that politics is indeed personal.

    I have often seen Patterico issue corrections when he feels he has been wrong or misrepresented an issue. Has this other fellow?

    This is a case where he certainly should.

    But yes, Dmac: the “organized anarchists” will shortly arrive, and begin setting up their armies of straw men.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  9. Fluffy, meet Hercules, my cat the Serial Crusher.

    PCD (02f8c1)

  10. You’d almost think he had something to hide.

    Or something.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  11. If this is what it seems, then it’s childish almost beyond belief.

    Mitch (890cbf)

  12. Randy seems to have taken up the “Cover Your Ears and Yell ‘Nah Nah Nah Nah'” school of debating with the attempt to block your access to his page, as if that way he can Twitter anything he likes without worry about being called on it.

    John (f82202)

  13. “One of those commenters (Brad) also dinged Balko for credulously reporting certain stories that later proved to be false.”

    I believe that was Alex, not me.

    Brad (e542a0)

  14. “what Fluffy said.” I’ll be saying that all day.
    what Fluffy said
    what Fluffy said

    Tru (97b206)

  15. A) Do you have proof that your original quote did have that in there? A screenshot proves nothing without a valid timestamp. I’m not accusing you of adding it in there after the fact just to nail Radley on this, but like I said, a screenshot alone proves nothing concretely.

    B) Here’s what Radley’s paragraph says:

    “Second, as emphasized in the excerpt above (a portion that Patterico neglected to include in his post) Dunphy explicitly sets up the hypothetical by stating that its lesson should be taken to heart by “anyone else who may find himself unexpectedly confronted by a police officer.” In other words, not just people driving 1932 Hupmobiles.”

    As you can see, the accusation of neglecting to include the portion in his post, which indicated by his wording that you missed the entire last half of the sentence: “, here is what I would advise he teach his Ivy League pals, and anyone else who may find himself unexpectedly confronted by a police officer:”, whereas you indicate he accused you of erasing everything after Ivy Leage pals. This isn’t important anyway, but I will note that his accusation of neglect was in a parenthetical, so it was really an aside that had nothing to do with his argument, which would make it appear that you are paying attention only to accusations instead of arguments.

    As far as delays in response, such is life. Of course, if you are only trying to pressure him into a response, I’d suggest to keep the pressure on and he’ll eventually respond. Though, you seem to be drilling him on a parenthetical aside as opposed to countering his arguments. No judgment from me, either way.

    Cheers

    Danny (9b57d9)

  16. It’s a good thing Patterico’s never banned another blogger with whom he was having an overheated internet debate with…….

    Techie (482700)

  17. That’s pretty pathetic Danny.

    Its pretty clear now that there is not a lot of adulthood floating about Balko.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  18. That’s a pretty succinct refutation of my post. I was civil and informative, and did not judge, and then you call me pathetic and an adolescent. I’m not good with logical fallacies, but I know you just committed at least one. Anybody else want to better represent an opposing argument?

    Danny (9b57d9)

  19. Danny – I think you miss the point that Balko is arguing against points that were created in his imagination, not Jack’s original piece.

    G (58c282)

  20. The event
    not equal to
    Jack’s original thoughts on the event
    not equal to
    Jack’s original piece on his original thoughts on the event
    not equal to
    Radley’s original interpretation of Jack’s original piece (the only information he has access to)
    not equal to
    Radley’s original arguments in refutation of his interpretation of Jack’s original piece

    Everything you do is created in your imagination, G. The fact that there is any correlation to Jack’s thoughts at all is a damned miracle. The point is that all of the steps between locations of differing information include very little information with lots of noise. So, if the problem is he misunderstood the point of the original post, that’s fine, but point out what was really meant. Continue arguing instead of pointing fingers and stating the argument is over because somebody misinterpreted words or intentions.

    I have yet to see Patterico argue against Radley’s points, unless his only point is that Radley misinterpreted the whole thing. It sounds to me like Patterico restated the point of Dunphy’s original post, which is fine, but it doesn’t respond to why Radley interpreted the post the way he did.

    I personally don’t see this argument going anywhere else because Patterico believes that Radley is cowering in shame instead of responding to his post, and Radley believes that his interpretation of Dunphy’s original post was valid and thinks that Patterico should respond to his arguments against the original post.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  21. why are libertarians so tedious I don’t get that. Have another bong hit and enjoy my morning is what I would do if I were a tedious libertarian on a Friday morning. Ooh. And then you should go to Ralph’s and buy only blue food and then later take pictures of your tongue.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  22. But Danny is not judging, not taking sides.

    JD (42a8c3)

  23. Why would Patterico against Radley’s points? Radley is making FALSE attacks and assumptions.

    To help illustrate this. I’ve imagined that my imagination created this whole event. I even believe that you are a sock puppet created and used by myself to continue a conversation on why it is so important to have reading comprehension capabilities. I mean, this cheese is weak, and I want a new stronger slice.

    G (58c282)

  24. […] Jesus, this guy is obsessive. […]

    The Agitator » Blog Archive » Patterico (2ccb72)

  25. Please elaborate on where I am judging, JD.

    False is an empirical word. It cannot be known.

    And assumptions HAVE to be made because of the basic communications problem. A transmitted message cannot be received as it was transmitted. Ever. No matter what. Therefore, the receiver must assume what was transmitted. If there is an error in transmission or a disagreement over the purpose or contents of the transmission, then there must be a discussion or at least a retransmission.

    Stop assuming that people are so full of malice, and that they are honestly interpreting things the way they are. Of course, you don’t have to stop, that’s just a suggestion on arguing. You can claim somebody is lying all day, but until there is undeniable proof that it happened and that it was 100% willed, there’s really little point to claiming superiority.

    And yes, I’ve chosen a side I agree with more. So what. What have I indicated so far that said I wasn’t open to interpretation or correction?

    Danny (9b57d9)

  26. There will always be noise in communication. Which is why, there is discussion.

    G (58c282)

  27. You can never tell if it’s that they’re a communications major or if they just dated one at one point. It sounds the same either way I’ve noticed.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  28. … when they start talking about signals and receivers and stuff. Better than half the time I’d say you can count on a diagram with arrows and stuff.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  29. You can never tell if it’s that they’re a communications major or if they just dated one at one point. It sounds the same either way I’ve noticed.

    I’m an engineer (electrical, concentrated in communications technologies), so sue me 😉 I couldn’t turn off the geek if I tried.

    There will always be noise in communication. Which is why, there is discussion.

    Agreed, but it appears to me that there is only one side willing to discuss and argue, whereas the other side needs to claim victory at every moment.
    “It’s taking too long to respond. We must have scared him off! We win!”
    “He lied by saying I left out a portion of my post. He hasn’t retracted that comment yet (going back to the first argument of victory). He must be a habitual liar. I win!”

    As I said before, if this is just a tactic to encourage Radley to respond, that’s fine, but it’s annoying and seems childish to me. But then, it’s nothing I have a real stake in either.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  30. Why don’t you two just boink and get it over with?

    ShelbyC (8546d8)

  31. When the speaker corrects you, further illustrates their message, and outlines their intent, and the reciever still persists on applying motive and meaning not intended, then it is being dishonest, dannyboy. Jack Dunphy and Patterico have made their positions quite clear, but there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Consider yourself and the other bootlicking sycophants from Balko’s place to be squarely in that group.

    JD (42a8c3)

  32. If you call misrepresent, lie, and distort “discuss and argue”, then you are quite correct.

    JD (42a8c3)

  33. Danny- Prove that you are not a Balko sockpuppet.

    Now, I’m not being judgmental or argumentative. Nor am I assuming anything. But anyone can post here using the screen name “Danny” regardless of their actual identity. So, in all fairness to Patterico, it is appropriate that you prove you are not Balko in disguise.

    And please prove to the standard you yourself have set. Absolute proof. Proof beyond fakery. The O.J. standard: 99.998% certain is not enough.

    RB (0772e7)

  34. By the way… has anybody actually claimed that Patterico either changed the original post or faked the screenshot? And what proof do they offer. Links and documentation, please.

    RB (0772e7)

  35. RB – He is not judging, just suggesting that Patterico was being dishonest.

    JD (42a8c3)

  36. That is the same kind of BS that Fary Garber tried.

    JD (42a8c3)

  37. I have often seen Patterico issue corrections when he feels he has been wrong or misrepresented an issue.

    That’s big reason why I hang out here so often. Admitting mistakes builds credibility, by showing one cares about accuracy. Balko needs to learn this.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  38. On Balko’s personal blog, he admits that he “missed it”. Then he goes on to call names. (Quite the debater!) But he doesn’t contend that the post was in any way changed. And now he has a migraine. So he won’t be posting any more today. Poor baby, this has all been just toooooo much stress!!!

    RB (0772e7)

  39. I can’t, RB. And I’m OK with that. But then, does that really matter? Can you prove that I am Balko, either?

    If Patterico does not have definitive proof, that’s fine too. It doesn’t prove that he did or didn’t have that quoted portion in his original post. Like I said, I don’t care. I’m just providing other options for readers, to make sure that they know the possibilities. What problem is that additional information to either side? None. I didn’t accuse him of falsifying it, either, so again, what’s the problem?

    As for you, JD, it would appear as though both Dunphy and Radley set up straw men. Dunphy’s lesson was to not question the authority of cops ever because you don’t know what their situation is, and they could kill you if you appear to pose a threat. This was fine, and certainly a simple but important lesson, but it appeared to have nothing to do with the Gates case. Radley’s lesson was that we should be able to assert our constitutional rights and still be assured our safety, which directly applies to the Gates case and Dunphy’s post.

    Any further discussion, as I said, seems worthless when both are arguing against strawmen.

    Danny (a70223)

  40. Danny’s right on the money. Patterico and his followers obsess over a guy who points out that cops and prosecutors frequently do terrible things. This doesn’t jibe with their leftist devotion to authority so they do what they can to make up reasons why Balko is damned to hell for his heresy against the state.

    Authoritarians deserve to be ignored, even if they yell, “coward!” as you walk away, shaking your head. Which is what I’m doing, now.

    Adios, amoebas!

    LJM (fad5e3)

  41. It sounds like they’re both right.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  42. oh. that was at Danny’s #40.

    I don’t get the part about amoebas. Sometimes if you go swimming in lakes in Florida and places like that you get an amoeba what crawls up your nose and eats your brain. It happens a lot to little kids and it’s very sad.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  43. Dunphy’s lesson was to not question the authority of cops ever because you don’t know what their situation is, and they could kill you if you appear to pose a threat. ?

    I thought his lesson was to realize that cops have authority, and to help people understand that.

    G (58c282)

  44. By the way… has anybody actually claimed that Patterico either changed the original post or faked the screenshot? And what proof do they offer. Links and documentation, please.

    Comment by RB — 7/31/2009 @ 10:20 am

    RB – He is not judging, just suggesting that Patterico was being dishonest.

    Comment by JD — 7/31/2009 @ 10:23 am

    Here’s what I actually said:

    Do you have proof that your original quote did have that in there?

    A simple yes or no will do. If you do, great, there’s definitive proof that it was there when you posted originally. It might be practically unknowable, but that doesn’t imply one way or the other.

    A screenshot proves nothing without a valid timestamp.

    Is this true or no?

    I’m not accusing you of adding it in there after the fact just to nail Radley on this, but like I said, a screenshot alone proves nothing concretely.

    So I am failing to see where I judged or suggested Patterico was being dishonest. As I’ve said before, I couldn’t care less. I’m just taking part in a quite civil discussion.

    Danny (a70223)

  45. Danny,

    If Patterico were to post evidence of a timestamp, you would be suggesting how easy it is to spoof a timestamp.

    Moreover, I and others here read Dunphy’s piece and Pat’s piece before this kerfuffle, and know what it has always said.

    In short, to quote Balko, “what fluffy said.”

    Karl (f07e38)

  46. PS Danny,

    Coming here to suggest Pat is a liar, without proof of your own, is uncivil, regardless of your tone.

    Karl (f07e38)

  47. I thought his lesson was to realize that cops have authority, and to help people understand that.

    Do you think libertarians (or liberals, or even anarchists) don’t understand that fact? The questions are how much authority, in what situations, and under what penalties can that authority be tried. We are searching for a broader understanding of the limits instead of a blanket statment of “cops have authority”. If that’s your only assertion, I don’t think it bears mentioning, but that’s your call.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  48. Because without a timestamp you cannot prove that Radley was in fact telling the truth about you !!!!!!!!

    Good Allah

    JD (42a8c3)

  49. Hi Patterico –

    Is Radley correct that he actually blocked you some time ago from his Twitter feed? If so, why are you just now making a big deal of it? Either way – if he’s as big a jerk as you say, why would you bother following him on Twitter anyway? I like to read a variety of sites with a variety of views – thus I am both here and on Radley’s site from time to time – but if I think that someone is the crapweasel that you seem to think Radley is I don’t bother. Why would you go the extra mile to get Balko-tweets? It may be just me, but I do think it’s kinda weird…

    wolfefan (f03a99)

  50. Well said, Karl!

    RB (0772e7)

  51. Danny is just asking the tough questions. He is making no accusations and taking no sides.

    JD (42a8c3)

  52. I don’t know how to spoof a timestamp, so that would be up to somebody else to disprove. Either way, I don’t care if he can prove it concretely or not, I’m not even anywhere near convinced that it is a falsified or fixed screenshot, only providing the understanding that a screenshot alone proves nothing.

    And where the hell did I suggest, imply, or explicitly say that Pat is a liar? As I’ve said, I don’t even care if he is.

    I don’t even find Patterico’s silence on the matter the least bit suspicious. In the grand scheme of things, it’s quite a meaningless point, but I thought it merited mentioning the possibility for those that didn’t know. Kind of an FYI.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  53. Twitter is twitter. Radley claimed that he talks about dog poop or whatever on his twitter which is clearly a lie.

    And Danny,
    No, I don’t think you do understand that fact.

    G (58c282)

  54. False is an empirical word. It cannot be known

    Oh, for Chrissakes – what a ridiculous statement. In other words, who’s to say who’s right and who’s wrong? Who are we to judge? I mean, nobody’s really right and wrong when you honestly sit down and think about it, right? More idiotic exercises in semantics.

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  55. Hey, Mr. Feet. Dead on about amoebae. Which is the plural of amoeba.

    He was just trying to make clever word play, like saying “Hasty Lumbago” as you sign off.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  56. As I said before, I have chosen a side that I agree with more. But I’m open to argument about everything from the abstract to the measurable.

    Besides, Karl’s accusation that I would need further proof is a strawman itself. He hopes to tell me that I cannot be appeased about the truth of the screenshot, when I merely brought up the fact that screenshots can be falsified. I think I’ve been quite expedient in showing my impartiality in every post. This doesn’t mean I’m neutral, but that I think for myself and make my own decisions based on the evidence presented, which I actually believe that the rest of you do too.

    Oh, and here’s an insightful comic to show you what I mean. Except my thought bubble would say, “I do believe that everybody else is trying to the best of their ability to optimize some quality in their life. Whether that’s their logic, emotions, or bad qualities such as laziness or procrastination. And I can’t judge that they just don’t care about about people, just about different things than me.”

    Danny (a70223)

  57. As I’ve said, I don’t even care if he is

    ‘…but I’m going to talk about it incessantly for the next three hours, and I’ll keep bringing up “questions” that I already know the answer to, but as I’ve always said (h/t Obama), I don’t care.

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  58. I don’t even find Patterico’s silence on the matter the least bit suspicious.

    Seriously? He’s at his job. Some internet troll comes out says he may be lying (when people, including myself, saw the original post) and now you expect him to respond within a short time frame to respond to your ridiculous thought?

    G (58c282)

  59. And Danny,
    No, I don’t think you do understand that fact.

    Please, elaborate.

    Oh, for Chrissakes – what a ridiculous statement. In other words, who’s to say who’s right and who’s wrong? Who are we to judge? I mean, nobody’s really right and wrong when you honestly sit down and think about it, right? More idiotic exercises in semantics.

    I mean it practically. The point is that we make JUDGMENTS against what is right or wrong, true or false, but it is impossible to prove such a thing without a doubt to any or all people throughout time. Therefore, this empirical truth cannot be empirically known in practice.

    The idea of our judicial system is that we decide democratically (whether that’s truly fair or not) who we want to represent our wishes and morals in court. So the idea is that in fact I say who represents me, which is based upon my own interpretation of who is best, regardless of whether or not that person is truly, empirically, best for me. I’m only speaking practically.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  60. I generally think blog pissing matches are stupid and everyone involved looks stupid, but shit you are a stalker.

    Get a life.

    mdb (38940c)

  61. Scuzza me, now I see, thanks EB for esplaining amoebae!

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  62. ‘…but I’m going to talk about it incessantly for the next three hours, and I’ll keep bringing up “questions” that I already know the answer to, but as I’ve always said (h/t Obama), I don’t care.‘

    So because I don’t care about the conclusion of the discussions at hand, I should have no desire to argue about arguments, or present simple facts? Who are you to say what my motives should be for speaking? You can think I’m strange for not caring about the outcome (which is what I meant in saying that I had no stake in this argument) but that doesn’t preclude me not taking part in this discussion.

    I don’t even find Patterico’s silence on the matter the least bit suspicious.

    Seriously? He’s at his job. Some internet troll comes out says he may be lying (when people, including myself, saw the original post) and now you expect him to respond within a short time frame to respond to your ridiculous thought?

    Maybe you don’t understand, I didn’t say that at all sarcastically. I meant that the fact that he hasn’t responded means nothing to me, as I’ve said numerous times. I believe I’ve been consistent in my message that the time it takes to respond is not a preponderance of guilt, whether that’s for Radley or Patterico. And where the hell have I been trolling?

    Danny (9b57d9)

  63. The poster guy was being silly, but that disease is truly awful. All kidding aside.

    Eric Blair (57b266)

  64. Please, elaborate.

    what fluffy said.

    G (58c282)

  65. Dmac, as I read all of this, in one shot, I think you hit the exact point of Danny. He wants the argument, not the discussion. He keeps saying he did or didn’t do things that keep the point off the original post, just for the argument. He keeps going in circles about all this. He says he didn’t imply things that are obviously implied if you have an opinion either way. He “suggests” since the definition implies giving an “idea” about something, even if he didn’t say that, because most who read this have an opinion about the subject and will “read” his “suggestions” in a certain way.

