Patterico's Pontifications

8/2/2009

Radley Balko’s Failure to Address the Substance of My Arguments

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:41 am

Some of Radley Balko’s fans are expressing regret that a discussion about the Henry Louis Gates affair devolved into a discussion about Balko’s stonewalling on a correction. What about the big picture? they ask.

Let me make this clear: I wrote a lengthy post (2120 words) addressing the substance of Balko’s argument point by point, and noting that:

  • Dunphy and I were not defending the Gates arrest — contrary to Balko’s suggestion.
  • Dunphy was not advocating unreasonable searches by cops, nor was he criticizing citizens who resist clearly unlawful searches or seizures — contrary to Balko’s suggestion.
  • Dunphy never said that “running your mouth” or “asserting your rights” alone might get you shot — contrary to the repeated suggestions of Balko, Doherty, and others.
  • The underlying principle of Dunphy’s analogy, that citizens don’t always know what cops reasonably suspect them of, did indeed have relevance to the Gates affair — contrary to Balko’s argument.
  • Balko repeatedly skipped over critical context (that the officer in the hypo was confronting a suspected armed robber) and clarifying language (“running your mouth” isn’t what puts you at risk, but rather “fail[ing] to do as the officer asks” in a tense felony stop situation), making Balko’s literalist interpretation crabbed, uncharitable, and unreasonable.
  • Balko had a flat-out undeniable error in his analysis: that I had omitted an allegedly critical phrase in Dunphy’s post. I hadn’t.

So yeah, I addressed Balko on the substance. And, 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 response to all the points I made on the substance:

The rest of the post stands.

Thanks for that thoughtful rejoinder!

Note: I grappled with his actual words, rather than strawmen. I showed several gaping holes in his argument. I didn’t insult him; I called him “a smart man who sometimes makes apparently telling points about police misconduct” but who was attacking strawmen instead of what I had actually argued.

The closest I came to a personal jab was in connection with his error, about which I said: “I’m sure he’ll be correcting that with his usual speed and lack of accompanying grumbling.” Yes, there was a little sarcasm there, but I ask you: was I wrong?

His response consisted of: a half-assed “correction” issued 36 hours after he learned of the error, which strongly suggested I was lying about the phrase having been there all along; an airy dismissal of my Jimmie Duncan blog post as “nonsense” despite the numerous critical omissions and distortions I had showed; a dishonest portrayal of his Twitter feed as mostly him talking about what he has for dinner; a suggestion that I am “obsessive and creepy” because I took 10 seconds to add his publicly available Twitter feed to Google Reader; a blatant lie about why it took him 36 hours to make a 14-word correction; and a declaration that he is going to ignore my future criticisms of his inaccuracies unless they are picked up by a blogger with more traffic.

Ah, the substance!

P.S. Balko’s characterization of his Twitter feed is basically bullshit, like most everything else he says. Here is a representative sample of messages 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

Clearly there’s plenty of stuff there that’s political, and I’m not sure it all appears on his blog. For example, I don’t think his blog has the links to his being quoted in newspaper articles, or the link where he touts the “[m]ost convincing argument yet that Obama is not a U.S. citizen.” (If I’m wrong, I’ll cheerfully and promptly admit it; I base this on a quick scan of recent posts.) Nor does his Twitter feed seem that much more personal than his blog; he talks about his dogs eating poop on Twitter, but he also posted about his dogs eating poop on his blog.

So Balko is engaging in his typical bullshit when he says:

When he tried to subscribe to it, I didn’t see a reason why a guy who clearly hates me would or should have any interest in what I’m eating for dinner.

Apparently 1400 people follow his Twitter feed. Why would they follow his Twitter feed when everything is already on his blog except what he had for dinner? Are 1400 people obsessed with what he had for dinner??