    He just wants the argument, not the discussion.

    reff (ee9f7a)

  66. I meant that the fact that he hasn’t responded means nothing to me, as I’ve said numerous times.

    The fact that he hasn’t responded is nothing. You shouldn’t even have brought it up. You don’t even know if he’s read your silly thought.

    G (58c282)

  67. Blocking someone, on false pretense, is the lowest of low things to do.

    Joe (a32cff)

  68. I shouldn’t bring it up because somebody else might foolishly interpret it as sarcasm? I’ll take my chances and then chuckle when I realize somebody that is overly defensive completely misreads me as being sarcastic and then accuses me of being impatient and uncivil instead of asking for a clarification or just reading it with the assumption that I’ve been telling the truth about wanting to have a civil discussion this whole time. I still wouldn’t blame you for thinking that way. I’m sure your past experiences would suggest that others like me would rather be uncivil in discussions, but I would hope that people would be a little more optimistic.

    The fact that he hasn’t responded is nothing.

    Exactly, and the fact that it took Radley “so long” to respond is also, nothing, even though I’m sure that you didn’t say that, others here (and elsewhere) did.

    “You don’t even know if he’s read your silly thought.”

    And again, I couldn’t care less if he did.

    Please, elaborate.

    what fluffy said.

    Do you really think that’s helping the discussion? And please, don’t point out what somebody else said. I’m talking with you. Somebody else’s emotional postings have nothing to do with me.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  69. Blocking someone, on false pretense, is the lowest of low things to do.

    Comment by Joe — 7/31/2009 @ 11:29 am

    … as far as the internet goes, which is ultimately no big deal. Also, what false pretenses? Radley finds Patterico’s apparent obsession with him creepy, so he gave him a disincentive to continue following him. He is aware that it didn’t block his access to any part of his life completely, but he attempted to give him a reason not to. It’s not cowardice just like it’s not cowardice for a woman to not walk down a dark alley.

    Danny (a70223)

  70. When the speaker corrects you, further illustrates their message, and outlines their intent, and the reciever still persists on applying motive and meaning not intended, then it is being dishonest, dannyboy. Jack Dunphy and Patterico have made their positions quite clear, but there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Consider yourself and the other bootlicking sycophants from Balko’s place to be squarely in that group.

    Comment by JD — 7/31/2009 @ 10:10 am

    Hasn’t this happened in the past? But flipped around. Whose side were you on for that one?

    Joe (a32cff)

  71. Do you even know the history here of Balko and his posters posting things, and then saying that it is telling that Patterico has not yet responded?

    But remember, it is not accusing Patterico of being dishonest, it is just asking tough questions.

    JD (42a8c3)

  72. Exactly, and the fact that it took Radley “so long” to respond is also, nothing, even though I’m sure that you didn’t say that, others here (and elsewhere) did.

    You mean, Patterico’s blog above that went over a timeline of Radley actually not saying anything and proving that he did infact, ignore it and stayed silent?

    That’s a bit of a different situation. And actually , widely different.

    G (58c282)

  73. Go f*ck yourself, Joe. Swordfish style. And while you are at it, maybe you can copy and paste your comments and links at lots of sites and threads. That is always such a hoot.

    JD (42a8c3)

  74. The blocking is a request for you to stop reading his Twitter. You do not have to respect that request, but it shows that you are akin to a stalker when you brag about getting around the block.

    The message has been communicated: please do not read his Twitter. The fact that you cannot respect that simple request tells me what I needed to know about your lack of civility.

    The Angry Optimist (2aba7b)

  75. Yeah Mr. Patterico. What gives you the right to read a libertarian’s twitters if they say not to??

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  76. Do you even know the history here of Balko and his posters posting things, and then saying that it is telling that Patterico has not yet responded?

    Do you even know my history that I disagree with such a statement? Where have I been hypocritical? Quit judging me by others if you want to get anywhere in an argument.

    But remember, it is not accusing Patterico of being dishonest, it is just asking tough trivial, informative questions.

    FTFY.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  77. Akin to a stalker? What? ROFL.

    G (58c282)

  78. And here I thought Libertarians believed in FREEDOM.

    G (58c282)

  79. And despite reading elsewhere that the “strike” doesn’t work, I tried it anyway. I meant to replace “tough” with “trivial, informative”.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  80. So you were with Patterico on that whole dispute JD? Just making sure where your loyalty was.

    Joe (a32cff)

  81. And here I thought Libertarians believed in FREEDOM.

    Comment by G — 7/31/2009 @ 11:44 am

    He gave him a disincentive, not restricting his freedom. Besides, Twitter is a private service that Radley has no absolute control over, and your freedom on Twitter stops where Twitter says it does. Apparently Patterico has not gotten there yet, and it seems clear that Radley is fine with that, though it still seems strange that Patterico would put so much effort into keeping up with his Twitter feed. Take that for what it’s worth.

    Danny (a70223)

  82. And despite reading elsewhere that the “strike” doesn’t work, I tried it anyway. I meant to replace “tough” with “trivial, informative”.

    G (58c282)

  83. bleh, strike didn’t work for me either. boooooooooo
    And so much effort in keeping up with a twitter feed? LOL. Takes 10 hard seconds.

    G (58c282)

  84. Why should Patterico prove anything is genuine when no one has charged that it was false? No one, not even Radley Balko, has alleged that this screenshot has been faked.

    What we have here, to quote the old adage, is a case of the pig liking it!

    RB (0772e7)

  85. Danny – Please point out where I called you a hypocrite. The idea that Patterico is stalking Balko is laughable.

    JD (42a8c3)

  86. I mean the effort to circumvent the block on it. Maybe that took 10 seconds too, but I don’t know how to do it, and I don’t think I’d be able to stand Twitter anyway. I can’t stand Facebook’s microblogging, which is the closest thing I encounter to Twitter.

    So, what were you trying to strike, G? All I got were Italics, and I have no idea what you were trying to do. Thanks.

    Danny (a70223)

  87. Lets see here,

    Ah yes, DUH. been awhile.

    G (58c282)

  88. Talking nicely while being mendoucheous is not civil.

    JD (42a8c3)

  89. Why should Patterico prove anything is genuine when no one has charged that it was false? No one, not even Radley Balko, has alleged that this screenshot has been faked.

    I didn’t say that he had to. Maybe you aren’t keeping up — I didn’t even charge that it was false, but that it could be false. If he can prove it further AND wants to, that’s fine with me. If not, I don’t care and it doesn’t hurt him either way.

    I suppose my main, hidden purpose to be commenting here is to give you guys a sense of optimism and to offer the possibility of being more generous when arguing. And maybe, just maybe, everybody isn’t being intentionally malicious and is honestly trying to contribute to the conversation. Can we agree that this is a valiant (if often misplaced) goal?

    Danny (a70223)

  90. After having read your response and the original article by Mr. Dunphy, I definately have to side with Mr. Balko’s interpretation of the post. Yes, I am a regular reader of his blog, so if that makes me a troll, so be it. And the google reader twitter brag – sorry, that’s just not cool, regardless of whose side I was on.

    Chance (c4df1f)

  91. Talking nicely while being mendoucheous is not civil.

    Comment by JD — 7/31/2009 @ 11:58 am

    Sigh… Thanks for your continued effort for arguing without offering any sort of proof or analysis. To be explicit, that last sentence was genuine sarcasm.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  92. Becareful Danny, if you get JD frustrated he will want to sexually assault you with a fish.

    Joe (a32cff)

  93. Here, now that I remember,

    And despite reading elsewhere that the “strike” doesn’t work, I tried it anyway. I meant to replace “tough” with “trivial, informative”.

    G (58c282)

  94. Radley’s lesson was that we should be able to assert our constitutional rights and still be assured our safety, which directly applies to the Gates case and Dunphy’s post.

    Really, is that what Gates was doing when he followed the Police Officer – who arrived at his home to protect his property and was professional and civil to Gates – out the door yelling childish vulger obscenities at the police officer. He was “asserting his rights”.

    You people need to grow up.

    Also Danny – you are being entirely dishonest and you know it. “I’m just providing alternatives”. At least have the courage to say straight up that you think Patterico edited the screen shot. Either you believe he did or you don’t. “I’m just raising questions” is so intellectually childish and dishonest. Grow up and take a position.

    You also claim that Patterico never addressed Balko’s arguments. You also know this to be false. Read previous blog entries on this site. You may not agree w/ Patterico’s arguments, but he did make them.

    So, you jump on – you question Patterico’s honesty. You claim you are not doing so. You lie about Patterico’s responses to Balko’s arguments.

    You are simply dishonest. If you had an argument to make, you would have made it.

    Someone like Balko trying to block Patterico viewing what he is writing about Patterico shows that Balko knows he is a) lying and b) losing the argument.

    I hate these “libertarians” – which in 2009 parlance means liberals who don’t have the intellectual courage to admit they are liberal – b/c they are childish and cannot argue in good faith.

    Monkeytoe (e66874)

  95. Danny : You may call yourself a libertarian but “Sophist” fits you better. In case your education did not include the ancient Greek school of philosophy, the Sophists, like some modern day trial lawyers, are proud of the fact that, through arguement, they can make the greater appear the lesser. Please be advised that Sophistry does not become a rational adult.

    Longwalker (996c34)

  96. I hate to say this, because I like a good intramural food-fight as much as the next hate-filled right wing hammerhead, but Patterico and Balko need to end this dust-up some point in the near future.

    Seriously, the Democrats and the lip-herpes Left are providing us with a target rich environment with which to make fun of them and their mindless ideology. We should save our ammo for them, not spend it on each other.

    Rodney King-style conciliatory lecture officially over. You may now continue with the mutual slagging.

    KingShamus (402345)

  97. Danny, the Jr., in arguing your possibilities, you look like a stooge when confronted by reality. Either prove a charge that Patterico is lying or STFU!

    You could be a sockpuppet for DCSCA for all we know. You want to argue that?

    PCD (02f8c1)

  98. I never said anything about freedoms. But, yes, Twitter is private property, for one.

    However, I am talking about common courtesy. I will grant that things get heated and we all say things that are discourteous at times, but that is a far different thing from actively routing around someone’s clearly expressed wishes that you not do a thing.

    And, yes, Stalker: To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.

    Libertarians believe in freedoms, yes, but that does not mean that social sanctioning or civil disapproval of one’s actions are a bad thing. As a matter of fact, most libertarians will tell you that respecting someone’s boundaries are exactly the kind of thing that makes civilization work, and that acting childish in the face of a clear request is the kind of thing that grows government.

    The Angry Optimist (2aba7b)

  99. Really, is that what Gates was doing when he followed the Police Officer – who arrived at his home to protect his property and was professional and civil to Gates – out the door yelling childish vulger obscenities at the police officer. He was “asserting his rights”.

    Yes, actually, he was asserting his rights. Not very well or in a manner I would recommend, but I do not approve of the Klan or Nazi rallies, either. However, I support their right to do what they do.

    Someone like Balko trying to block Patterico viewing what he is writing about Patterico shows that Balko knows he is a) lying and b) losing the argument.

    Wrong, sir. you’ll note that the screenshot that Mr. Frey posted is from when Balko had 556 followers. He now has 1407. So the block had zero to do with the argument. thanks for playing.

    The Angry Optimist (2aba7b)

  100. I prefer it when people are honest enough to admit that they are advancing a position, danny. I prefer people that have the stones to stake out a position, as opposed to hiding behind rhetorical tricks and asking tough questions. But, as we have seen over the last several days, this influx cares little about actual discussion and debate, it wants to call names and argue against positions they believe you hold, or wish you held, as opposed to the positions you actually hold. We have seen that clarifying your thoughts and explicitly laying out your intent makes no difference. Danny is just the passive-aggressive version of what we have already encountered.

    Defending yourself and refuting lies and dishonesty is now stalking. WTF.

    Joe – when I want your opinion, never mind … I will never ask for it. Nozzles for the douche tend to be douchenozzles.

    JD (42a8c3)

  101. Also Danny – you are being entirely dishonest and you know it. “I’m just providing alternatives”. At least have the courage to say straight up that you think Patterico edited the screen shot. Either you believe he did or you don’t. “I’m just raising questions” is so intellectually childish and dishonest. Grow up and take a position.

    Uh, I actually don’t believe he edited the screenshot or the blog posting, there, I said it. Of course, that doesn’t disagree with anything I’ve said so far. Also, I’m sort of a philosopher, and I absolutely love the quote:

    “A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn’t there. A theologian is the one that finds it.”
    – H.L. Mencken

    Raising the right questions is just as important, if not more so, as finding the right answer. So I don’t find “raising questions” “childish” or “dishonest”, though I do find your judgment to be quite childish, and that is a judgment I think more appropriate than yours for me. So far you have accused me of thinking Patterico lied, which I didn’t, and you called me names based on your belief that inquisitiveness is a “wishy-washy” trait.

    You also claim that Patterico never addressed Balko’s arguments. You also know this to be false. Read previous blog entries on this site. You may not agree w/ Patterico’s arguments, but he did make them.

    I’m sorry, all I remember seeing was Patterico continually trying to reiterate and clarify what Dunphy’s original post meant, which frankly made Radley’s refutations of the OP moot, at least to Radley, which is why I offered that Dunphy and Balko both set up straw men, then, each for a different lesson. I’m fine if I missed other points of Patterico’s post that addressed more of Radley’s point-by-point analysis of Dunphy’s original post. But like I said, it doesn’t matter to me because Patterico seems to fairly be of the belief that Radley’s post is in refutation of a straw man.

    Someone like Balko trying to block Patterico viewing what he is writing about Patterico shows that Balko knows he is a) lying and b) losing the argument.

    Or he thought it was creepy that the guy was following him, as I satated before.

    And you think I’m not arguing in good faith? Not a single person has conceded that I am arguing at all fairly, and I find that quite strange. But then, I’m clearly biased. Maybe we could have an independent study?

    Danny (9b57d9)

  102. Perhaps Patterico and Balko should attend a Beer Summit?

    Corwin (ea9428)

  103. How can someone call himself a journalist and then try to block people from reading him? What a joke.

    Daryl Herbert (a32d30)

  104. Note, also, that I got my first-ever response to my criticism of his Jimmie Duncan post — and it’s an airy wave of the hand that dismisses all my careful research as “nonsense.”

    Everyone who read my analysis and thought it was careful and made good points, take note.

    I’m glad. I was in trial when the full article came out, and didn’t have time to recapitulate how misleading the ultimate article was. I have since received the autopsy video. That, together with Balko’s dismissive response, is all the motivation I need to get that post done.

    Patterico (5fb32b)

  105. How can someone call himself a journalist and then try to block people from reading him? What a joke.

    Comment by Daryl Herbert — 7/31/2009 @ 12:28 pm

    How can you presume to set the definition for “journalist” as “one that must allow his personal communications to everybody that requests it”? That sounds like a joke to me.

    Danny (a70223)

  106. We have seen that clarifying your thoughts and explicitly laying out your intent makes no difference.

    QFT

    Nobody here has given me a lick of credit because I frequent and agree with a majority of Radley’s blog. I’m pretty sure I have the most content in this thread without being the least bit judgmental or fallacious.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  107. Does Balko use twitter for person or professional reasons? Or a bit of both?

    G (58c282)

  108. Or more simply (and probably honestly), because I offered the slightest bit of alternative thought.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  109. Danny, nobody is giving you a lick of credit cause you are talking in circles and you basically just pointed out how you’d like to ask a hundred questions about the obvious, without even recognizing the obvious.

    G (58c282)

  110. I wouldn’t know concretely, but it appeared from Radley’s description that it is predominantly for personal reasons, though the more people hear of him the better it is for him professionally, as well. It’s impossible to completely separate the two, after all.

    Danny (a70223)

  111. “I will grant that things get heated and we all say things that are discourteous at times, but that is a far different thing from actively routing around someone’s clearly expressed wishes that you not do a thing.”

    Balko: “Please stop reading my blog and pointing out my errors.”

    Patterico: “No.”

    The Angry Optimist: “Stalker!!!”

    Btw, I saved the screenshot a while back because I thought it was funny. Only recently did I begin to suspect that the reason he blocked me was to prevent me from finding errors on his Twitter feed, as I so commonly find on his blog and in his article.

    [Channeling Balko style of dissembling] I don’t know that to be the case, of course, and Balko denies it. So, even though it seems highly suspicious, I’ll take him at his word.

    Patterico (58b56d)

  112. Please, as I believe I have been quite generous in this thread, please show me where I’ve talked in circles or been otherwise illogical, fallacious, or hypocritical, because it’s nowhere near obvious to me. I’ve been quite careful to be generous and patient, whereas many read into my posts with completely different meanings without asking if that’s what I meant or implied. When I correct them, they don’t respond or reiterate their belief that I’m some sort of troll with a hidden agenda.

    I stated my real agenda here.

    Danny (a70223)

  113. Now it is going to act all aghast that anyone could possibly take issue with its sophist behavior?

    JD (42a8c3)

  114. Does Balko use twitter for person or professional reasons? Or a bit of both?

    Balko claims a bit of both.

    Patterico’s behavior is off, here. There’s no right to follow anyone’s Twitterfeed. There’s also no earthly reason why Patterico would need Balko’s feed so badly that he resorts to using a work around to get it. Also strange is that Patterico would blog about being shut off from a Twitter feed as though it just happened (per Balko, it occurred some time ago).

    This episode suggests a lack of perspective of your part. Your behavior is, frankly, weird. Take a breath, drink a beer, and come back to this later.

    p.s. I started reading this blog again after you, Patterico, were unfairly maligned by my co-blogger Hilzoy on ObWi. It was a minor matter, but I hope that when Hilzoy returns from her trip, she’ll be able to post a correction (although it may be that her blogging is completely done, so my apologizes may have to suffice instead).

    von (96db1a)

  115. There is no right to follow somebody’s twitter feed?

    HAHAhAHAHAhAhahahaha

    G (58c282)

  116. balko’s been seduced by living near washington too long, would be my guess. he invites comments – as long as they’re obsequiously fawning – but of late he’s gotten downright *snippy*, in a curiously *feminine* way, to those who would dare disagree. or – god forbid – should they have the unmitigated GALL to criticize the great and powerful balko. more and more often, you’ll see that his responses to disagreement/criticism are all beginning to start with, “if you don’t like it, get out!” then too, for a guy who hides behind the skirts of “libertarianism”, he sure was giddily pushing obama’s candidacy awful hard; even as he relentlessly attacked palin as stupid while completely ignoring the bizarre speeches coming from the most moronic VP of all time, fertilizer-for-brains biden.

    then he casts out – bans – shuns – expels the blasphemer. ask me how i know this.