Of course I don’t care what he had for dinner. In fact, I don’t see why anyone would care what he had for dinner, and I don’t see why he posts what he had for dinner. It seems . . . a little narcissistic to post what you had for dinner on a feed that is followed by 1400 people. But hey, if that’s what he wants to post, so be it. Me, I’m more interested in when he posts misleading bullshit like this:

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

It’s not creepy and stalkerish to have a way of staying on top of distortions like that, and it’s really just slander on his part to imply otherwise. But I understand why he tries to personally discredit me. Because time and time and time and time and time again, I show his arguments to be based on dishonesty, factually challenged, laughably one-sided, packed with distortions and omissions, and generally disrespectful of accuracy.

He wants me to go away. Not gonna happen.

Upcoming: a full post on Balko’s final article on the Jimmie Duncan case, including the ways that the final article seriously misled readers about Duncan’s history of abusing the victim in that case, and details about the video that Balko didn’t tell you about.

307 Responses to “Radley Balko’s Failure to Address the Substance of My Arguments”

  1. You need to quit sugar coating and let this tool really have it.

    After all making things up is the hallmark of the internet

    EricPWJohnson (a7d970)

  2. Obsession.
    You’re my obsession.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  3. After you finally defenestrate Radley in your upcoming post, you need to ignore him – just as a lot of us already do!

    AD - RtR/OS! (afd830)

  4. Word, TAO. But not the way you mean it.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  5. P.S. Balko’s characterization of his Twitter feed is basically bullshit

    That seems like an odd statement to make. Here’s what Balko said:

    My Twitter feed is where, in addition to linking to my other work or the occasional news story, I write about my dogs, or complain about the WiFi at whatever airport I’m at, or write about a delicious dinner I just ate at some restaurant.

    So what part of that statement is “bullshit?” In the tweets you posted, Balko wrote about work, the occasional news story and one of his dogs. What’s creepy and obsessive is your need to circumvent Twitter’s mechanism to prevent a person from following a feed by accessing Balko’s account through an RSS feed, after he has already made it clear that he doesn’t want you following him.

    Next up, maybe you can do a 2000 word post on how Balko refuses to accept your friend request on Facebook and how your post on that friend refusal is not creepy and obsessive? You could probably set up a fake Facebook account and access Balko’s Facebook feed that way, but in no way should that be misconstrued as stalking.

    anon y moose (22501b)

  6. TAO – Pay attention this time and you might learn something.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  7. Defenders of the L.A. Times have always called my criticisms of that paper obsessive, too.

    When you’re devoted to the truth, and expend energy pursuing it, people will always call you obsessive. Comes with the territory.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  8. It always makes me shake my head to see one person call another obsessive…obsessively.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  9. it’s true that radley’s characterization of dunphy’s original bon mot is incomplete: it should have been more like “NRO’s resident cop says a lesson everyone could learn is: Hand over your rights when confronted by police, or you might get shot.”

    it’s far more accurate.

    g. gordon liddy, your country needs you now, more than ever! :)

    dhex (a80022)

  10. dhex – Or it could have been: “Do not automatically be a wise ass to the police and disobey their requests when they are stopping you by assuming you know the purpose of the stop and feel you are innocent” to fit more accurately with the analogy. That is apparently expecting too much of more recent graduates of the U.S. educational system.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  11. Not to belabor the point, daley, but I strongly suspect that most of these tough guys and tough gals are very meek indeed when encountering police officers.

    Because they are sure tough here. Generally speaking, tough people don’t feel the need to prove they are tough by words—look at the overstatements, hyperbole, and sneering comments.

    Overcompensation, I think.

    The most important issue here, I think, is a form of class warfare. Many of the Balkons seem to automatically suspect police officers or bad motive or illegal actions. Yet these same people object strenuously to being “profiled” themselves!

    I think it would be a great idea to see these folks go on ridealongs, to see what police have to deal with every day. It gives context to actions. Kind of like the careful consideration the Balkons say they would like to see for their own positions.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  12. which is a pretty obvious point but yet was bundled in with the gates story and phrased in such a way that all the thrashing that followed about how misunderstood he was seemed deeply disingenuous. hence the hypothesis that the real lesson to draw from the gates thing is that many authority figures chafe at examples of lese majeste, particularly when they come from ivy leaguers or others perceived to be (non-law enforcement) elites.

    generally speaking, when drawing analogies it is helpful to keep your oranges with your oranges and your apples with your apples, otherwise people might think you’re comparing apples and oranges.

    dhex (a80022)

  13. Not to belabor the point, daley, but I strongly suspect that most of these tough guys and tough gals are very meek indeed when encountering police officers.

    which was mr. dunphy’s advice, no? unless you’re expecting en masse suicide-by-cop as a form of protest, in which case holding your breath may be hazardous.

    The most important issue here, I think, is a form of class warfare.

    i would agree, just not in the way you intended. hence “and his ivy league pals” and the like.

    dhex (a80022)

  14. #11: Cura te ipsum.

    Also Luke 6: 43.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  15. generally speaking, when drawing analogies it is helpful to keep your oranges with your oranges and your apples with your apples, otherwise people might think you’re comparing apples and oranges.

    I’ve already made this point a million times, but what the heck, I’ll make it again:

    apple: Hupmobile driver is confronted by cop who suspects him of a potentially violent crime (armed robbery). Driver, who is innocent, refuses to follow cop’s orders, and gets upset when the cop engages in lawful activity.

    apple: Gates is confronted by cop who suspects him of a potentially violent crime (residential burglary). Gates, who is innocent, refuses to follow cop’s orders (“step outside”), and gets upset when the cop engages in lawful activity (coming in the house when Gates goes inside to get his ID).

    Apples to apples.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  16. You’re my obsession

    Yeah, projection is the core of the Balko Trolls – and if the host is so obsessive, why does this Troll keep coming back for more, pray tell? Just can’t quit us, can you? What’s that word mean again?

    which was mr. dunphy’s advice, no? unless you’re expecting en masse suicide-by-cop as a form of protest, in which case holding your breath may be hazardous.

    Strawmen, false analogies and straight – up lying; Trolly hits the Trifecta of douchebaggery. Congrats!

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  17. aw, it is just that your obsequiousness to the State and your Host here amuse me in a special way. I have never seen such repudiation of Edumund Burke from so-called “conservatives”.

    And note the religious faith that Mr. Frey invokes: “The more I am mocked, the more I must be right!” That is something that the delusional tell the rest of the world.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  18. Ah why are you wasting so much time on this Balko Troll? I guess it’s fun for you.

    Mike H. (c17e26)

  19. apple: Gates is confronted by cop who suspects him of a potentially violent crime (residential burglary). Gates, who is innocent, refuses to follow cop’s orders (”step outside”), and gets upset when the cop engages in lawful activity (coming in the house when Gates goes inside to get his ID).

    Riiight – so the “full of holes” thing, that was just fun with murder, then? Something tells me you would be pleased if someone fulfilled your grisly police fantasies.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  20. I have to say Patterico, that although I agree with Balko on some things, his ‘supporters’ that post here seem to be completely incapable of engaging you specifically regarding your arguments.

    If, in fact, you were an obsessive troll, it should be fairly easy to point out, starting with any weak points in your assertions.

    But that doesn’t seem to be happening.

    Like the Ron White joke about his debate career:

    “I said, ‘oh yeah? Well fuck you!’ The other guy was speechless. I thought I won!”

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  21. TAO:

    I think you’re doing a wonderful job relating grisly police fantasies. Had your lithium today?

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)

  22. “which is a pretty obvious point”

    dhex – I agree, but you and your Balkobot buddies seemed determined to distort, obfuscate, erect strawmen, denigrate others and avoid that obvious point after Radley fucked up that obvious reading because it was too embarrassing to acknowledge the fact. He has always had a big problem with corrections and criticisms and it continues to this day. Luckily he’s got a chorus of morons to support him in whatever he says who swarm most of his critics and he gets away with most of his bullshit.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  23. TAO: it’s increasingly clear that you have nothing to offer but insults. If that continues, you can take your commentary elsewhere. If you have actual arguments to make, make them.

    Banning insults is not squelching commentary, it’s just good sense. I will take on ANY argument that is, you know, actually an argument. But I’m bored with the insults.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  24. A little self revelatory there—”grisly police fantasies.” Yuck.