    OTOH, at least he’s got the guts to go after dirty/incompetent cops, and power-mad/mendacious DA’s. whatever else his problems are, however much he morphs into the blog version of capt. sobel, at least he’ll never lead/defend a pack of trigger-happy black-clad thugs who shoot my wife, kids and dog over a ‘misunderstanding’.

    xyz123 (260f59)

  117. I can’t believe that I have the patience for this, but I am growing more intolerant of the one line dismissals as opposed to any sort of coherent argument. My solution will be to leave before it gets to the point of losing my optimism, but it would seem to me that you all here have gone too far to have any sort of optimism with regard to arguing on the internet. This is based upon the fact that I have been extremely careful and patient in this entire thread, yet I can’t get a single person on this site to accept even a single one of my basic, trivial, optimistic, philosophical, or any other points. I find this behavior odd, but nonetheless unsurprising. Such is life, and such is the internet.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  118. There is no right to follow somebody’s twitter feed?

    HAHAhAHAHAhAhahahaha

    Comment by G — 7/31/2009 @ 12:53 pm

    You seem to imply that there is such a right? Please, explain on what grounds there is such a right. This isn’t trolling, but it seems silly that somebody would have to ask you to provide your analysis on such a basic thought, doesn’t it?

    Danny (a70223)

  119. G @117 – that is correct. Twitter is private property.

    Mr. Frey – Mr. Balko has not stopped you from following his blog, so you can do that. The fact remains is that it is extremely untoward and bordering on childish incivility to gleefully write how you are flaunting a request to not go to someone’s page. Mr. Balko has made his intent clear: why is it that you feel compelled not to honor that?

    The Angry Optimist (2aba7b)

  120. No way, Twitter is private property? ZOMG WHO THE FRACK KNEW?

    G (58c282)

  121. Only recently did I begin to suspect that the reason he blocked me was to prevent me from finding errors on his Twitter feed, as I so commonly find on his blog and in his article.

    So you wrote it as if it happened yesterday? You know, I admire parsimony in lawyers when they are doing their jobs. But in real life, BS is BS.

    The Angry Optimist (2aba7b)

  122. Raising the right questions is just as important, if not more so, as finding the right answer.

    Since you like quotes, here’s one for you:

    A fool can ask more questions in an hour than a wise man can answer in seven years.

    Thank you for proving the old English proverb.

    Steverino (69d941)

  123. G @ 126 – soooo, follow along now…do you have the right to enter private property any time you wish?

    The Angry Optimist (2aba7b)

  124. If you were not such a transparent sophist, danny, maybe people would give you more credit for being the least judgmental mostest optimistic least biased mostester civilest commenter EVAH.

    However, after seeing this play out, we all have a pretty clear picture of what you were trying to do. You were just asking tough informative questions. Shining light on the situation, if you will. Rather than annoyed by your sophistry, we should applaud your integrity.

    JD (42a8c3)

  125. You can label me the fool. That’s your point, and that’s fine. But what does that make you, a wise man? Or should I give everybody here seven years to respond to a single question I’ve raised, oh wise ones? Have I asked such difficult questions? If so, let me know which ones so that I can make them less ambiguous, or dismiss them as trivial, which I’ve already done with the screenshot comments.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  126. Mr. Angry Obvious.

    Balko does not own Twitter. He’s a guest there, like everybody else.

    G (58c282)

  127. Danny,

    You have certainly been nothing but polite and reasonable. I should not that it has not been proven that you don’t molest children. I don’t believe that to be the case, and should you be silent about the matter while at work, I will certainly not take that as evidence that you are, indeed, a child molester.

    Thanks for your reasonableness — and remember: don’t molest any children. And if you have done so on an ongoing basis — which I do not mean to imply you have — then please stop.

    Patterico (a21837)

  128. Oh boy… thanks for conceding nothing, while I’ve conceded that I think Radley put up a straw man and Patterico made Radley’s original response to Dunphy that way.

    Maybe you should strip away the sarcasm and tell me what you really think I deserve for my efforts here? Direct and expedient condemnation? It’s not clear what your opinion is of me besides your thought that I’m some sort of nuisance. Is that really all my words are worth to you?

    Danny (9b57d9)

  129. “So you wrote it as if it happened yesterday?”

    It didn’t happen yesterday, as I have made clear. Nor did I mean to imply it did. I just chose to bring it up now for the reasons I expressed.

    Patterico (a21837)

  130. Balko does not own Twitter. He’s a guest there, like everybody else.

    Yes – I never said he did. You said there was a “right” to check Twitter. I said there is not because Twitter is private property. You have not yet replied.

    The Angry Optimist (2aba7b)

  131. So, the active verb “tries” – that is not present tense?

    Like I said, you can be lawyer-clever at work, but what you did is obvious (yet again) to anybody with a fourth-grade level of reading comprehension.

    The Angry Optimist (2aba7b)

  132. Since the rest of your post was snarky, I should conclude that you don’t think I’ve been at all polite or reasonable?

    Besides, saying that there’s a possibility of a meaningless fraudulent screenshot is certainly on the same level as doing actual harm to a child.

    Maybe you will understand why I think you are bad with analogies? Of course, it’s probably the first thing that came to your mind. Analogies are normally like that. And I honestly will not imply that because it’s the first thing that came into your head that child molestation is often the first thing on your mind. I have been civil here, and I want to point out my charitable acts to those who want to leave the possibility open that I’m not some sort of troll, not expecting any sort of praise for my civility.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  133. “I don’t know this person. But I do know that when you involve your ego with your politics, you can go strange places. Like the progressives who continually defend the President for doing the same things that GWB did (which they hated).”

    *cough* irony is such a rich, delicious, moist thing. your words are almost as good as those really awesome brownies at Whole Foods–say, are those SWAT kneepads you’re wearing there?

    joev (c1762a)

  134. You can label me the fool. That’s your point, and that’s fine. But what does that make you, a wise man?

    I don’t make any claims of wisdom. But you seem to think asking questions has an inherent value, and I disagree.

    It’s the same thing “truthers” and “birthers” and other cranks do: ask a lot of questions, attempting to imply something nefarious with the questions, and not really lead anywhere.

    Steverino (69d941)

  135. I don’t recall saying there was a “right” to check twitter. Point it out to me.

    G (58c282)

  136. What was your post at 117 meant to imply, G?

    The Angry Optimist (2aba7b)

  137. I praise danny as the mostest greatest commenter EVAH !!!! He is the epitome of patience, a modicum of civility, and has done nothing other than ask questions in an attempt to bring illumination and light to a marky situation. You all have been patently unfair to this beacon of integrity and should be ashamed of yourselves.

    JD (42a8c3)

  138. And are they quick to say when one of their points are trivial or unimportant? It seems like truthers don’t have any debates with anti-truthers, for lack of a better term, and therefore don’t formally retract any of their beliefs based on refutations of those beliefs. Truthers appear to be locked in a bubble, trying to convince others to jump in.

    But you seem to think asking questions has an inherent value, and I disagree.

    Well there’s no chance for any value if people refuse to argue civilly, if at all. There inlies my problem here, nobody seems to be granting the least bit of charity to me or my points, and few seem to care what I’ve stated to believe before labeling me on information I’ve already stated against or haven’t even touched on.

    But again, I said asking THE RIGHT questions are just as important, if not more so, than answering them. So you contradicted what I already said. You must have skipped it, or, to go along with the theme of everybody else in this thread, “You are a lying liarhead!” Sorry… I couldn’t resist.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  139. “Maybe you will understand why I think you are bad with analogies?”

    No, I understand that you’re bad at understanding them.

    “And I honestly will not imply that because it’s the first thing that came into your head that child molestation is often the first thing on your mind.”

    And I will not imply that you have revealed yourself to be an asshole who implies what he lacks the balls to say. No, I will not imply that. I will just say it.

    You have revealed yourself to be an asshole who implies what he lacks the balls to say.

    Oh, the lack of civility towards this person who, for all we know, is a child molester!

    Patterico (736427)

  140. Danny wrote,

    A) Do you have proof that your original quote did have that in there? A screenshot proves nothing without a valid timestamp. I’m not accusing you of adding it in there after the fact just to nail Radley on this, but like I said, a screenshot alone proves nothing concretely.

    It’s RADLEY who must prove that Patterico didn’t include something in his post. That’s because RADLEY made the claim. It’s not for anyone to DISPROVE it, including Patterico.

    Radley has proceeded with egregious weaseling. Everything else you’ve said on this subject is further weaseling, not argument.

    Jim C. (b33a68)

  141. I praise danny as the mostest greatest commenter EVAH !!!! He is the epitome of patience, a modicum of civility, and has done nothing other than ask questions in an attempt to bring illumination and light to a marky situation. You all have been patently unfair to this beacon of integrity and should be ashamed of yourselves.

    Comment by JD — 7/31/2009 @ 1:24 pm

    I can’t tell you how happy I am to be able to say the following:

    This is why we can’t have nice things.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  142. Angry Oblivious

    My 117 was mocking 116

    . There’s no right to follow anyone’s Twitterfeed.

    Get it? Which is why I put a ? and then Laughed.

    Sorry, but it is ABSURD to state that. Its hysterical too.

    To put it in other words, NO FUCKING SHIT.

    Pardon my profanities. But the idiocy from people is just profound.

    G (58c282)

  143. “So, the active verb “tries” – that is not present tense?”

    So, has he removed the block?

    Guess he’s still trying.

    Patterico (3016eb)

  144. I find it amusing every time Patterico brings up banning given his own past behavior on the subject. But that is a minor point.

    The Duncan case is very disturbing because if even part of what Balko is reporting is true–it could result in that case being over turned (and as Patterico has pointed out there is a lot of evidence to support Duncan really was guilty). And at the same time, you can’t be convicting people on incompetent expert witness testimony.

    Is it suprising Jack Dunphy (a cop) and Patterico (a prosecutor) side with the cops and prosecutors and Balko (a libertarian) tends to side with those wrongfully accused? That does not mean they are right or wrong, just that they come to the table with those prejudgments. In some cases Balko has rasied attention to a likely serious miscarriage of justice.

    It just strange how now it is about some personality dispute and not about the underlying issues.

    Joe (a32cff)

  145. Wow. I guess I’m a little sad to say that I remember when we lost the ability to argue, at least on this thread.

    You guys act as though asking questions and clarifying yourself are terrible things.

    Perhaps next time I should say nothing, then let you accuse me of meaning what I told you I didn’t mean, but understood that you could read into my posts as meaning such a thing. And then when I clarify, you can plug your ears and say that you know what I meant my original post.

    I tried to preempt such accusations, but it appears it doesn’t work in this setting. I guess I’ll learn.

    Danny wrote,

    A) Do you have proof that your original quote did have that in there? A screenshot proves nothing without a valid timestamp. I’m not accusing you of adding it in there after the fact just to nail Radley on this, but like I said, a screenshot alone proves nothing concretely.

    It’s RADLEY who must prove that Patterico didn’t include something in his post. That’s because RADLEY made the claim. It’s not for anyone to DISPROVE it, including Patterico.

    It was an aside, not an argument. If it was that important, he would have made proof. As it was, it was a parenthetical aside which had nothing to do with the arguments. And something that is not an argument can be discarded when arguing, so Patterico would have been better not implying malcontent, but pointing out that it was in fact not missing from his posting and leave it at that. As it was, Patterico got completely defensive, even though he is quite apparently correct, and then got all uppity and righteous over a simple mistake that has been corrected.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  146. And let me clarify, by post above was not stated that well, obviously most people accused of crimes are not wrongfully accused.

    Joe (a32cff)

  147. So, has he removed the block?

    Guess he’s still trying.

    No. The “try” was the initial administering of the block. Meaning that he tried to block you, but has subsequently failed (which you are so gleeful about pointing out). And “still trying” =/= “tries” – tries implies (and you know this) that his first attempt was recent, not that he is still trying. If you wanted to write “still trying”, you would have done so.

    Meaning that you did mean to imply it just happened recently. Note that you did not disabuse anybody of that implication in the original post, either. Hmm, I wonder why that is?

    The Angry Optimist (2aba7b)

  148. And I do want to add an aside that your (you all) apparent collective belief that asking questions and clarifying things are terrible, while not being at all generous while arguing is very good evidence that the collective group here at Patterico’s blog are quite authoritarian. In short, and to make a definitive stance as I’ve been so oft asked to do here, I think the collective here is a bunch of unimaginative, uncaring douchenozzles. Of course, this isn’t an argument, so you can ignore it, but then, you’ve done that with all of my arguments, as well.

    I’ll still be around if anybody actually wants to have a discussion, I just wanted to point out that after a day of typing carefully, but furiously, today, its safe for me to judge the collective here as I just did.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  149. What, no response Angry?

    G (58c282)

  150. And by furiously, I meant to imply quickly, but I remembered that the collective thinks that I’m passive-aggressive and didn’t want anybody to unjustly get the wrong idea.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  151. G – I asked you a question at 138. What was your 117 post meant to imply, if not that there is a right to checking Twitter?

    The Angry Optimist (2aba7b)

  152. What, no response Angry?

    Comment by G — 7/31/2009 @ 1:45 pm

    What did you imply by this, then?

    There is no right to follow somebody’s twitter feed?

    HAHAhAHAHAhAhahahaha

    Comment by G — 7/31/2009 @ 12:53 pm

    Because it would appear that you are disagreeing with the idea that there is no right to follow somebody’s twitter feed. Correct us if you’re wrong. Note my response to you here.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  153. Certainly you didn’t come out and say that such a right exists, but if that’s not what you meant, please elaborate. Your response isn’t what I would call “ambiguous”.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  154. apparent collective belief that asking questions and clarifying things are terrible

    Riiiight. That’s what we, The Collective, truly believe. Not that the WAY in which YOU did those things was transparenty offensive, disingenuous and possibly sockpuppet-ey to boot. Heavens no! We always react exactly the same way to ANYone who “ask[s] questions and clarif[ies] things.”

    Mitch (890cbf)

  155. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD THINK THAT RIGHTS APPLY TO TWITTER.

    HOW FUCKING STUPID IS THAT STATEMENT.

    Hope that is clear enough. The assertion that rights have anything to do with twitter is comical. Obviously Twitter is a private company. Sorry. I was laughing at the idea of rights and twitter.

    G (58c282)

  156. And see my 144 if there are any other questions on that.

    G (58c282)

  157. Quit speaking in generalities, Mitch. I’m one person. Please tell me where I was unjustly offensive (when I was sarcastic I explicitly stated it), provably disingenuous (because I was honest in the things I said, preempting certain judgmental replies), and sockpuppet-ey. If I say I think for myself, I mean it. I believe you think for yourself. I really do. And I have asked everybody here to be a little bit more generous. I haven’t gotten a single confirmation that a single anecdote or anything else I’ve said is correct, which I find hard to believe from anybody. The only place I’d expect such silly resilience is from Freepers.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  158. And see my 144 if there are any other questions on that.

    Comment by G — 7/31/2009 @ 1:58 pm

    ???

    143

    I praise danny as the mostest greatest commenter EVAH !!!! He is the epitome of patience, a modicum of civility, and has done nothing other than ask questions in an attempt to bring illumination and light to a marky situation. You all have been patently unfair to this beacon of integrity and should be ashamed of yourselves.

    Comment by JD — 7/31/2009 @ 1:24 pm

    I can’t tell you how happy I am to be able to say the following:

    This is why we can’t have nice things.

    Comment by Danny — 7/31/2009 @ 1:27 pm

    144

    “So, the active verb “tries” – that is not present tense?”

    So, has he removed the block?

    Guess he’s still trying.

    Comment by Patterico — 7/31/2009 @ 1:30 pm

    145

    I find it amusing every time Patterico brings up banning given his own past behavior on the subject. But that is a minor point.

    The Duncan case is very disturbing because if even part of what Balko is reporting is true–it could result in that case being over turned (and as Patterico has pointed out there is a lot of evidence to support Duncan really was guilty). And at the same time, you can’t be convicting people on incompetent expert witness testimony.

    Is it suprising Jack Dunphy (a cop) and Patterico (a prosecutor) side with the cops and prosecutors and Balko (a libertarian) tends to side with those wrongfully accused? That does not mean they are right or wrong, just that they come to the table with those prejudgments. In some cases Balko has rasied attention to a likely serious miscarriage of justice.

    It just strange how now it is about some personality dispute and not about the underlying issues.

    Comment by Joe — 7/31/2009 @ 1:35 pm

    ???

    Danny (a70223)

  159. Danny, I think he meant his 11:44, which says some irrelevant non-sequitur about libertarians and freedom – as if libertarians believed in trespassing or did not believe in private property.

    The Angry Optimist (2aba7b)

  160. I wonder if danny could make it a habit of being disingenuous, and when called on it, throws temper-tantrums where it portrays himself as somehow above the fray. I am not saying that is what he did, I am just asking if that is a possibility. He could bugger goats too, but I am not saying that he buggers goats, I am just asking the question as to whether or not he could. Also, since there are no timestamps, he cannot actually prove that he does not bugger goats, not that I am suggesting he does.

    JD (6dacf4)

  161. Looks like I may have used too many bad words or am on moderation.

    my 144

    #

    Angry Oblivious

    My 117 was mocking 116

    . There’s no right to follow anyone’s Twitterfeed.

    Get it? Which is why I put a ? and then Laughed.

    Sorry, but it is ABSURD to state that. Its hysterical too.

    To put it in other words, NO F***** SH**.

    Pardon my profanities. But the idiocy from people is just profound.