    And let’s add some more Balkon Hall of Fame Projection Words:

    obsessive
    delusional

    Keep it up!

    But then, you are just a troll, trying to act all tough. I think of you more like Emo Phillips, despite your earlier boasting of your tough guy bona fides.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  25. And I’ve explained the “full of holes” thing a million times. You just pretend not to notice what I’ve said, because you’re dishonest.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  26. You can tell by TAO’s difficulties with analogies that he probably struggled with his SAT’s.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  27. you have explained the full of holes thing? Link, please.

    Are you going to defend the use of that language? The blithe invocation of a police murder? Just curious what it is, really, that drives you to defend the casual use of a police shooting like it is some kind of joke.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  28. Mr. Blair – what boasting? Frankly, the closest I came to “boasting” was mocking peedofamerican’s police fantasies too, wherein he practically wished that Gates had gotten a shotgun barrel pointed at his face.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  29. you have explained the full of holes thing? Link, please.

    Not your dancing monkey. Find it yourself. The fact that you don’t realize I’ve addressed this shows you’re talking out your ass.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  30. Apples to apples.

    then why all the handwaving to reactions saying that dunphy was slyly saying “gates is lucky he didn’t get shot”? was it because it was a bit of pique he threw into the original essay? a non-sequitor? a simple reminder that the police have guns and you probably do not?

    Strawmen, false analogies and straight – up lying; Trolly hits the Trifecta of douchebaggery. Congrats!

    well, one general reaction here seems to be “well, you guys don’t assault cops, so you’re pussies” (which is odd, to say the least) so…what is the expectation, beyond “shut up and do what you’re told”?

    what was your reading of the original post, and the many points that have followed? i took this phrasing:

    “And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own.”

    to be pretty straightforward. it is certainly the operational truth of the matter, though when bundled into the gates-gate thing, takes on a sinister air.

    dhex (a80022)

  31. “you have explained the full of holes thing? Link, please.”

    Puuuhhlease don’t explain it again. If this moron didn’t get it the first dozen times , he’s not going to get it this time.

    TAO just go back and reread the threads. It’s there.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  32. I’ll confess that my reflexive libertarianism got the better of me when I first read Dunphy’s piece. First read.

    Then my upper thinking centers kicked in. I had never read anything by Dunphy or Patterico that justified my first reaction. I persisted, though, in thinking the piece had been inartfully worded, and that the Hupmobile example was farfetched.

    Then came Balko’s mischaracterization and Patterico’s responses. So I reread the original piece, and finally got it. There may be very very few ’32 Hupmobiles, but there are even fewer houses at 17 Whatever Street.

    To put it in dhex terms:
    ’32 Hupmobile–apple
    17 Whatever Street–apple

    Person in Hupmobile–orange
    Person in house at 17 Whatever Street–orange

    Fortunately for me I was too busy/lazy (no migraines’ fortunately) to shoot my mouth off before REASONing, so I have one apology fewer on my to-do list.

    I think Balko has done a lot of valuable work. His stories on the Rack and Roll scandal were a public service. I can handle bias, especially if acknowledged. But I don’t have time to research each story to find out what might be excluded/ignored/suppressed, so I confine myself more and more to writers I trust.

    fat tony (9f8068)

  33. then why all the handwaving to reactions saying that dunphy was slyly saying “gates is lucky he didn’t get shot”? was it because it was a bit of pique he threw into the original essay? a non-sequitor? a simple reminder that the police have guns and you probably do not?

    I have explained all this. Put “Balko” in the search engine and search recent posts.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  34. dhex – they certainly know what Dunphy was doing, and in being overly deferential and parsimonious, they are being hypertextualist without realizing the spirit of the argument.

    Mr. Frey, you can say “aw, but look, that’s not what my cop buddy said” all you like, but there exists such things as dog whistles and implicit premises and signaling.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  35. Person in Hupmobile–orange
    Person in house at 17 Whatever Street–orange

    Indeed, and I have made this point as well.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  36. oh, and Mr. Frey? The fact that you have let JD, Eric Blair and daleyrocks do nothing more than insult people on the other side of this and failed to warn them shows that, yes, your veiled threats of banning me are because you do not want to hear the other side. you have no problem allowing people on your side to persist being nasty twits.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  37. “gates is lucky he didn’t get shot”

    dhex – The only people interpreting it that way seem to be Balkobots. Curious thing, that.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  38. dhex – they certainly know what Dunphy was doing, and in being overly deferential and parsimonious, they are being hypertextualist without realizing the spirit of the argument.

    I don’t know what “hypertextualist” means in that sentence, but clearly the radical libertarians are the ones who don’t realize the spirit of Dunphy’s argument, and favor a hyperliteral reading over one that takes account of context.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  39. oh, and Mr. Frey? The fact that you have let JD, Eric Blair and daleyrocks do nothing more than insult people on the other side of this and failed to warn them shows that, yes, your veiled threats of banning me are because you do not want to hear the other side. you have no problem allowing people on your side to persist being nasty twits.

    They have made arguments and show themselves willing to listen. You glide right over arguments that directly address your arguments without even acknowledging them. You deserve to be insulted for that.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  40. Shorter TAO – It’s not fair. I repeated the same shit like three dozen times.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  41. Actually, Richard, no. You are failing to see that he wedged in a potentially-lethal felony stop with a routine follow-up to a 911 call. It is the invocation of “lifeboat ethics” that Dunphy meant to implicitly justify that Gates was lucky he did not get more roughed up. That is what was meant: Gates should consider himself lucky he isn’t “full of holes”. That is the context. You are saying “oh well, that outrageous example was meant to highlight a rather benign lesson”, which is entirely too charitable, to the point of incoherence.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  42. Who is “Richard”?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  43. TAO, I have refuted that argument dozens of times already. You are trying to waste my time and I won’t waste my time any more.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  44. ah, I see. It is OK, then, when the insults come from your side. You should have just said that upfront, Mr. Frey. I have explained myself relatively patiently these past three days, and your “followers” have been abusive and nasty.

    I know, they’re your “team”, so I expect another post distinguishing why their insults are OK, but fighting back is unacceptable.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  45. If you have refuted it thoroughly, it should be easy to find. I don’t see it anywhere, and yes, I did search your archives.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  46. “Dunphy meant to implicitly justify that Gates was lucky he did not get more roughed up.”

    Absolute complete total hogwash, unadulerated bullshit and not supported by any of the evidence in Dunphy’s post. The only way to make this claim is through the ability to read minds, which is one thing TAO has not yet claimed, but the day is young.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  47. I have explained myself relatively patiently these past three days, and your “followers” have been abusive and nasty.

    Who is “Richard”?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  48. Patterico – If you ban TAO he might turn into an Angry Pessimist, but his obsession probably wouldn’t go away.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  49. Mr. Frey – I called you by the wrong first name. I apologize.

    Regardless, you are approaching ten thousand words or so on this matter. It is clear that you actually enjoy this grudge match you have with Mr. Balko, and it is obvious that once he said he is done responding to you, that upset you. It is this sad break-up, like when Colmes left Hannity, and now you are yelling in an empty room.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  50. daley,

    I’m willing to put it to a vote. Maybe you guys enjoy having a walking, talking example of a moron Balkobot to abuse. Probably I’ll let him continue commenting, but he obviously is not worth talking to since he doesn’t listen to anything and only refutes arguments you haven’t made.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  51. daley – my optimism never flags, never fails. You should realize, though, that being an optimist and wearing rose-colored glasses are two different things.

    Of course, I am sure you have a few more insults that won’t get you threatened with a ban thrown my way…

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  52. TAO the Civil:

    Who is “Richard”?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  53. just as a hypothetical, if you did ban me, Mr. Frey, would you find it acceptable for me to work around the ban and continue posting here? Because that seems to be what you are doing re: Twitter.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  54. TAO the Civil:

    I asked, who is “Richard”?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  55. “If you have refuted it thoroughly, it should be easy to find. I don’t see it anywhere, and yes, I did search your archives.”