    Comment by G — 7/31/2009 @ 1:28 pm

    G (58c282)

  162. Who are you to say I am being disingenuous? You haven’t even addressed me. Where have I been disingenuous? I really don’t see it? My guess is that you are merely interpreting it as disingenuous because that’s what you’re used to. Of course, if you called upon specific cases where you thought I was being disingenuous, I could lie, but if there is no way to establish trust in an argument, how can anybody claim to even begin an argument? You can’t argue based on different definitions, that’s implying “I’ll go this way and you go that” from the start.

    You can believe I “bugger goats” if that makes you feel like you’ve won the argument, but I’d at least say that whether or not I “bugger goats” is far more irrelevant to this discussion than whether or not Patterico falsified the screenshot in some way, which I already said I don’t think he did.

    Danny (a70223)

  163. ZOMG – the angry angry angry anarchist called you all bootlicking authoritarians! You have been p3wnd !

    JD (6dacf4)

  164. Sorry, but it is ABSURD to state that. Its hysterical too.

    What is absurd about stating something obvious? It may seem silly, but at least it’s accepted as truth by most, if not all, here. If it’s obvious, ignore it, or make it more obvious that you were just laughing about the obviousness of it. As it was, apparently your post WAS very ambiguous to your intended purpose.

    Danny (a70223)

  165. Sorry, figured people would have read 116, as it is above my 117. Sorry, but sometimes stating the obvious shows how stupid people can be.

    G (58c282)

  166. ZOMG – the angry angry angry anarchist called you all bootlicking authoritarians! You have been p3wnd !

    Comment by JD — 7/31/2009 @ 2:13 pm

    Like I said, that was an opinion, not an argument. Opinions can’t p3wn you, which I stated in the same post as I judged the collective. But seriously, can you grow up and try to read all the words in my post? If you need clarifications, I’m actually glad to give them to you.

    As an aside, I appreciate at least that Patterico has allowed me to comment here, whether or not the discourse has been at all pleasant. It sounds like others have had problems with the ban-hammer, but I’m glad I’ve been viewed at least as civil (or trivial) enough to be allowed to comment unmoderated.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  167. Danny has been hoist on his on petard by Patterico, and Danny is just too damn dense to understand it. I am still waiting for Danny to prove that he is indeed not a child molester. After all, Danny wants proof of what Patterico says, so turnabout is fair play.

    Isn’t asking questions Danny’s whole point, oH the right questions. Prove that you really are asking the right questions.

    Danny prove that you don’t have a stake in this.(For by your logic we can’t take you at your word)

    Prove that you are not a sock puppet.

    Prove that you are not a slaved computer that is just throwing random gibberish disguised as what you perceive to be valid questions.

    Prove that you are not a figment of your own demented imagination.

    Prove that you do not suck your thumb in public, after all, even if no one can be produced at this time doesn’t mean there is not someone who has seen you.

    Prove that you are not a 6 eyed green monster with an overbite. (No pictures or screenshots will suffice as they could be faked or of your next door neighbor)

    My only post to this poseur as he is the ultimate 4 year old that continually whines, “But , but , but, WHY MOMMY?”

    peedoffamerican (7483d1)

  168. Sorry, figured people would have read 116, as it is above my 117. Sorry, but sometimes stating the obvious shows how stupid people can be.

    Comment by G — 7/31/2009 @ 2:16 pm

    Believe it or not, there are people that would argue that it is a right to follow a twitter feed just as much as it is a right to have health insurance (this is sarcasm).

    Danny (9b57d9)

  169. If you do not believe he falsified the screen shots, what was the point of you making that accusation in the passive-aggressive manner in which you did?

    JD (6dacf4)

  170. So…. Danny does not deny that he buggers goats and/or children?

    RB (0772e7)

  171. I guess it is too much to ask for people to have brains.

    G (58c282)

  172. This is one of those times I wish that Cathy Seipp’s blog hadn’t disappeared into the aether when Journalspace exploded. She had quite a kerfuffle with Balko that made for great reading.

    Christian (22837a)

  173. lol… Maybe you should see my post above about electing judges. Apparently my judges here want further proof from me that I’m not a child molester or a goat bugger. To that I say, I have no proof. Please, prosecute me as I see fit. I hoped for a fairer trial, but I came here on my own silly whim. Lesson learned.

    Danny (a70223)

  174. Err, as you see fit.

    Danny (a70223)

  175. If you do not believe he falsified the screen shots, what was the point of you making that accusation in the passive-aggressive manner in which you did?

    Comment by JD — 7/31/2009 @ 2:20 pm

    If I didn’t accuse him of falsifying the screen shots, then what does it matter how I didn’t accuse him of falsifying them.

    I merely offered it up as a small possibility. I’m sure it’s happened before, but that doesn’t imply that Patterico has or will do it. It was only an FYI. An opinion of the possibilities. And opinions, as I’ve said 2 or 3 times already, are not arguments, and can be skipped over.

    Danny (a70223)

  176. In danny’s oh-so-innocent-and-not-at-all judgmental first comment, he passively-aggressively accuses Patterico of falsifying the scrren shot above, he defends Balko’s mischaracterization, and claims to be all non-judgey and just asking questions. But we are all in the wrong for questioning him.

    JD (6dacf4)

  177. It is funny to me that, for all of the accusations I have had about me on “namecalling”, I at least have enough respect to call people by their actual names, G and JD. If you start off mocking folks’ handles, that means you do not have much in the way of argumentation.

    And hey, gentlemen, you consider yourselves conservatives, no doubt, so here’s a parting thought:

    “Law and arbitrary power are in eternal enmity.”

    Edmund Burke

    Have fun howling in your monkey cages.

    The Angry Optimist (2aba7b)

  178. Where’s your analysis that at least implies that I passive-aggressively accused Patterico of falsifying the screen shot? And why won’t you believe me that it’s not an accusation? I’m not going to put words in your mouth, I’ll wait for you to actually tell me.

    You can question me all you want, but I haven’t seen any of such behavior. All I’ve seen is mischaracterizations and misreadings of what I wrote, which can only be done by not listening to my explicit words and by pretending that I have some hidden meaning that only you know. Honestly, ask me a question pertinent to this conversation.

    Danny (a70223)

  179. Calling a spade a spade. Not mocking anybody’s name. just mocking how somebody said something really stupid. IMO

    G (58c282)

  180. What you complain about in #178, danny, is exactly what Balko did to Dunphy and Patterico.

    My analysis of your passive-aggressive behavior? See comment #16, where you introduced yourself and all of your non-judgey behaviors to us. It speaks for itself, and your weaseling ever since simply adds to the initial impression.

    You are all bootlicking authoritarians for disagreeing with TAO’s rants.

    JD (6dacf4)

  181. The level of analysis in this thread really astounds me… I’ve honestly never seen so many posts without a single shred of analysis or proof, making this entire thread a bunch of opinions (except for my biased opinion that mine and TAO’s posts have had at least attempted at such). This isn’t hyperbole.

    Danny (a70223)

  182. Another day another moronic convergence of Balkobots at Patterico’s Pontifications.

    Danny referring to the quote Balko claimed was omitted by Patterico:

    “It was an aside, not an argument. If it was that important, he would have made proof.”

    Curious, Danny that you chose to focus on it in the first sentence of your first comment on this thread, making it seem very important to you at least although you repearedly deny its importance, belying its presence in your comment.

    “Where have I been disingenuous? I really don’t see it?”

    Danny see immediately above.

    Shorter Danny – I’m not accusing Patterico of lying, but I really thing he’s lying, but it’s not really important to me one way or another because I’m just here to have a discussion and not to rake sides and get all judgmental and stuff and why can’t we just have a good discussion and raise questions about the posts that need to be raised in order to clear the air between the two blogs for peace and harmony going forward like sensible intelligent people used to be able to do all the time…………

    Danny – Remember the moon landing we celebrated the 40th anniversary of this month. I watched it supposedly live on TV as a kid. Some people say the whole thing was faked and a giant conspiracy theory. I’m not saying it was, but it could have been. I don’t have any evidence and am not making any accusations. I just wanted to point that out for the benefit of the others on this thread.

    See what I did there Danny?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  183. Danny, the burden of proof lies with YOU.

    G (58c282)

  184. “The level of analysis in this thread really astounds me… I’ve honestly never seen so many posts without a single shred of analysis or proof”

    Self analysis is great Danny, you are getting very good.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  185. TAO – If Twitter is private property, who owns it?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  186. What you complain about in #178, danny, is exactly what Balko did to Dunphy and Patterico.

    Except I already said that Balko and Dunphy set up straw men, but I think Balko’s was at least more pertinent to the Gates case.

    My analysis of your passive-aggressive behavior? See comment #16, where you introduced yourself and all of your non-judgey behaviors to us. It speaks for itself, and your weaseling ever since simply adds to the initial impression.

    “It speaks for itself” is not an argument, and I’m not even good at arguing (I wish I had joined “Speech and Debate” in high school). Where was I weaseling? It appears what you call weaseling, I call clarifying. Of course, I’m generous enough (it’s quite simple, really) to call what Patterico did by the name of clarifying, so why can’t you do the same for me? You don’t have to, but it seems just. As I said, I’ve already been judged here, and as the loud minority, it doesn’t quite matter what else I say. At least, it hasn’t yet.

    You are all bootlicking authoritarians for disagreeing with TAO’s rants.

    Another silly fallacy.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  187. Where is your “analysis”, danny? Hyperbole often?

    JD (6dacf4)

  188. My only post to this poseur as he is the ultimate 4 year old that continually whines, “But , but , but, WHY MOMMY?”

    Comment by peedoffamerican — 7/31/2009 @ 2:18 pm

    Libertarians are the ultimate spoiled, spineless, weak, worthless children who want their parents to give them everything and forbid them nothing. Especiallly a pot party with hookers that they can drive to without a driver’s license in an unregistered automobile. But it’s no good if daddy and mommy don’t agree. So they will whine continuously because daddy and mommy do not agree.

    nk (12e5f2)

  189. Curious, Danny that you chose to focus on it in the first sentence of your first comment on this thread, making it seem very important to you at least although you repearedly deny its importance, belying its presence in your comment.

    Except it is what Patterico spent more than 60% of the volume of his blog post on. It seemed like an easy thing to note that I noticed right off the bat… so why do you get to tell me it must be the most important thing ever?

    And why do I have to keep telling you guys that I don’t believe Patterico faked it? I’ve said it at least 3 or 4 times by now… I’m sorry if my wording was confusing, but it wasn’t intended to imply that he actually did anything fraudulent.

    Danny, the burden of proof lies with YOU.

    Comment by G — 7/31/2009 @ 2:46 pm

    What do you want me to prove, G? I can do my best if I have the means. If not, I will explicitly tell you that I will decline.

    Danny (a70223)

  190. Where is your “analysis”, danny? Hyperbole often?

    Comment by JD — 7/31/2009 @ 2:51 pm

    Analysis on what? What part was hyperbole? And no, I haven’t used hyperbole but for a couple of times here, and it was pretty clear I understood when I did use it.

    Libertarians are the ultimate spoiled, spineless, weak, worthless children who want their parents to give them everything and forbid them nothing. Especiallly a pot party with hookers that they can drive to without a driver’s license in an unregistered automobile. But it’s no good if daddy and mommy don’t agree. So they will whine continuously because daddy and mommy do not agree.

    Comment by nk — 7/31/2009 @ 2:51 pm

    Now THAT’s a straw man!

    Danny (a70223)

  191. One percent sycophantic shit-stirring Joe pauses for a while again to help complete the moronic convergence. He must have gotten a fresh supply of Jergens.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  192. Hyperbole might not have been the right word. Claiming only you an TAO have offered analysis was/is laughable. You fail to apply you own standards to yourself. You engage in rhetorical gymnastics to explain away a gross mischaracterization by Balko. You now claim you were not claiming what was obviously being claimed about falsifying the screenshot. You claim some faux moral high-ground based on your flawed perception that you act above the fray, and all that do not appreciate your civility and non-judgeyness fall short of your standards.

    JD (a8f5e7)

  193. Honestly, coming here has taught me a lot. First, trying to have a discussion here is a waste of time. 190 posts in, and not a single person can concede that I’ve made a single good point. Even if I’m delusional, it’d be no use to be delusional here. Second, I have at least nailed down the straw man fallacy thanks to numerous generous examples. If nothing else, you have been more than generous in supplying that. Anybody here know where I can go to find out about more fallacies?

    No?

    Didn’t think so.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  194. A nice article from a Harvard colleague of Gates:

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=528630

    daleyrocks (718861)

  195. Danny, tell me, what good point did you make?

    G (58c282)

  196. Strawmen, exaggeration, and outright falsehoods are Radley Balko’s tools-in-trade recently.

    nk (12e5f2)

  197. Danny, I seem to have lost track of all the question you claim nobody is answering in the sheer volume of your words. You seem to be making mostly statements not leading to any conclusions or taking any positions rather than asking questions.

    Could you please help a brother out and list the questions you have been asking so people can determine whether they are worth addressing?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  198. There is that self-proclaimed superiority again. We should all be thankful that we have been graced with your divine presence.

    JD (a8f5e7)

  199. So, can you or can you not concede that I’ve made a single valid point? If so, which one?

    And a gross mischaracterization? You’re talking about that parenthetical statement? That aside? That thing that had nothing to do with his argument? You continue to tell ME what I meant, instead of taking me at my word. What are you, a woman? (Ba dum tsh!)

    Ya know, you remind me of somebody I used to be good friends with. She went crazy one day and kept telling me that I think that my “crap” don’t stink and all of this other crap, and instead of actually discussing anything with me before or after this, she stopped talking to me altogether after that. Quite silly when I’ve never heard a single complaint about my behavior prior.

    I’ve been quoting people left and right in here and giving a thorough analysis. I haven’t seen anybody take more than a line out of one of my posts, and this only happened a couple of times.

    Danny (a70223)

  200. The real problem with you clowns, as I have said before, is that you nag the government to give you your “rights” instead of simply going ahead and exercising them. Pitiful.

    nk (12e5f2)

  201. Danny would make a good chew toy over at Ace of Spades with Seattle Slew. We’ve been gentle here.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  202. nk – They want the government to give them rights, but they don’t want any government. Libertarianism makes a lot of sense to me.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  203. Ya know, you remind me of somebody I used to be good friends with. She went crazy one day and kept telling me that I think that my “crap” don’t stink and all of this other crap, and instead of actually discussing anything with me before or after this, she stopped talking to me altogether after that.

    Smart girl. And, no, she did not go crazy. She realized what an asshole you are.

    nk (12e5f2)

  204. Its clear that Patterico has been correct and the dullards are been exposed for what they are.

    You cannot educate a mule, it annoys the mule and makes you look stupid. Give up on these idiots.

    Don’t allow them to distor or mischaracterize what you have said, don’t stand for them flinging feeces.

    This is what trolls do when they are caught out in their lies.

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)

  205. This is like performance art.

    JD (a8f5e7)

  206. Libertarians have never gotten more than 3% of the vote, anywhere. Can anyone tell me what the combined instance of cognitive disability, personality disorder, and mental illness, is as a percentage of the population?

    nk (12e5f2)

  207. After realizing how big this got after getting to only post #64, I figured I’d stop here, at least for now. Really, I’d think that these are quite simple questions to answer. Who wants to take the first crack?

    __________________________________
    What have I indicated so far that said I wasn’t open to interpretation or correction?
    __________________________________

    I can’t, RB. And I’m OK with that. But then, does that really matter? Can you prove that I am Balko, either?

    If Patterico does not have definitive proof, that’s fine too. It doesn’t prove that he did or didn’t have that quoted portion in his original post. Like I said, I don’t care. I’m just providing other options for readers, to make sure that they know the possibilities. What problem is that additional information to either side? None. I didn’t accuse him of falsifying it, either, so again, what’s the problem?
    __________________________________
    Do you think libertarians (or liberals, or even anarchists) don’t understand that fact?

    __________________________________
    And where the hell did I suggest, imply, or explicitly say that Pat is a liar?
    __________________________________

    Not a question, but can you agree or disagree with the comic or what my thought bubble would say? It looks like everybody here is doing just like in the comic.

    Oh, and here’s an insightful comic to show you what I mean. Except my thought bubble would say, “I do believe that everybody else is trying to the best of their ability to optimize some quality in their life. Whether that’s their logic, emotions, or bad qualities such as laziness or procrastination. And I can’t judge that they just don’t care about about people, just about different things than me.”
    __________________________________

    Same for this one:

    I mean it practically. The point is that we make JUDGMENTS against what is right or wrong, true or false, but it is impossible to prove such a thing without a doubt to any or all people throughout time. Therefore, this empirical truth cannot be empirically known in practice.

    The idea of our judicial system is that we decide democratically (whether that’s truly fair or not) who we want to represent our wishes and morals in court. So the idea is that in fact I say who represents me, which is based upon my own interpretation of who is best, regardless of whether or not that person is truly, empirically, best for me. I’m only speaking practically.
    __________________________________

    So because I don’t care about the conclusion of the discussions at hand, I should have no desire to argue about arguments, or present simple facts? Who are you to say what my motives should be for speaking? You can think I’m strange for not caring about the outcome (which is what I meant in saying that I had no stake in this argument) but that doesn’t preclude me not taking part in this discussion.

    I don’t even find Patterico’s silence on the matter the least bit suspicious.

    Seriously? He’s at his job. Some internet troll comes out says he may be lying (when people, including myself, saw the original post) and now you expect him to respond within a short time frame to respond to your ridiculous thought?

    Maybe you don’t understand, I didn’t say that at all sarcastically. I meant that the fact that he hasn’t responded means nothing to me, as I’ve said numerous times. I believe I’ve been consistent in my message that the time it takes to respond is not a preponderance of guilt, whether that’s for Radley or Patterico. And where the hell have I been trolling?

    [Recovered from spam filter. — DRJ]
    __________________________________

    Danny (a70223)

  208. JD, seriously, was Patterico justified in banning Jeff? Whose side are you on?

    Joe (a32cff)

  209. Libertarians have never gotten more than 3% of the vote, anywhere. Can anyone tell me what the combined instance of cognitive disability, personality disorder, and mental illness, is as a percentage of the population?