    “It is OK, then, when the insults come from your side. You should have just said that upfront, Mr. Frey.”

    “I have explained myself relatively patiently these past three days” (Repeating the same three points over and over and over is not explaining)

    “your veiled threats of banning me are because you do not want to hear the other side.” (Bwahahahaha!!!)

    Translation – THIS BLOG IS NOT FAIR!!! PEOPLE DON’T AGREE WITH MMMEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  56. daley – I don’t have any interest in fairness. I just wonder when you are going to stop being a child and defend your initial argument that the arrest was justified and legal. you backed off that to act like a child.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  57. daley:

    TAO the Civil won’t answer my question: who is “Richard”?

    Do YOU have any theories as to who TAO the Civil could be referring to when he addressed a question to “Richard”?

    He’s so civil and patient, and argues so fairly, yet I can’t seem to get a response to that question.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  58. daley – I don’t have any interest in fairness.

    Truer words were never spoken. No wonder you like Balko.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  59. “Of course, I am sure you have a few more insults that won’t get you threatened with a ban thrown my way…”

    Of course you do, because you have those mad clairvoyance skilz. I’ve gotten in trouble here for comments before.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  60. Classic Troll 101:

    “oh, and Mr. Frey? The fact that you have let JD, Eric Blair and daleyrocks do nothing more than insult people on the other side of this and failed to warn them shows that, yes, your veiled threats of banning me are because you do not want to hear the other side. you have no problem allowing people on your side to persist being nasty twits.”

    Funny stuff. The over-the-top business fits in very well with the history of other posts by this person. I also like the consistent demand from this character that other people do things.

    That’s the goal, of course: get everyone else scurrying around.

    As for boasting, TAO, everyone else read your posts and kind of winced. Remember?

    I think you should waste less time posting here and more time asserting your right to yell at and insult police officers as a crucial element of free speech. Fight the power!

    But then, we are just “badge licking authoritarians.”

    Sheesh. You are indeed as gentle as the morning dew in your interactions with others. And yet you complain about poor treatment.

    So here is a thought: prove how much better you are than “nasty twits” like myself and post without insult. Your “the other guy did it first” rationale does not convince anyone of your veracity or maturity.

    I know better than to suggest you post without a collection of straw men riding a hyperbole train.

    Again: prove how much wiser, calmer, and reasoned you are. You will find that you will soon get the elevated debate you claim you want to see. A lot of folks will take some convincing, after your trollorama, but they will treat you decently so long as you do the same.

    But you and I both know the real reason you are posting here so much, though. Hey, I would love to be wrong!

    Eric Blair (204104)

  61. “you backed off that to act like a child.”

    Bullshit. I pointed you to the arrest report and the code which you were so fond of talking about and you were never heard from again – mister the law is black and white, cut and dried, only one answer, so pound sand.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  62. I see that TAO the Civil has used the term “Richard” here in four separate comments, and seems to be addressing me in each one.

    Which is highly odd for TAO the Civil, since he appears to know my real name — constantly calling me “Mr. Frey” — and yet my real name is not Richard.

    Which leaves me confused as to how a man so clearly patient and civil as TAO the Civil could repeatedly make this mistake.

    Oh, can no-one explain to me this conundrum??

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  63. “..It is clear that you actually enjoy this grudge match you have with Mr. Balko..”

    Nope.

    “…It is clear that I actually enjoy this grudge match I have with Mr. Patterico…”

    Fixed that for you.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  64. “badge licking authoritarians.”

    Eric – I believe they started off with “boot” licking, the imagery is so much more appealing.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  65. Tao – Were you addressing comments to me.

    Richard (718861)

  66. Mr. Frey – I called you by the wrong first name. I apologize.

    daley, you should understand that failing to agree with you does not equal “trolling”.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  67. you will note, too, that peedofamerican said that we should actually kiss Officer Crowley’s shoes, so “boot licking” was not that far off. I did not hear anybody denounce that particular piece of “advice”.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  68. Patterico – see here.