    Comment by nk — 7/31/2009 @ 3:24 pm

    Argumentum ad populum, I believe. Next?

    Danny (9b57d9)

  210. Danny – Where’s that list of questions?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  211. Smart girl. And, no, she did not go crazy. She realized what an asshole you are.

    Comment by nk — 7/31/2009 @ 3:20 pm

    So perfectly-OK-in-the-head people get engaged after dating a month, give back their engagement ring seven times before the other side realizes its not such a good idea to marry this person, get pissed off at a mutual friend (me, also already designated best man) for offering to talk with both of them to help them communicate and work it out (obviously communication was working just fine ;)), and then blames me for ruining their relationship, when the only thing I did was offer to help… Of course, once she refused on the grounds that I had no stake in it (Hello? best man? Great friend to both of them AND their families?), I told my buddy that she was pretty psycho, which he had already come to the conclusion of anyway.

    Yep, you are a good judge of character, there, buddy 😉

    Danny (9b57d9)

  212. JD, seriously, was Patterico justified in banning Jeff? Whose side are you on?

    Comment by Joe — 7/31/2009 @ 3:34 pm

    wocka, wocka, wocka, wocka, wocka

    More JERGENS!!!!!!!!

    urrrggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  213. Joe – Why do you insist, on multiple sites, trying to restart an argument that is long since over?

    Danny – Bring that substance.

    JD (a8f5e7)

  214. Sorry, I tried to post it Daley, but I think it has too many links or something because it has failed in posting twice now. I guess I’ll try breaking it up.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  215. After realizing how big this got after getting to only post #64, I figured I’d stop here, at least for now. Really, I’d think that these are quite simple questions to answer. Who wants to take the first crack?

    __________________________________
    What have I indicated so far that said I wasn’t open to interpretation or correction?

    [Recovered from spam filter. — DRJ]

    Danny (9b57d9)

  216. Wow… it won’t work at all. I’ll try to post it on another site and link to it here. How’s that?

    Danny (9b57d9)

  217. Links set off the filter. You can just ask your oh-so-important questions. We are on the edge of our seat.

    JD (a8f5e7)

  218. lol… It still won’t post after stripping out the links. I guess I can try to now chop it up AFTER removing the links…

    Danny (9b57d9)

  219. Wow. I’ve tried all that I’ve mentioned and it still won’t work. I can e-mail it to those who are truly interested. Post your e-mail addresses with spaces and such so that bots don’t detect it.

    Danny (9b57d9)

  220. I am asking you the question JD, you can’t answer it can you.

    Joe (a32cff)

  221. JD, either Jeff was right, or Patterico. I agree with Jeff. You think….? I am guessing you are a Patterico man.

    Joe (a32cff)

  222. Ok, Danny, I’m sorry.

    nk (12e5f2)

  223. While I’m waiting for the addys…

    The real problem with you clowns, as I have said before, is that you nag the government to give you your “rights” instead of simply going ahead and exercising them. Pitiful.

    Comment by nk — 7/31/2009 @ 3:16 pm

    Some of us would prefer to fix the problem not the symptom. Besides, the government doesn’t give us our rights. The government states in the original documents state what the government can’t do. Everything else is left to us as rights until they take them away.

    Danny would make a good chew toy over at Ace of Spades with Seattle Slew. We’ve been gentle here.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 7/31/2009 @ 3:17 pm

    Gentle? Not conceding a single point is gentle? Maybe it’s not violent, but it’s certainly nowhere near generous or charitable. I’d like the think that conservatives could be just as charitable as liberals claim to be.

    nk – They want the government to give them rights, but they don’t want any government. Libertarianism makes a lot of sense to me.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 7/31/2009 @ 3:18 pm

    We believe we are endowed with rights as persons. The majority can disagree, and that’s what’s scary. The message is clear and reasonable (not hypocritical as you imply), we want less government so that we can exercise our rights freely.

    Danny (a70223)

  224. Ok, Danny, I’m sorry.

    Comment by nk — 7/31/2009 @ 3:58 pm

    Note it here everybody, my first concession!

    I sincerely appreciate your honesty, nk, and you are paving the way for honesty to seep into this heinous thread. Seriously. Thanks. 😀

    Danny (9b57d9)

  225. You’re welcome, Danny. Whatever you say.

    nk (12e5f2)

  226. JD, seriously, was Patterico justified in banning Jeff? Whose side are you on?

    Comment by Joe — 7/31/2009 @ 3:34 pm

    Stay out of this, pickup queen. JD had nothing to do with it. It was me.

    nk (12e5f2)

  227. At the risk of sounding even more egotistical, I will say the following about my ability to speak about the possibility of Patterico’s falsification of the screenshot:

    “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
    – Aristotle

    I’ve never become a 9/11, birth certificate, or moon truther, but I certainly watched the videos and read the articles, and can understand why they would entertain the thought as well. As to why they go headfirst into it, I haven’t the slightest clue…

    Danny (9b57d9)

  228. It is the curse of language to be able to say things that have no connection to reality. — nk

    nk (12e5f2)

  229. Joe – When I want your opinion, I will take a sh*t, and see what it has to say.

    Danny – What points should we have granted you?

    JD (e91ae1)

  230. I like it, nk. At least if we make it into a quotes thread, it will appear as if we are being far more civil to the uneducated. 😀

    Danny (a70223)

  231. You sure did nk. But I was not talking to you. Go troll around for sex as you like to do.

    In the meantime, JD still can’t answer that question.

    Joe (a32cff)

  232. Where is your e-mail address JD? I requested it above. I can’t get the damn thing to post anywhere, so I offered to send it over e-mail. Post your e-mail address here, with the necessary spaces or spelling out “at” and “dot” so that bots don’t gobble up your addy and spam you to high heaven.

    Danny (a70223)

  233. Well, I’m headed home. I’ll send out an e-mail tonight to those that reply here with their addresses and a request for me to send it to them. Late.

    [I found your comments and released them. See comments 209 and 217 above. — DRJ]

    Danny (9b57d9)

  234. Definition of “pickup queen”. A frowsy blond in a redneck bar who says “You gonna let him talk to you that way Bubba?”

    Joe, you little faggot, Jeff knows who I am and where I am so stay out of it you little cocksucker and most definitely leave JD out of it, too.

    nk (12e5f2)

  235. [JD’s email address deleted by DRJ]

    I thought you really covered yourself in glory throughout that whole mess, Joe. I consider Jeff and Patterico friends, and they each know where I stood. The idea that I need to explain myself to an ankle-biting douchebag such as yourself is laughable.

    JD (e91ae1)

  236. Sorry for the “faggot”, Patterico.

    nk (12e5f2)

  237. Raise your hand if you think Balko was ever going to correct his error without further prompting from me.

    I see no hands.

    Patterico (eec933)

  238. For crying out loud, Danny. You are stuck on the MTA and need to get off. You are beyond boring.

    I don’t know who said it but, “There are none so blind as those who will not see”.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  239. Hey, nk, it’s not all that rude to call someone a cigaret or a bundle of sticks, right?

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  240. JD one is right or the other, I am just wondering which way you went on it? Maybe you go both ways. That might explain why you play off the ladies tees.

    And nk, you were a crapweasel then and a crapweasel now. It only makes sense you would be friends with JD.

    Joe (a32cff)

  241. It only makes sense you would be friends with JD.

    Comment by Joe — 7/31/2009 @ 4:48 pm

    I don’t know that I’m friends with JD. I only know that he had nothing to do with what went on between me and Jeff. So go suck a watermelon.

    nk (12e5f2)

  242. Danny #70:

    Radley finds Patterico’s apparent obsession with him creepy, so he gave him a disincentive to continue following him.

    The Angry Optimist #75 left a similar comment.

    I’m late to this discussion but let’s keep in mind that these posts and discussions are posted on the internet on public websites that anyone can access. This isn’t private correspondence stolen from a mailbox.

    In addition, most people have websites and blogs that they like to read and follow but if it’s obsessive for Patterico to take an interest in Balko’s opinions (and it’s not), it’s far more obsessive to leave countless comments here discussing, denouncing, or critiquing his interest.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  243. I would rather share a meal with timmah than with Joe.

    JD (e91ae1)

  244. Wow. I’ve tried all that I’ve mentioned and it still won’t work. I can e-mail it to those who are truly interested. Post your e-mail addresses with spaces and such so that bots don’t detect it.

    Comment by Danny — 7/31/2009 @ 3:53 pm

    Danny – Just email it to Patterico. His address is on the sidebar. You don’t want people to think you’re disingenuous or anything, do you? Don’t be sore about people not conceding points. You didn’t make any worth conceding. Reflect on that.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  245. “Joe – Why do you insist, on multiple sites, trying to restart an argument that is long since over?”

    JD – Joe’s a shit stirrer. That’s what he gets off on. He’s prolly got a chubby right now.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  246. No one asked you to have dinner JD, now run along and perhaps nk can lend you a hand.

    Joe (a32cff)

  247. Excuse me, I need to go drop a deuce. I will ask it what it thinks Joe’s opinion is.

    JD (e91ae1)

  248. Joe – That was an EPIC comment. You should copy and paste that in lots and lots and lots of threads all over the place.

    JD (e91ae1)

  249. Balko corrections prompted by me tend to follow a similar pattern:

    1) Delay the correction, to the point where it’s clear nothing will be done unless I bring it up repeatedly;

    2) Imply that he was not wrong at all;

    3) Find a way to blame me for the whole thing.

    I’m pleased to see his latest correction follows the pattern.

    Radley’s excuse for the delay:

    “I haven’t responded to point (1) because in the last 36 hours, I’ve been working on a breaking story, had a lunch appointment, had a drink with a friend, and for the last 12 hours have had a massive migraine.”

    He’s not using the “I didn’t see it” defense, but rather the “I didn’t have time” defense. He found time to put up three posts, and write a five-paragraph comment telling two of his commenters to fuck off. But he didn’t have time to put a strike tag around the incorrect language.

    Translation: he was going to do it when he wasn’t busy. And he’s always busy.

    Note how he implies I altered my post, saying he read it numerous times but must have somehow missed that passage every time.

    Hey, Radley? What fluffy said, right back at you.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  250. Note that I found and released 2 comments from Danny in the filter.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  251. Excessive pride or just too precious in his own eyes…rather unattractive qualities. Maybe Humility is hiding under his bed…

    Libertarians. Meh.

    Dana (57e332)

  252. Danny – Just email it to Patterico. His address is on the sidebar. You don’t want people to think you’re disingenuous or anything, do you? Don’t be sore about people not conceding points. You didn’t make any worth conceding. Reflect on that.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 7/31/2009 @ 5:09 pm

    Done. And if your so sure I made no points worth conceding, then you are being intentionally delusional. If I said the sky was blue, would you generally concede at least that? Or because I’ve shown favor for Radley (or at least his side of the argument), I must have some hidden meaning, and therefore are clearly wrong. Seriously, can you at least concede that I am correct that the sky is blue? It seems like it would be a big step for you.

    Check your inbox, JD. Sent 5:36 PM Arizona time.

    Danny (a21b09)

  253. Note that I found and released 2 comments from Danny in the filter.

    Comment by DRJ — 7/31/2009 @ 5:28 pm

    Which ones? I don’t know what you’re talking about.

    [Comments 209 and 217. I think they went to the filter because of the links. — DRJ]

    Danny (a21b09)

  254. I’m not certain that the original ‘amoeba’ poster was referring to it (although that was the first thing that came to my mind), but there’s a hillarious Far Side panel that shows an amoeba wearing a stetson twirling a lasso saying “Adios amoebas.” I strongly suspect that was the intended reference.

    ManWell (017a94)

  255. JD said:

    I wonder if danny could make it a habit of being disingenuous, and when called on it, throws temper-tantrums where it portrays himself as somehow above the fray. I am not saying that is what he did, I am just asking if that is a possibility.

    And Danny replied:

    Who are you to say I am being disingenuous?

    Danny, Danny, Danny. JD did not call you disingenuous. He was just asking if that was a possibility. I am genuinely confused as to how you could read his innocent question as an accusation of some kind.

    Read the bold part. He quite clearly says he’s not making that accusation.

    Why do I have to tell you that JD doesn’t believe you are disingenuous? He’s said it at least 3 or 4 times by now… and if he hasn’t, I’m sure he’s thought it. I’m sorry if JD’s wording was confusing, but it wasn’t intended to imply that you actually are disingenuous.

    I’ll note that you didn’t specifically deny being disingenuous. But I don’t find your silence on the matter the least bit suspicious. In fact, I can’t believe I’m even mentioning it, so little do I care about your very refusal to deny the accusation. In the grand scheme of things, it’s quite a meaningless point, but I thought it merited mentioning the possibility for those that didn’t know. Kind of an FYI.

    This comment makes several excellent points, as I am sure you will acknowledge.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  256. Oh, and Danny?

    What fluffy said.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  257. He’s not using the “I didn’t see it” defense, but rather the “I didn’t have time” defense. He found time to put up three posts, and write a five-paragraph comment telling two of his commenters to fuck off.

    Why is this so hard for people to understand, who are you to decide when it is appropriate for somebody to respond? Is it unreasonable for him to put other things, even several, ahead of you, Patterico? Especially without the preponderance of guilt seemingly due to your low priority? I mean, I don’t know about you, but “somebody thinks I’m wrong on the internet” is not my first priority online or off. It’s silly to think that you’re the most important thing in his queue, but you have the right to be silly without it completely destroying your credibility. I still believe you to be credible, just misguided. But that’s nowhere near to a chief concern of mine.

    Translation: he was going to do it when he wasn’t busy. And he’s always busy.

    Emphasis yours. Sounds a little hyperbolic to me. He’s responded, if just to reassert that he believes his strawman is a valid response to Dunphy’s original post.

    Note how he implies I altered my post, saying he read it numerous times but must have somehow missed that passage every time.

    I really don’t think he cares, but you made a stink of it (which is fine, you were apparently right that you didn’t omit it) so he chose to respond. If he wants to respond and say that his main argument, found in that accusational parenthetical aside, is the most important thing to his case and you killed it, that’s fine. But I really believe he didn’t think much of it except for a quick, meaningless jab. I think it’s silly that you made such a big deal of it. But that’s fine, and it doesn’t kill all or even most of your credibility with me.

    Danny (a21b09)

  258. Danny, Danny, Danny. JD did not call you disingenuous. He was just asking if that was a possibility. I am genuinely confused as to how you could read his innocent question as an accusation of some kind.

    My mistake, he IMPLIED that I was being disingenuous. This can be read from the fact that his post WAS written sarcastically (saying I’m throwing temper-tantrums and so on), whereas I have only been sarcastic when I explicitly said so. Otherwise I’m not sure what the purpose of his post was. If he didn’t mean it sarcasticly, I eagerly await his explanation of what he really meant. Do you see the difference?

    Read the bold part. He quite clearly says he’s not making that accusation.

    No, it’s quite clear he’s being sarcastic, and therefore IS making an accusation that I am being disingenuous. Of course, if he didn’t mean it sarcastically, I’d be happy to hear what he did mean.

    Why do I have to tell you that JD doesn’t believe you are disingenuous? He’s said it at least 3 or 4 times by now… and if he hasn’t, I’m sure he’s thought it. I’m sorry if JD’s wording was confusing, but it wasn’t intended to imply that you actually are disingenuous.

    Just trying to mock what I’ve had to say a couple of times about a couple of points that I’ve had to make over and over again for people who won’t read the entire thread. That’s fine, and I’m happy to repeat myself if I can get you guys to learn at least one form of forum etiquette.

    I’ll note that you didn’t specifically deny being disingenuous. But I don’t find your silence on the matter the least bit suspicious. In fact, I can’t believe I’m even mentioning it, so little do I care about your very refusal to deny the accusation. In the grand scheme of things, it’s quite a meaningless point, but I thought it merited mentioning the possibility for those that didn’t know. Kind of an FYI.

    Sarcasm. Please tell me what you meant if it wasn’t sarcasm.

    This comment makes several excellent points, as I am sure you will acknowledge.

    You are being sarcastic to say that I am completely illogical and/or hypocritical. I am still not seeing any logical errors I’ve made, or places I’ve been hypocritical, or any other errors the collective thinks I’ve made, except for the ultimate crime — seeing Balko’s side of things. (That was sarcasm.)

    Danny (a21b09)

  259. By the way, I do have proof that my post was not edited after July 28: my editing screen shows the date and time of all the edits for the posts. The last one was on July 28, minutes after the post was published (I was correcting a typo which happyfeet noted).

    I’ll take and post the screenshot tomorrow. And then you’ll ask how I can prove I didn’t photoshop it.

    Patterico (e9c980)

  260. Right on cue, Joe goes over to Balko’s and publishes a distorted account of my arguments with Goldstein, which of course the audience over there (which is already talking about how I’m doing my blog on County time and such) will lap up.

    Joe: what fluffy said.

    Patterico (e9c980)

  261. Joe is a mendoucheous twatwaffle, the kind of person I would not piss on if he was on fire.

    JD (8bf800)

  262. Has anyone ever done a critique of the “You, a lawyer?” form of counter-argument? It seems to be a species of the “What, are you evil or stupid?” argument.

    Fritz (29480b)

  263. It was “What, are you a cop?” in my beardless days.

    nk (8214ee)

  264. Actually Patterico, I put the link that Jeff Goldstein wrote on McCain’s site. If you consider Goldstein’s version “distorted”, well let’s just say it is the other side of the story.

    And JD, you are obviously a Patterico-man. You are too much of a pussy to publically take a side because you agree with Patterico but are afraid Jeff might get mad at you if you say what you you really think. Grow a set.

    This fight between you and Balko is similar in a way to your fight with Jeff. You never want to admit you are wrong.

    Balko is a libertarian and is by his nature skeptical of police power (that does not mean he is anti cop). You’re a prosecutor so you go the other way (that doesn’t mean you are some jack booted thug against justice). Okay, we get that.

    But you tell me, did Cory Maye deserve to be executed (or did the court screw up in staying that execution)? Does he deserve to be set free or should he stay in jail? Are you one of those prosecutors who is fine with no knock warrants when…opps…they get the wrong house? Is Balko wrong on that case?