    TAO apologized for calling you the wrong name.

    And TAO – I would much rather that Patterico be somewhat obsessive about detail. I’ve never been a fan of sloppy, as sloppy gets us the political representation that we have now.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  69. Mr. Frey – I called you by the wrong first name. I apologize.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    I love it!! It’s a Balko-style response!! I.e., a lie.

    OK, let’s follow this to its conclusion.

    1) Where did you get the idea that my first name was Richard, TAO the Civil? Since you weren’t trying to insult me, but rather were just confused about my real first name . . .

    2) Where did you learn that my name was Frey?

    I breathlessly await the answers.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  70. Huh? I thought your name was Richard Frey, not Patrick Frey. Once you asked me, I looked it up on Google and apologized. I do not see where I am lying about anything!

    Color me confused, sir.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  71. Apogee,

    OK, I missed that comment. But now, instead of admitting that he was employing a 5th-grade insult, he is implying that he honestly thought my first name was Richard.

    I find that very amusing and would like to explore it further.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  72. “daley, you should understand that failing to agree with you does not equal “trolling”.”

    TAO – I would argue that making the same points essentially unchanged a few dozen times even after they are refuted or not even acknowledging the counter arguments constitutes trolling. Your mileage may vary.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  73. Huh? I thought your name was Richard Frey, not Patrick Frey.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    And pray tell, where did you get that impression?

    I’m all ears.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  74. TAO – so peedoffamerican = Patterico? Does this mean that DCSCA = TAO?

    You better hope not, for your sake.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  75. how is getting your first name wrong an insult, Mr. Frey?

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  76. Oh, I don’t know, Patterico. He might be confusing you with Richard Frey, the famed contract bridge expert. Or Richard Frey, the songwriter.

    Perhaps he needs a new name himself.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6cxNR9ML8k

    I denounce myself in advance for picking on Francis. It was just a mistake.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  77. A search for “Patterico” together with “Richard Frey” yields no results.

    Very confused as to how our famously civil commenter came to this conclusion.

    And where did he learn that my name was “Frey”?

    So many questions.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  78. how is getting your first name wrong an insult, Mr. Frey?

    1) Where did you get the idea that my first name was Richard, TAO the Civil?

    2) Where did you learn that my name was Frey?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  79. 1) Where did you get the idea that my first name was Richard?

    2) Where did you learn that my name was Frey?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  80. When I was 18 and stupid, well, I was 18 and stupid. Shortly after I got my first car, I was pulled over for (allegedly) speeding on the freeway.

    The officer asked for my license, which I kept in my wallet. My wallet I kept under my car seat because it hindered my mobility at work. Eager to cooperate with the officer, I quickly bent forward and stick my hand infer the car seat to retrieve my license.

    How I heard the slap of palm to leather over the freeway noise I don’t know. But I instantly knew I had one good option. I froze, waited a 5 count (a looong 5 count), and slowly turned my head to the officer without ANY other muscle involvement.

    “Uh, my wallet’s down there.”

    AFTER he gave me permission, I very slowly grabbed my wallet and handed over my license. I got off with a warning and my life that day. It was clear to me that the warning (rather than a ticket) was due to the officer’s relief at not having killed me.

    This is a long way to say that even being cooperative can get you shot full of holes under the right, or wrong, circumstances. If my car matched a suspect vehicle, or I looked like a recent escapee, I might still be dead.

    Patterico and Dunphy didn’t say it (nor do I mean to imply they even believe it), but I, a committed Liberatarian, will: Gates IS lucky he wasn’t shot full of holes. A few seemingly minor mutations to that story and he could have been. That is not to say it would be right, just to say thank God for what might have been.

    BTW, had the oficer shot me, I’d be hard pressed to say he was in the wrong. I’m sure that would be much consolation to him.

    fat tony (9f8068)

  81. Just so you don’t miss the questions being asked:

    1) Where did you get the idea that my first name was Richard?

    2) Where did you learn that my name was Frey?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  82. “…I’m all ears.”
    Comment by Patterico — 8/2/2009 @ 1:59 pm

    You would be in trouble if Lyndon were still alive.