    And with Duncan, the thought of a child molester going free does not make me happy in the least (although I assume if that the case would be re-tried again under these circumstances if any appeal is successful). But if there was incompetency and possibly fraud with the prosecution’s criminal expert, whose fault is that?

    Instead you are all bitchy because Balko blocked you from Twitter, when you had no problems blocking Jeff Goldstein not that long ago for what you knew was a completely bogus “death threat.”

    Joe (17aeff)

  265. Patterico never prohibited JeffG from reading this blog.

    Fritz (29480b)

  266. Joe “mendoucheous twatwaffle” wants to play look over there, and wants to re-fight a fight that people long ago walked away from. He is a dick. You really do seem to have a problem, Joe. Maybe it is the fact that you have an irreversible rectal-cranial inversion.

    JD (8bf800)

  267. JD–but you cannot answer the question. Your problem is your testicals never decended, which explains why you play off the ladies’ tees.

    Joe (17aeff)

  268. The pickup queen has only one line and she must keep saying it. Afterwards she will pull a train.

    nk (f58916)

  269. Joe has become Frisch like on this subject, leaving deranged droppings all over the internet.

    Joe you have issues. Seek help.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  270. Joe – Come play golf with me. I will be happy to take your money, as idiots are soon parted and all. But, that would require you to not be a coward. You really are covering yourself in glory today. How many diffeerent places have you spammed this?

    JD (bc26c4)

  271. Does keeping Joe around serve any purpose? Other than continually bringing up old fights, that is.

    If there are any moderators around, feel free to ban him. He can go fight the Goldstein wars somewhere else.

    [Done. Goodbye, Joe. — DRJ]

    Patterico (8af625)

  272. If he disagrees with you, patterico, I think that it is your duty to ban him. There is no reason to have a debate or any countering views, right?

    Seattle Slew (e9f1c0)

  273. Haven’t you left for dinner yet Patterico? Or are you texting me from your cell phone as you are waiting for a table? I will ban myself. But as you tend to do, you are just doing with Balko what you did with Goldstein.

    And JD, grow a set and pick a side. Actually you already have, but you are just not out of the closet yet about it.

    Joe (17aeff)

  274. Ironic, isn’t it, that you decide to ban somebody on the exact same post that you rant about being excluded from another site. Goes to show you that conservatives, patterico included, have absolutely no perspective.

    Seattle Slew (e9f1c0)

  275. Joe – the people involved know where I stand. I am on the side that thinks you are a f*cking arsehole.

    JD (bc26c4)

  276. Joe,

    I think you bring obsessed to a new level.

    G (58c282)

  277. It actually just goes to show that Joe and Seattle Slew and mental midgets, with issues.

    JD (bc26c4)

  278. I guess JD is siding with the site. I don’t blame him. He is here often enough that I think his life would fall apart without the ability to spend every waking minute reading these posts and writing his own inane opinions out for other morons to read every 2.5 minutes. Sail on, JD. Let me know how the search for a psychiatrist goes when this site finally closes down.

    Seattle Slew (e9f1c0)

  279. are, not and …

    JD (bc26c4)

  280. SeattleSlew – How dare somebody have an opinion of their own!

    G (58c282)

  281. Did you ever figure out the difference between health insurance and health care, Seattle? How about that Indian healthcare that our government provides?

    JD (bc26c4)

  282. SS,

    In case you want to pretend you don’t know what JD is talking about… here you go.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  283. I am a little disappointed that 4 minutes elapsed between your posts at 280 and 282. I sure hope that you fit a quick post to another story in there. Otherwise, what have you been doing with your life for the last 10 minutes? You are behind schedule!

    And… did you read the bill yet? Does the bill concern itself with the actual costs of health care or simply the quality and the quality only? Just askin’.

    Seattle Slew (e9f1c0)

  284. When Teh One, SanFranNan and Dirty Harry can tell us what is in the bill … Oh, never mind. We have already gone down this rabbit hole with you.

    JD (bc26c4)

  285. Say it with me, JD: that’s different™!

    That one only posts to play word games and stir up people.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  286. And JD, it might be time to change your “name link.” Maybe?

    Eric Blair (204104)

  287. Good idea

    [note: fished from spam filter]

    JD (bc26c4)

  288. That was a good idea, Eric.

    JD (bc26c4)

  289. So what have we learned after this week’s fun in the sun with the erstwhile defenders of our freedom? Nothing.

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  290. Danny is on Arizona time. How embarrassing. Maybe the heat has fried his brain.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  291. By the way, I do have proof that my post was not edited after July 28: my editing screen shows the date and time of all the edits for the posts. The last one was on July 28, minutes after the post was published (I was correcting a typo which happyfeet noted).

    I’ll take and post the screenshot tomorrow. And then you’ll ask how I can prove I didn’t photoshop it.

    Comment by Patterico — 7/31/2009 @ 6:18 pm

    I look forward to being hypocritical as you’ve predicted it, Patterico. If this happens, please post it all over your blog to show how silly it was of me to be so hypocritical. I await said postings, prophet. As it is spoken, let it be done. (I’m out of practice with biblical quotes, but you get the gist.)

    Of course, if I don’t do this, will you promise to post that you were wrong all over your site? Pretty please? Call yourself a liar, a hypocrite, post screenshots — the whole nine yards. What do you think is fair, if I haven’t come out and said that you shopped or otherwise altered the picture by Monday morning, you’ve lost the bet. Whaddya say?

    Danny (a21b09)

  292. Patterico, I think you need to change the Monty Python song “Spam” and replace it with “Trolls.”

    Eric Blair (204104)

  293. Danny is on Arizona time. How embarrassing. Maybe the heat has fried his brain.

    Comment by PatAZ — 7/31/2009 @ 8:21 pm

    Perhaps. Though what is the excuse for everybody else here? As I’ve said, I haven’t seen such collective doucheness (sorry, brain’s fried, best I could come up with at the moment) since the last time I visited freerepublic.com. And that’s saying something. Of course, this is just an opinion, but feel free to visit any of the arguments I’ve made above. You’ll find I’m not terribly disagreeable, though, you wouldn’t think so looking at all of the responses to my posts.

    Danny (a21b09)

  294. I was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt previously. Now, not so much.

    JD (bc26c4)

  295. Scott Eric is joining feministe. He has a for real post up about it.

    I think I don’t know what to think about that. Feministe always reminds me of that one chick that goes to the yogurt shop and uses the red bean paste topping. You always wondered who uses that gunk and then bam one day there she was. Now I see her all the time.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  296. Look, I gave you all the benefit of the doubt. Start from the top. nk is the only one to concede on a point, and it wasn’t even related to this topic or any of the points I really wanted to make. Nobody has argued that my posts don’t make sense or were hypocritical, but plenty have simply stated it as fact. The only person to break anything I said down was Patterico, and I refuted his silly arguments pretty quickly.

    So, if you start from the top, and take what I say literally and at face value, you will find that my responses have been fair with how I was responded to, and quite explicit in my intent. If you disagree with that statement, please show your analysis of why that is so. This is not a command, but a request. Seeing as how such requests have been ignored this far (after a thread with 300 posts!!) I’ve said that I believe my judgment to call the collective here “douches” is quite fair. This can’t be refuted, but you can attempt to refute the basis of this belief if you actually attempt to refute my posts. Will anybody accept the challenge?

    Danny (a21b09)

  297. “The only person to break anything I said down was Patterico, and I refuted his silly arguments pretty quickly.”

    Danny – Please point out said refutation. I thought you were done trolling for the day. You obviously have a lot of time on your hands. Student? Unemployed?

    Your high opinion of yourself unfortunately is not shared by the crowd here. Too bad, so sad. The morons at the Agitator are easier to please.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  298. “Nobody has argued that my posts don’t make sense or were hypocritical, but plenty have simply stated it as fact.”

    Danny – Sure they did, but you keep claiming your comments don’t say what they do or don’t imply what they do. You were tagged from your first comment.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  299. Danny has this neat and convenient little construct where his “analysis” is conjecture based on his opinion, which cannot be refuted. My analysis, based on my opinion and experience with this one, is that he is arguing in bad faith, and is fundamentally dishonest, starting from his very first comment.

    JD (bc26c4)

  300. Danny, you really lost me when you brought up the whole

    A) Do you have proof that your original quote did have that in there? A screenshot proves nothing without a valid timestamp. I’m not accusing you of adding it in there after the fact just to nail Radley on this, but like I said, a screenshot alone proves nothing concretely.

    And then with the whole

    I have yet to see Patterico argue against Radley’s points, unless his only point is that Radley misinterpreted the whole thing. It sounds to me like Patterico restated the point of Dunphy’s original post, which is fine, but it doesn’t respond to why Radley interpreted the post the way he did.

    You really lost me there, Patterico should argue against an argument he isn’t making? That isn’t logical.

    Though in your next part

    I personally don’t see this argument going anywhere else because Patterico believes that Radley is cowering in shame instead of responding to his post, and Radley believes that his interpretation of Dunphy’s original post was valid and thinks that Patterico should respond to his arguments against the original post.

    You at least point out that Radley is in belief that his interpretation was valid (which it isn’t).

    Anyway, JD pretty much hit it on the head with this

    When the speaker corrects you, further illustrates their message, and outlines their intent, and the reciever still persists on applying motive and meaning not intended, then it is being dishonest, dannyboy. Jack Dunphy and Patterico have made their positions quite clear, but there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Consider yourself and the other bootlicking sycophants from Balko’s place to be squarely in that group.

    In your post 53

    I don’t know how to spoof a timestamp, so that would be up to somebody else to disprove. Either way, I don’t care if he can prove it concretely or not, I’m not even anywhere near convinced that it is a falsified or fixed screenshot, only providing the understanding that a screenshot alone proves nothing.

    And where the hell did I suggest, imply, or explicitly say that Pat is a liar? As I’ve said, I don’t even care if he is.

    I don’t even find Patterico’s silence on the matter the least bit suspicious. In the grand scheme of things, it’s quite a meaningless point, but I thought it merited mentioning the possibility for those that didn’t know. Kind of an FYI.

    you ramble on some perceived silence, and basically brought up an unwarranted attack.

    G (58c282)

  301. Feets – That is very metrosexual of Mr. Scott Eric. Plus those people like to shout racist a lot if I remember correctly, but I don’t think they would like Rich Blutarsky.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  302. Egads. I read Balko’s diatribe against the “idiot” Patterico and the similarly accurate comments. Not exactly the proudest moment of the Libertarian movement.

    Radley Balko, you’re no Virginia Postrel.

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

  303. I wonder how much they pay Danny as national chairman of Mensa?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  304. Bradley – Heh. According to his acolytes he has more than 1,400 subscribers to his twitter feeds and he writes about his meals, what he is doing, etc., yet he is worried about Patterico seeing them and commenting on them as if they were a state secret.

    That’s a plausible explanation!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  305. Patterico’s posts:

    Here and here.

    My refutations:

    Here and here.

    Danny (a21b09)

  306. Danny – Serious question. Do normal people devote a day to trolling a site they don’t usually comment on because of spat between two blogs? Why are you here?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  307. Bradley, years ago I had lunch with Virginia Postrel. I have also been to talks by Mr. Balko. And indeed, Mr. Balko is no Virginia Postrel. She always understood that the first casualty of political extremism was a sense of humor.

    So far, so good with Ms. Postrel’s health.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  308. Danny said he’s got no stake in this, that is why he’s here.

    G (58c282)

  309. “Nobody has argued that my posts don’t make sense or were hypocritical, but plenty have simply stated it as fact.”

    Danny – Sure they did, but you keep claiming your comments don’t say what they do or don’t imply what they do. You were tagged from your first comment.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 7/31/2009 @ 8:56 pm

    Okay, lets start with the first post that everybody seems to have a problem with.

    A) Do you have proof that your original quote did have that in there? A screenshot proves nothing without a valid timestamp. I’m not accusing you of adding it in there after the fact just to nail Radley on this, but like I said, a screenshot alone proves nothing concretely.

    Note that the bold part, taken at face value, which is the only fair way to argue when you don’t know somebody, means that I am not accusing Patterico of adding it in there. Where is my hidden meaning?

    I don’t even find Patterico’s silence on the matter the least bit suspicious. In the grand scheme of things, it’s quite a meaningless point, but I thought it merited mentioning the possibility for those that didn’t know. Kind of an FYI.

    you ramble on some perceived silence, and basically brought up an unwarranted attack.

    Comment by G — 7/31/2009 @ 9:01 pm

    What about that, taken at face value, means that I am attacking him for being silent to that point. Read the sentence. Read it again. Read the paragraph again. Tell me how I am deceptively, or passive-agressively calling Patterico a sissy-boy for taking “so long” to respond. In fact, I’ve asserted several times that such a silly tactic is only useful in trying to draw out a response quicker than the other person intended. I wouldn’t (and HAVEN’T) accused Patterico of taking too long, but plenty have used such a tactic with at least Balko.

    Anyway, JD pretty much hit it on the head with this

    In response to this:

    When the speaker corrects you, further illustrates their message, and outlines their intent, and the reciever still persists on applying motive and meaning not intended, then it is being dishonest, dannyboy. Jack Dunphy and Patterico have made their positions quite clear, but there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Consider yourself and the other bootlicking sycophants from Balko’s place to be squarely in that group.

    I have already said that both Balko AND Dunphy’s original posts amount to strawmen after further deliberation. I simply think Balko’s a closer to useful in the Gates case than Dunphy’s. That’s an assertion, and I am not going to attempt to prove it at this time.

    Danny (a21b09)

  310. Danny – I disagree with your claims of refutation. Both rely on clairvoyance – one with resapect to your ability to read Balko’s mind and the other JD’s. I submit you have shown no ability to do either and the better evidence in the case of Balko is his track record of interactions with Patterico, which Patterico accurately summarizes in his comments and upon which he based his comment which you claimed to refute. With respect to JD, a sheer wild assed guess on your part.

    Blog 2
    Danny 0

    daleyrocks (718861)

  311. Danny – Serious question. Do normal people devote a day to trolling a site they don’t usually comment on because of spat between two blogs? Why are you here?

    Comment by daleyrocks — 7/31/2009 @ 9:18 pm

    I stated my true agenda way back here and reiterated it here, and this is my second time re-iterating it.

    To that end, I’m still here because nobody here has even acknowledged that they could be a little more generous when arguing, or that it should even be a priority. If you are really impartial, in my belief you show it be being civil and admitting points that the other side states that are true. I could go through and identify such posts in other threads, but here there has been quite a lack of analysis or generosity.

    Danny (a21b09)

  312. Hi daley: it’s just more “Argument Room” sophistry from Monty Python.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  313. Danny – I disagree with your claims of refutation. Both rely on clairvoyance – one with resapect to your ability to read Balko’s mind and the other JD’s. I submit you have shown no ability to do either and the better evidence in the case of Balko is his track record of interactions with Patterico, which Patterico accurately summarizes in his comments and upon which he based his comment which you claimed to refute. With respect to JD, a sheer wild assed guess on your part.

    Blog 2
    Danny 0

    Comment by daleyrocks — 7/31/2009 @ 9:25 pm

    Nice try, but I don’t see you discussing anything, only claiming victory. Show me where I am incorrect in my arguments. I can wait.

    Danny (a21b09)

  314. “Note that the bold part, taken at face value, which is the only fair way to argue when you don’t know somebody, means that I am not accusing Patterico of adding it in there.”

    Danny, Danny, Danny – Let’s keep everything honest here. Later on you complained about someone else using essentisally the same language IMPLYING something, even though they weren’t saying it outright. Now you’ve danced around the same point about a dozen times or more on this thread but that’s just for your own amusement, not ours. I don’t think anybody here has bought any of your dance moves, which is why you keep whining – it’s all about TEH MESSAGE! Yours is clear.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  315. “…but here there has been quite a lack of analysis or generosity….”

    Jaw dropping hypocrisy alert!

    Eric Blair (204104)

  316. If you go to Brother Bradley’s link, you will see that danny feels like an intellectual giant by virtue of how badly he has crushed all of your arguments. It is a sophist extrordinaire. Dishonest at a base level.

    Danny – you can take that conciliatory email I exchanged with you and shove it up your arse.

    JD (425aab)

  317. Danny that’s not accurate at all to say the collective here is douches. That just means you’re doing it wrong, when it get to the point where you’re saying stuff like all you guys is douches.

    Hey. Has any one heard if Mr. Balko’s headache ever got better? I’ve had two migraines. These were years ago now. I was walking to the little store cause of this was right after those Starbucks Frappuccino thingers had come out. It was deep summer in South Texas. So I was heading to get some tasty frappuccinos and bam out of nowhere I had to sit down on the side of the road. It was really painful to where I felt like I was gonna throw up but I went on to the store to get the frappucinos cause I’d already had one earlier that morning when I’d walked down to get my breakfast burrito and I knew they only had a few left.

    This was before the hedgehog died.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  318. Danny,

    Regarding your first linked response in comment #307: Radley Balko is the one who claimed Patterico neglected to include in his post a phrase that Balko claimed undercut Patterico’s argument.

    Your response is to say “I really believe he didn’t think much of it except for a quick, meaningless jab.” That’s a convenient attitude when something is shown to be in error, but it sounds like wishful thinking to me. Similarly, Balko has been cavalier and dismissive regarding his error:

    I read and re-read Patterico’s initial post several times when composing my response to it. He says I wrongly wrote that he left out a portion of his excerpt of Dunphy’s post. Apparently, I skipped over that portion several times. I’ll take his word for it. Consider this a correction. The rest of the post stands.

    I understand you want to take Balko’s side but don’t also act like all you want to do is ask open-minded questions. You have an agenda to support Balko. People do that on the internet but it’s disingenuous to act like you’re a neutral party.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  319. It is also not at all judging, DRJ. It is just asking the tough questions.

    Oh, and Joe is copying and pasting from here over at Balko’s. Lots of them. There is something wrong with him.

    JD (425aab)

  320. haha “intellectual giant”

    Seriously? hahahaha. Sorry Danny, that is just priceless.

    G (58c282)

  321. I saw that about Joe, is that a normal thing? I’ve never seen somebody directly carry their conversations on other blogs in a real-timeish way before. Very bizarre.

    G (58c282)

  322. This whole exchange has been a result of a willfully dishonest representation of what Jack Dunphy meant, by taking a phrase and divorcing it from its context. At that point, the author went further and explained his intent in no uncertain terms. You still choose to privilege the flawed re-interpretation that Balko and you cling to, choosing to argue against what you wish he meant, as opposed to what he has told you he meant.

    Now you could be being intentionally obtuse and aggressively dishonest. I am not saying you are, I am just saying you could be. I can state, for a fact, that your claims to just want to have a civil discussion, not judge, and to prize analysis and generosity in the exchanges is objectively in bad faith.

    JD (425aab)

  323. oh. I get it now. Joe is gone. I missed a lot what happened in this thread. I kind of bailed when the rehashing of the recent past started. I didn’t appreciate it but I have a knack for making those sorts of things worse when I try to help so… judicious silence.

    But he’s gone. He’s awkward at this, Joe is. Also he has weird feelings that are obviously deeply felt but what are incomprehensible. To me anyway. But I appreciate his standing up for Mr. G to the very small extent to which I think he might be sincere about that and if I’ve misjudged him on that then that would be wrong of me but that doesn’t mean it’s not extremely foolish to rehash things like that.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  324. This just in – Twitter is lame. You aren’t missing anything.

    carlitos (b0a11b)

  325. Carlitos – Nice pick-up with Jake P today.

    JD (425aab)

  326. Kenny Williams wanted to enter the post season “with hope.” If the Sox don’t make the playoffs, the finances kill the team. It was a smart move.

    carlitos (b0a11b)

  327. Danny – Another serious question. Why would you expect people here to take you seriously when it has been clear from your behavior that you are merely trolling?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  328. Danny, Danny, Danny – Let’s keep everything honest here. Later on you complained about someone else using essentisally the same language IMPLYING something, even though they weren’t saying it outright. Now you’ve danced around the same point about a dozen times or more on this thread but that’s just for your own amusement, not ours. I don’t think anybody here has bought any of your dance moves, which is why you keep whining – it’s all about TEH MESSAGE! Yours is clear.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 7/31/2009 @ 9:31 pm

    That’s because the posts I was referring to were sarcastic. There’s no other way to read them, or at least there’s been no other way offered. If you can’t read my original post at face value then I could see why you think we had the same tactic. The problem was that I said in no uncertain terms that (A)I was not accusing Patterico of falsifying the screenshot, and (B) that a screenshot alone proves nothing. I’m done asking questions because they don’t get answered. That means I will no longer ask for anybody to argue against those statements. That time has come and passed.

    “…but here there has been quite a lack of analysis or generosity….”

    Jaw dropping hypocrisy alert!

    Comment by Eric Blair — 7/31/2009 @ 9:34 pm

    Good one! Except my arguments haven’t lacked analysis or generosity until people made assumptions or silly accusations, which I then refuted. But please, point out my hypocrisy. If it was so easy, you’d think it would be done by now, but what the heck.

    Danny that’s not accurate at all to say the collective here is douches. That just means you’re doing it wrong, when it get to the point where you’re saying stuff like all you guys is douches.

    Show me where anybody here has given me the benefit of the doubt. Please. Or show me where anybody here has stood up for a single thing I said? After so many posts, I must have said a single thing was true… like the sky is blue. Strangely, I believe that everybody here knows the sky is blue, but nobody will acknowledge it as if they are allergic to admitting I’m right about anything, however trivial.

    That’s a convenient attitude when something is shown to be in error, but it sounds like wishful thinking to me.

    It’s also a convenient attitude to believe that somebody is in error just because of the mouth it came out of. But I’m not guilty of that here. If I am, please show me where. As I’ve said numerous times, it’s not an argument. You can’t refute something that isn’t an argument. If it was really so important, please tell me how much of his argument hinged on his postulation that Patterico was intentionally leaving a portion out?

    Also, I pointed out a long time ago that Patterico is in fact lying! Ha! He lied and said that Balko implied that he left out everything after “Ivy league pals”, whereas what Radley actually said was that he left out the excerpt that was bolded, which is actually the entire sentence after the first comma. Of course, this is a trivial mistake by Patterico, and I don’t think that he’s a liar because of it. It was a simple mistake.

    Now you could be being intentionally obtuse and aggressively dishonest. I am not saying you are, I am just saying you could be. I can state, for a fact, that your claims to just want to have a civil discussion, not judge, and to prize analysis and generosity in the exchanges is objectively in bad faith.

    Comment by JD — 7/31/2009 @ 10:01 pm

    So, just to give you the benefit of the doubt, since I’m such a generous person (that’s sarcasm, but you’ll read it as me telling you I’m better than you, and you’ll read that last part as if I actually meant that I’m better than you, and any further clarification will only prove your point in your mind because you know my hidden agenda), was this snark or in earnest? I don’t get your point if you aren’t being sarcastic.

    Raise your hand if you think you know my hidden agenda. I can’t wait to point out the truthers in this thread…

    Danny (a21b09)

  329. Danny – Another serious question. Why would you expect people here to take you seriously when it has been clear from your behavior that you are merely trolling?

    Comment by daleyrocks — 7/31/2009 @ 10:27 pm

    Either show me where I was trolling, or I will call you a conspiracy theorist. I have a lot of evidence for my assertion. Do you want to see it?

    Danny (a21b09)

  330. ” Danny – Serious question. Do normal people devote a day to trolling a site they don’t usually comment on because of spat between two blogs? Why are you here?

    Comment by daleyrocks — 7/31/2009 @ 9:18 pm

    I stated my true agenda way back here and reiterated it here, and this is my second time re-iterating it.”

    Danny – I’ll take your answer as a no.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  331. Either show me where I was trolling, or I will call you a conspiracy theorist. I have a lot of evidence for my assertion. Do you want to see it?
    Comment by Danny — 7/31/2009 @ 10:38 pm

    How about here?

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  332. imdw – You should take lessons from Danny. He does obtuseness, ignorance and mendoucheousness with courtesy.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  333. “I have a lot of evidence for my assertion. Do you want to see it?”

    Danny – I’m still waiting for your list of questions. Let’s finish up with that before heading down a different path.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  334. Stashiu3, I think that this character’s Magic Mirror shows him this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky-JTAPhmUo

    The goal is to make other people do work, while he just sits and snarks, and plays “Argument Room” games out of Monty Python.

    It’s boring. At least the video is funny.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  335. Stashiu3 that is priceless, isn’t it.

    G (58c282)

  336. Danny #329:

    It’s also a convenient attitude to believe that somebody is in error just because of the mouth it came out of.

    Self-admitted trolls get, and deserve to get, strict scrutiny. (H/T Stashiu3. above.)

    DRJ (8d138b)

  337. Just to get you ready for your next interaction with this character:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

    About 1:50 and after seems relevant.

    Still, Stashiu3, I am glad you demonstrated the “game” this character is “playing.”

    Eric Blair (204104)

  338. I really hate dishonest comments. This troll knows that he was accusing Patterico of modifying the post and hides behind a false objectivity and civility. When it is pointed out to him how dishonest this is by using his own rhetorical devices against him, he becomes offended and says it’s different. It’s not. I could claim that every single post Mr. Balko makes could have been modified a minimum of 12 times without any acknowledgment that it was changed, so would Mr. Balko like to present proof that this is not the case? Asinine and dishonest.

    Get out of here Danny. We are not going to fall for your nonsense and will continue to treat you as you deserve. Like a troll.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  339. Stashiu3 – I was waiting for the right place to drop that comment in. That was as good timing as any. What a DORK. Radley’s blog is on Eastern time so Danny’s been continuing his BS here for almost 11 hours after bragging about it over there.

    How could any one call him disingenuous or fail to give him the benefit of the doubt?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  340. Just think about the kind of fellow who would devote that kind of energy to this sort of thing. Sort of the the usual TLEs.

    And bragging about trolling elsewhere, while claiming not to troll here? Oh my.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  341. Hey, where’d Danny go? He was so chatty.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  342. Kinda wondering the same thing, lol. Where’s Danny?

    G (58c282)

  343. The rush of Jolt Cola and peanut M&Ms cannot last forever, daley and G.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  344. G – Self-immolation is fun to watch. Danny couldn’t even stop his act as people here were quoting other comments from the thread where he talked about what he was doing. Not strong on picking up hints our Danny boy. He’s definitely many sandwiches short of a picnic but that may qualify him for mental giant status among libertarians.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  345. 345- Says YOU! lol. Hell, i’ve been here all day. though i work from home and such…

    And yeah, kinda comical in that oh so sad way to see all the things that went over danny’s head.

    G (58c282)

  346. You know, daley, I like some of the books I have read about libertarianism. It is just that so many of the libertarians I have met (not you, Bradley Fikes!) seem to confuse libertarian ideals with being a libertine.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  347. Comment by Seattle Slew

    Well, there’s a first time for everything–I’ve never seen a dead horse beat itself before.

    M. Scott Eiland (5ccff0)

  348. Oh for goodness get a hold of yourself Patterico. Balko does not want you on his Twitter feed because he does not consider you to be a friend. Like most people who have both a Twitter account and a blog he see them as having different purposes with the Twitter account being more personal and the blog being more public matters. He thinks that you would only be going there to gather ammunition to use against him. Not to find out the truth but to gather ammunition to help you win arguments. Thus it is quite reasonable for him not to want you there. Your crowing about being able to find out things on his Twitter account anyway is creepy. It is verging on stalking. It is like a little kid smirking about getting away with something. Grow up!

    I don’t know why you are so obsessed with Balko. I can guess but can’t know for sure. I think part of it is your loving winning too much and hating to admit when you are wrong. But I think the main thing is that he is challenging the righteousness of what you see as your side. He is frequently challenging the competence and integrity of people in law enforcement and you identify with them too much.

    Sorry, but I think you have jumped the shark here. I wish I was wrong. I thought better of you. I disagreed with you on most but not all criminal justice issues that came up. Then it was a biased sample so I was probably more likely to comment when I disagreed with you than when I agreed. And while I never have commented here on any foreign relations issues I probably agree with you more often there than with Balko. For you own sake indulge in a little self criticism. Consider that you might not just be mistaken but actually in the wrong.

    Lloyd Flack (33ad31)

  349. Oh goodness Lloyd, what’s personal about having 1,400 people on a Twitter feed. Get a grip, dude.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  350. That’s rich! Balko misrepresents Patterico, obfuscates, and Patterico’s the one who’s “obsessed”. Whatever you guys are smoking, it must be good stuff!

    RB (0772e7)

  351. Sorry, but I think you have jumped the shark here.

    Ooooh, a witty pop culture rejoinder – but it’s already 10 years old now. Try to keep up.

    I wish I was wrong. I thought better of you.

    You are wrong, and we think essentially nothing of you, since we’ve never seen you here before. But thanks for coming on and expressing your fine sense of moral outrage. Now you’d better get back to your regular activity, I think someone Bogarted that spliff!

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  352. How about here?

    Comment by Stashiu3 — 7/31/2009 @ 10:41 pm

    Perhaps you should ask what I meant in that post, hmm? I was trolling people in Radley’s blog, not here. Where have I trolled anybody here? Oh, and can I see a show of hands of people who actually agreed with my ridiculous post that I trolled Radley’s blog with?

    “I have a lot of evidence for my assertion. Do you want to see it?”

    Danny – I’m still waiting for your list of questions. Let’s finish up with that before heading down a different path.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 7/31/2009 @ 10:49 pm

    And I’m still waiting for your e-mail address. I already submitted my comments to Patterico, as you requested. But he has no response, either, except for “What fluffy said.”

    Danny #329:

    It’s also a convenient attitude to believe that somebody is in error just because of the mouth it came out of.

    Self-admitted trolls get, and deserve to get, strict scrutiny. (H/T Stashiu3. above.)

    Comment by DRJ — 7/31/2009 @ 11:00 pm

    You are making my posts guilty by association with me. Trolling in one post on one blog does not equal a career of trolling. Consider your argument that I’m a troll refuted.

    Stashiu3 – I was waiting for the right place to drop that comment in. That was as good timing as any. What a DORK. Radley’s blog is on Eastern time so Danny’s been continuing his BS here for almost 11 hours after bragging about it over there.

    How could any one call him disingenuous or fail to give him the benefit of the doubt?

    Comment by daleyrocks — 7/31/2009 @ 11:11 pm

    Oh boy… I still see no argument against anything I’ve said. Only conclusions without basis. Go ahead, pull from Radley’s blog, too, if you like. But ask for clarification before I have to correct you again — it’s getting boring.

    Hey, where’d Danny go? He was so chatty.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 7/31/2009 @ 11:39 pm

    Kinda wondering the same thing, lol. Where’s Danny?

    Comment by G — 7/31/2009 @ 11:43 pm

    Again with the fallacy that arguing with you all is the most important thing on my list of things to do. I actually went to sleep. Would you like a proper justification next time prior to? Or do you want to keep spewing your baseless attacks?

    Not a single substantive post from the collective over here at Patterico. I will now make the judgment that you here are worse than FreeRepublic.com. I’m sure there would be somebody there that could agree with a single one of my points. Sadly, here, there’s not. Not even that the sky is blue…

    Danny (a21b09)

  353. 1. If the “libertarians” posting on this thread are examples of libertarian reasoning, I can see why libertarianism and Reason are such hard sells. Really, guys — you’re the birthers of philosophy. Give it a rest, and go get a real life.
    2. I love how people are speaking for what Balko thinks or believes. He’s incapable of speaking for himself? I can say “Balko thinks it’s OK to tell lies about Patterico” and be just as authoritative as any of you purporting to speak for Balko. Plus, wasn’t he on a TV show with Tom Hanks?

    steve miller (c5e78c)

  354. Oh my. Now Danny has judged us.

    I will try to live with that and somehow pull my miserable life together, even with the knowledge that some libertarian birther doesn’t approve of this website or its participants.

    How to handle the shame!

    steve miller (c5e78c)

  355. Danny – OMG, I feel so ashamed.

    We should have smacked your ass harder.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  356. Danny – I realize how stupid you must feel for not recognizing you were being trolled while you were trolling this blog. It’s a game people here play with morons such as yourself. It’s amusing to see how far the trolls will play out their role before making some claim of victimhood or abuse as you are doing now. Not very original Danny boy.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  357. You are making my posts guilty by association with me. Trolling in one post on one blog does not equal a career of trolling. Consider your argument that I’m a troll refuted.
    Comment by Danny — 8/1/2009 @ 7:50 am

    It wasn’t an argument. It was a statement. An accurate statement. Until you acknowledge that your original comment was a dishonest rhetorical device, you’ll be considered a troll. That means you don’t get the validation you clearly crave.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  358. Gee, Danny; so now you claim that after being outed as a self – proclaimed Troller of this site, you now say it’s unfair to judge you on it? We nailed your arse after your first post, and you’ve failed to show any evidence that we were unjustified, despite spending hours upon hours over the past 24 hours with your voluminous verbal diarreha. Pansted, beclowned and defenestrated, and all in less than a day. Excellent work.

    Lying liars who lie – Danny Squared.

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  359. Shorter Danny – fleeb, glargle, snorf. It’s all your fault!!!!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  360. Danny claims he wasn’t trolling here and that his comment referred to activities elsewhere. Doesn’t quite jibe with this, does it? Pretty dishonest Danny. Not to mention grammatically poor for such an intellectual giant.

    I’m sure your logic quite unwelcome all over the internet!

    Maybe you should go back to arguing about how drugs ought to be legal.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  361. Wow. Just wow.

    I trolled Radley’s blog with one post, but then had to issue the correction a few minutes later because nobody was understanding that it was a parody.

    I’m tired of arguing and presenting analysis. Statements aren’t in and of themselves factual. That’s why analysis is needed. I have seen no such analysis.

    I will acknowledge that my initial post on Radley’s blog was a Parody.

    I will acknowledge that my initial post here was to start discussion. The screenshot thing was just the first thing that popped into my head. It doesn’t mean I believed it, only that I understood it as possibility and entertained the thought momentarily before realizing that I didn’t care and there’s no way I could get anyone to prove it anyway.

    Those of you saying I’m a notorious, serial troll for trolling once somewhere else (and then letting everybody else know my true intent at parody) are conflating one post I made elsewhere with every post I’ve made here. I still see no proof that I’ve been at all dishonest or any other negative quality. I have responded to attacks at me within reason. I have stayed away from pre-emptive attacks and asked for clarification where it was necessary. If you disagree, show me where. I have yet to see any proof of improper action on my part, either here or on Radley’s blog that would merit the reaction I’ve received here.

    Those of you late to the party should start at the top (and go all the way to the bottom) as I’ve asked several times before pretending to know my intentions and what I’ve failed to mention or defend.

    Oh, and it’s another logical fallacy that “Radley can’t defend himself”. He certainly can. But I’m just providing my own personal reaction to Radley’s posts or my own thoughts on his reactions. If you can’t respond to my thoughts and want Radley to respond instead, ask him. His e-mail address is on his site. But again, it’s his choice whether or not to respond based on his priorities, and his inability to respond is neither the preponderance of guilt, nor the understanding of victory and it’s clear that he knows that.

    So if you all want to claim victory over Radley you should bombard him with countless questions, and then when he doesn’t respond you can claim victory just as you’ve done here.

    Danny (a21b09)

  362. No ****, Cynical, but at least there I get to feel like an intellectual giant.

    Instead of judging me, again, do you want to ask what I mean? It was one sentence, you seem to disagree only with the assertion that I am an “intellectual giant” as represented here.

    I have presented statements by others and myself along with analysis and have received nothing similar in turn. Mostly sarcasm.

    I appreciate your attempt at refutation, but you should refute what I said in that post first. With my basis above, how do I not have the right to at least conjecture that I am an intellectual giant on this thread?

    I’m sure your logic quite unwelcome all over the internet!

    lol… So I missed an “is”. Did you see how much typing I’ve done in a day?

    It appears that your argument is that I can’t be an intellectual giant if I miss an “is” in a sentence, and therefore all of my posting here is moot. If that’s not a fallacy, I don’t know what is.

    Danny (a21b09)

  363. Oh, and I meant the following statement:

    I’m sure your logic [is] quite unwelcome all over the internet!

    As a compliment to Cynical, who is a tried and true Anarchist that is very logical, very calm, and apparently a great person. I know many of you can’t imagine such a thing from an Anarchist, but you can’t imagine such a thing from a libertarian either, can you?

    Danny (a21b09)

  364. Danny should clearly state the points he believes he has made that we should be generously granting him, since they are presumably such wonderful points that any rational person should agree with. He did email me, but it was the same jumbled mess of links to this thread and copying and pasting of various comments, his and others, that made his “points”. Which points have you made, danny, that we should generously concede? Being the intellectual giant that you are, making a concise list of your irrefutable points should be a snap.

    JD (45c904)

  365. Who said you’re a “notorious, serial troll”? Just that you’re a troll here. I’ve already explained why your comment was dishonest. That explains the reaction to everything else you write. You said:

    A) Do you have proof that your original quote did have that in there? A screenshot proves nothing without a valid timestamp. I’m not accusing you of adding it in there after the fact just to nail Radley on this, but like I said, a screenshot alone proves nothing concretely.
    Comment by Danny — 7/31/2009 @ 8:52 am

    Claiming it is not an accusation does not make it any less so. By advancing the idea, you’re inherently stating that Patterico is capable of it and inviting further speculation. “Just asking questions” is a common rhetorical device used by dishonest trolls like yourself. If you can’t see that, no wonder you’re surprised that any reasonable statements you may have made are dismissed. A truther may state the sky is blue. That it’s true doesn’t mean I’m obligated to validate him for it.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  366. And he should explain why he thinks, given his whining about us being uncharitable and ungenerous, why we should accept Balko’s “re-intepretation” of Dunphy’s writing, and subsequent staements as to intent, as anything other than disingenuous. I have asked this of you several times, in various comments, and so far, you witty and insightful analysis has consisted of you claiming to side with Balko, and privileging your flawed re-interpretation of Dunphy’s words by stripping them from context, and privileging your re-interpretation of intent over the author’s specifically stated intent. Maybe that passes for honest and good-faithed debate where you come from. It is my opinion, and therefore it cannot be refuted, that you came here in bad-faith, and have acted in such a manner ever since. Your subsequent comments here and elsewhere only serve to bolster my opinion.

    JD (45c904)

  367. “I’m tired of arguing and presenting analysis.”

    Where?

    Shorter Danny – Seriously, I am not a troll. Why don’t you believe me?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  368. …but you can’t imagine such a thing from a libertarian either, can you?
    Comment by Danny — 8/1/2009 @ 8:50 am

    Since you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about here, go on back to Balko’s place where you can pat each other on the back for being so awesome. You’re like Vizzini in “The Princess Bride”.

    Again, I don’t really care how many good points you make and don’t see the need to validate them. You started off by making an accusation, refused to take ownership of it, and then objected when the same device was turned against you to demonstrate how dishonest it is. Until you repair that, you get nothing but contempt and scorn.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  369. “Statements aren’t in and of themselves factual. That’s why analysis is needed. I have seen no such analysis.”

    Neither have we Danny boy. We also haven’t seen your list of questions. When are they going to be forthcoming?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  370. “rolling in one post on one blog does not equal a career of trolling. Consider your argument that I’m a troll refuted.”

    Danny – Spending a day trolling a blog you do not normally comment on constitutes trolling. Consider your argument that you are not a troll refuted.

    See what I did there?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  371. Danny – Consider your argument that you are not disingenuous refuted.

    See what I did there?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  372. Danny’s standards for refuting arguments are pretty easy. I could do this all day long.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  373. Do you have proof that you are not a disingenuous douchenozzle? I am not saying you are a disingenuous douchenozzle, just pointing out the possibility, and in fact I do not think you are, but it is important to raise the possibility that you are.

    JD (072c39)

  374. What’s hilarious is that no one makes Radley act in this juvenile way, nor does anyone force his minions to behave in similarly juvenile ways.

    It just comes naturally to them.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  375. I also like how Danny said he went to sleep, where it was what, 3 minutes later…. Yeah, right…

    G (58c282)

  376. Radley B is a punk.

    thebronze (bfd7b6)

  377. Lloyd Flack says:

    “I thought better of you.”

    Ah, the old “I used to respect you but now I am so very disappointed to learn I was wrong” rhetorical trick, from Flack, who, consistent with his name, is running me down at Balko’s blog and telling the truth about what he thinks about me:

    “Most of the time he seems to go into arguments with the intention of winning rather than with the intention of finding out anything.”

    Is that the better you thought about me?

    He’s also throwing chum in the waters by idly musing about how this “winning at all costs” mindset might affect my performance of my job.

    Meanwhile, he doesn’t seem to care that a) Balko got a fact wrong; b) clearly wasn’t going to correct it unless I nagged him; and c) lied about why he didn’t correct it.

    Does he idly muse about how this lack of commitment to accuracy might affect Balko’s job as a journalist? No, he does not.

    Hey, Lloyd Flack? What fluffy said.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  378. Eric Blair,
    It is just that so many of the libertarians I have met (not you, Bradley Fikes!) seem to confuse libertarian ideals with being a libertine.

    No offense taken. This whole episode is a necessary reminder that no matter what one’s professed politics, it’s still possible to be dishonest and disingenuous.

    I particularly disliked Balko’s grudging non-apology apology:

    Apparently, I skipped over that portion several times. I’ll take his word for it. Consider this a correction. The rest of the post stands.

    There’s not a nanogram of conciliation or regret from Balko about being wrong. Balko merely will “take his word for it” and we can “Consider this a correction.”

    A little humility is in order after making such an obvious mistake. If I made an error like that, I’d apologize. Then I’d also re-examine the issue to see if I’d made any more errors.

    Libertarian is a wonderful political philosophy of personal freedom, empowerment and responsibility. Sadly, that doesn’t mean every Libertarian is a wonderful person.

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

  379. By the way, the commenters over there (as they do every time I get into one of these fights with Balko) are saying that I am SUCH a productive blogger that I MUST be doing this on County time — ergo they should file FOIA requests and such.

    So I went back and looked at how many posts I put up in July, and counted 62. I could be wrong, as I was distracted in the middle of the count, but that’s what I got.

    That’s two posts a day.

    Granted, 62 is about 61 more posts than some bloggers who seek donations for their site, but it’s still not an overwhelming output to do, on average, a post before you go to work, and a post when you get home. So to those commenters who say I’m doing this on County time: what fluffy said.

    Man, I never get tired of saying that.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  380. Patterico:
    Does he idly muse about how this lack of commitment to accuracy might affect Balko’s job as a journalist? No, he does not.

    Advocacy journalists are always in peril of falling into that trap. They may feel pressured to feed their base that red meat, without checking to see whether it’s rancid and maggoty.

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

  381. I posted on his blog:

    Actually, Patterico was responding to your analysis of his posts, and his coblogger’s (friend’s) posts. Since he figures that you were misleading and apparently sloppy about the posts, he’ll be pretty tough with you.

    Since you’re twittering about his posts, he kinda found it funny you took the time to block him. I do too. He’s not obsessed, although he cares when people are wrong about him on the internet.

    I’m being moderated now, can’t wait to see if it ever sees the light of day. But then I’d have to go back to the site. Not that curious.

    ukuleledave (4e6cbb)

  382. Bradley, I made this comment earlier in regard to the non-apology: Excessive pride or just too precious in his own eyes…rather unattractive qualities. Maybe Humility is hiding under his bed…

    I don’t understand why it is so damn difficult to make an apology, with the humility that evidences recognition of the mistake and appreciation for an opportunity to *be accurate*. If one is a professional journalist, this would seem to be an intrinsic part of the profession.

    But then this isn’t what this is about. Excessive proud and being too precious in one’s own eyes is the universal downfall of many. However, a non-apology in the first para makes the following 500 words irrelevant.

    Dana (57e332)

  383. “…Sadly, that doesn’t mean every Libertarian is a wonderful person….”

    Sadly, it seems that too many of them (at least in this commenter’s experience) are self-centered,
    egotistical, anti-social jerks (perhaps too much self-medication?)!

    AD - RtR/OS! (486a83)

  384. Amen, Dana!

    I think one problem with Balko is he defines his professional role by a political philosophy. And when you do that, all stories and facts must fit the template: The Party is always right. (Virginia Postrel and Matt Welch have avoided this peril, and that’s what makes them such good reporters and authors).

    Of course, even the most extreme advocacy reporters will say they place accuracy above ideology. By a marvelous coincidence, the facts always just happen to support their ideology. That’s when I start guffawing. There are always inconvenient truths that don’t fit neatly into one’s political belief system.

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

  385. “There are always inconvenient truths that don’t fit neatly into one’s political belief system.”

    Bradley – Those are the truths you leave out of your reporting, sort of like Radley does on an ongoing basis. Patterico pointed that out in the Jimmie Duncan case as only the latest example, but it’s his modus operandi, sins of omission to make his point. He’s like the New York Time that way.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  386. Bradley – I did not mean you, personally.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  387. No worries, daleyrocks. I recognized it as the Shakespearean your:

    “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

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

  388. Bradley, when those pesky inconvenient truths do arise, how a journo deals with them would seem to be the litmus test of being a truly good journalist as opposed to being just another mouthy ideologue.

    In this case, manning up to the inconvenient truth that Patterico pointed out to Mr. Balko, would have been a small yet huge step for him to inch toward that good journalism. A missed opportunity but seriously, a straight-up, non-embellished honest apology really speaks volumes about that person able to set his own vanity aside in order to right a wrong.

    Of course this assumes all journalists want to be good journalists. Or perhaps this is much more an issue of character, or lack thereof…

    Dana (57e332)

  389. Patterico,
    It wasn’t a rhetorical trick. I was hoping to get you to try to see how your actions look from someone else’s perspective. It appears that self righteousness is too comfortable for you.

    And yes I do think you love winning arguments far too much. Are you denying that? If you are then you are not being honest with yourself.

    Lloyd Flack (33ad31)

  390. Mmmmm…projection smells a little bit like bacon in the morning!

    Eric Blair (5308da)

  391. Because Lloyd know you better than you know yourself. He is a psychic.

    JD (4c20e2)

  392. Flack to Patterico – Are you denying the fact that you are not being honest with yourself?

    Huh?

    Your best work yet Lloyd!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  393. Lloyd Flack,

    Dana@ #390 nailed it. If Balko behaves like this on an easily detectable error, how can we trust him on other matters that aren’t so easily verified?

    Save for the already convinced, Balko’s antics only make him less trusted. And blocking Patterico was simply petty and betrays a lack of confidence on Balko’s part when skeptical eyes view his reportage. Isn’t skepticism supposed to be a journalistic virtue?

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

  394. Balko’s antics only make him less trusted.

    I would cut him some slack just cause of migraines can really make everything you do really difficult.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  395. NG was trying to make vegetable lasagna one day from a hungry girl recipe and she accidentally added meat. True story.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  396. oops. I forgot to mention that NG has migraines sometimes. This was one of those migraine times when she tried to make the lasagna. Her bf, P, had done up some ground beef cause of the niece and nephew people were coming for tacos and she got all mixed up.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  397. I have a new post up that explores Balko’s contention that, in a 36-hour time period, he didn’t have time to add a 14-word correction to his post. All he had time for was a 5-paragraph comment defending his honor, and three posts to his blog.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  398. Bradley Fikes,
    I doubt that there is anything on Balko’s Twitter about the the things that he writes about that isn’t in his blog or articles. I would expect it to be more personal and off the cuff things. Balko does not appear to see his Twitter account as part of his reportage. I’m not sure because I don’t have a Twitter account.

    If that is so why does Patterico want to look at it? Balko’s position is that Patterico’s intentions are hostile and that the only reason why Patterico wants to see it is to gather things to use against him. If that is the case and given the Twitter account’s pupose I think Balko was right to deny Patterico access. I think the triumphal tone of Patterico’s PPPS about being able to look at Balko’s Twitter says something unpleasant about Patterico. I’m not the only person who finds Patterico’s behaviour creepy. As I said I was surprised that he did this.

    I see what Patterico is doing as something that is ultimately harmful to himself. But it is difficult to get someone to reconsider their actions when their self image is involved. An attemt usually just gets their back up as just happened then. But I don’t know what else to do.

    Lloyd Flack (33ad31)

  399. Here’s some of Balko’s Twitter posts. These are the most recent ones that showed up in my Google Reader feed; I didn’t cut any out. It’s hardly all personal, or what he just ate:

    radleybalko: “keep your government hands off my Medicare…” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/opinion/31krugman.html

    radleybalko: @MZHemingway It’s “extremely important” that Reason adopt your views on culture, eh? I’ll be sure bring that up at next ed. meeting.

    radleybalko: @MZHemingway The whole discussion began with Carney’s attack on the article for tying Friar’s roasts to free speech, did it not?

    radleybalko: @MZHemingway, etc. Space for adults to be adults is very much an important part of a free society. And damned well worth defending.

    radleybalko: @TPCarney Envelope-pushing helps preserve less offensive free speech. Also, the roasts aren’t just vile, they’re also usually funny.

    radleybalko: My Mad Men avatar doesn’t really look like me. And it doesn’t really look Mad Men-ish. But it’s fun! http://tinyurl.com/mktjkn
    from Twitter / radleybalko

    radleybalko: My Reason piece today on the Gates arrest is bringing in some ugly email.

    radleybalko: Most convincing argument yet that Obama is not a U.S. citizen: http://bit.ly/NW2Bc

    radleybalko: @RushGal Gates is racist? His father was white. So is his wife.

    radleybalko: This week’s crime column: Gates arrest is about troubling scope of police arrest powers, not racial profiling. http://tinyurl.com/lsek5d

    radleybalko: Scale says I’ve now lost 50 pounds since October. Things that are 50 lbs: a grown basset hound, 6 gallons of water, an average 7-year-old.

    radleybalko: NRO’s resident cop says Gates lesson is: Hand over your rights when confronted by police, or you might get shot. http://tinyurl.com/naadve

    radleybalko: Re: My pup’s poop-eating habit, someone suggested that “pumpkin makes poop taste bad.” This is a fact I never imagined I’d need to know.

    radleybalko: Wow, are the Dems’ health plans scary. Basically keeping the worst parts of current system, ditching the best. http://tinyurl.com/nassft

    radleybalko: The world’s saddest zoos. http://www.slate.com/id/2222991/

    radleybalko: Your afternoon rage. http://bit.ly/8otvB

    radleybalko: OK cop who choked EMT who he says blocked him en route to emergency was actually picking wife up from auto shop. http://tinyurl.com/nqd5x2

    radleybalko: I’m quoted in two Christ. Science Monitor pieces on Gates arrest: http://tinyurl.com/ncr67q, http://tinyurl.com/momjgu

    Adding the Google Reader feed took about 10 seconds.

    And I don’t read his Twitter feed often at all; in fact, I don’t even read my favorite blogs often any more. I’m too busy at work.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  400. Note the one that says:

    radleybalko: NRO’s resident cop says Gates lesson is: Hand over your rights when confronted by police, or you might get shot. http://tinyurl.com/naadve

    Mmm . . . not quite. I can see why he wouldn’t want critics reading that.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  401. Envelope-pushing helps preserve less offensive free speech.

    That’s true until it’s not, it seems to me.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  402. Patterico, interesting that that tweet of Balko’s matches word for word the repetitive refrain of a recent troll…

    SPQR (26be8b)

  403. How so? Can you elaborate?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  404. that one Balko link is scary to me

    The other hardened criminal whose story members of Congress will hear today is retiree George Norris. A longtime resident of Spring, Texas, Norris made the mistake of not knowing and keeping track of all of the details of federal and international law on endangered species — mostly paperwork requirements — before he decided to turn his orchid hobby into a small business. What was Norris’s goal? To earn a little investment income while his wife neared retirement.

    The Lacey Act is an example of the dangerous overbreadth of federal criminal law. Incredibly, Congress has made it a federal crime to violate any fish or wildlife law or regulation of any nation on earth.

    Facing 10 years in federal prison, Norris pled guilty and served almost two.*

    Even before the Barack Obama our sad little government was oft given to pissing on the head of liberty. What a sucky little government, really. Depressing.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  405. Patterico,
    I think you just made Balko’s point about why he doesn’t want you on his Twitter. There wasn’t any politics that I could see that doesn’t appear in his blog or articles. He belives that your presence there is purely for dirt gathering. You seem intent on proving him correct.

    Lloyd Flack (33ad31)

  406. Lloyd,

    Are the links to his being quoted in newspaper articles on his blog? Is the link to him talking about the best evidence yet that Obama is not a citizen on his blog? I don’t know, but you’re clearly a flack for him, so maybe you do.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  407. And what appears on his feed that DOESN’T appear on his blog? His dogs eating poop was on his blog. Why do 1400 people follow his Twitter feed when everything is already on his blog, dumbass? Because they’re all obsessed with what he had for dinner??

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  408. I doubt that there is anything on Balko’s Twitter about the the things that he writes about that isn’t in his blog or articles.

    You doubt? That would indicate some actual knowledge that you’ve gleaned pertaining to the discussion, yes?

    Balko does not appear to see his Twitter account as part of his reportage. I’m not sure because I don’t have a Twitter account.

    So you make a claim, then immediately self – refute it by admitting that you haven’t even read his twitterings?

    What.an.asshat. Go service your patron, Flacco.

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  409. Umm, I hate to point this out, but Twitter is public — you’re posting info for anyone to see.

    So it’s a little like saying “Patterico is following some screecher on the street! The screecher is only speaking to his friends in public! Those who are not his friends must not listen!”

    steve miller (c5e78c)

  410. I don’t think Flack knew how to answer my questions in a way that made Balko look good.

    Patterico (f7319c)

  411. He probably needs to ask fluffy.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  412. […] of all these points, the only one that Balko addressed was the last — and then only after I made it crystal clear that I wasn’t going to allow him to leave the error uncorrected without comment. His entire […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Radley Balko’s Failure to Address the Substance of My Arguments (e4ab32)

  413. […] I am pleased to see that this blog now contains the top Google entry for the immortal phrase: what Fluffy said. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » What Fluffy Said (e4ab32)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 2.1314 secs.