    AD - RtR/OS! (afd830)

  83. Time to do something more productive than talking with pigheaded Balkobots – like dust my lightbulbs!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  84. I learned your last name was Frey in reading some comments somewhere. Probably either at The Agitator or Hit & Run. As for the first name, I really thought that was your first name – I do not know where that came from.

    I really was not trying to somehow insult you by calling you Richard. I am not sure why you think I was trying to do so.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  85. TAO the Civil:

    1) Where did you get the idea that my first name was Richard?

    2) Where did you learn that my name was Frey?

    The next comment of yours that appears on my site will answer both questions.

    Which is another way of saying:

    Until you pen me a comment that answers both questions, your comments will not appear on my site.

    Kapeesh?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  86. Comment by daleyrocks — 8/2/2009 @ 2:03 pm

    Once dusted they will provide much more light than most of the comments in this thread.

    AD - RtR/OS! (afd830)

  87. TAO – so peedoffamerican = Patterico? Does this mean that DCSCA = TAO?

    No, of course not, but I note that the Patterico commentariat certainly did not feel enough disagreement with that particular sentiment to tell peedofamerican that he was wrong to say that.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  88. For the benefit of anyone too thick to understand what’s going on here:

    TAO was caught employing a 5th-grade level insult. Then he lied and tried to pretend that’s not what he meant.

    Worthy of Balko, who once proclaimed that he would most certainly lie to advance the libertarian cause. (Then, when he realized how that undercut his credibility, he backed off and said he would only be deliberately misleading.)

    OK, I have better things to do. I enjoyed exposing TAO as a liar. Toodles.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  89. TAO was caught employing a 5th-grade level insult. Then he lied and tried to pretend that’s not what he meant.

    What? How? How is getting your first name wrong an insult? It really was an honest mistake.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  90. It’s my first opportunity to check back since yesterday. I figure I’ll drop my take on this whole thing.

    At the time of the arrest of Mr. Gates, the cop knew that he lived at the house and was not, in fact, a criminal.

    The arrest of Mr. Gates does not make us, as a society, one iota safer. It seems that the arrest served to “send a message” rather than to actually protect the citizenry.

    If it reminds me of anything, it reminds me of the TSA. Sure, we’re all taking our shoes off. Sure, we’re all throwing our potential binary explosives into a 55-gallon drum with everybody else’s potential binary explosives. It’s not resulting in us being safer, however. It’s just security theater.

    It’s hard for me to not see the Gates arrest as law enforcement theater. We’re not safer, after all.

    If I saw the Gates arrest as a cop saying “you can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride”, how would I be wrong?

    As for Dunphy’s post, it struck me as creepy because it came from a police man. If my mom said “whenever you get pulled over, be nice and polite because if you get all uppity, you might get shot!”, well, that’s something that moms say. It has the virtue of being true.

    When police say it as the way the world is, however, it’s a little more creepy. Maybe it’s just as robustly true when a cop says it as when mom says it.

    One would hope that police wouldn’t come out and say that everyone out there should assume that the cop sees you as a potential perp, lest they be filled with holes. It smacks of yet another message being sent.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  91. Very clever fellow, is The Civil One.

    Wouldn’t it be great if his name really was Francis?

    I also like his change in tone when you called him on it.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  92. Called me on what, Eric? Please explain it to me. Please explain to me what you think I did.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  93. “…It really was an honest mistake…”

    Mmmmm. The aroma of irony is delicious.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  94. I don’t think TAO was really using “Richard” as an insult. I think I noticed that he said it the other day in a different thread as well.

    And TAO, the 5th grade insult is “Richard” (meaning Dick).

    G (58c282)

  95. Mr. Blair – I do not know how or why, but somehow you all think that I was insulting Mr. Frey when I mistakenly called him Richard…one time? I do not get it. Please explain it to me.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  96. Mr. Blair – I do not know how or why, but somehow you all think that I was insulting Mr. Frey when I mistakenly called him Richard…one time?

    You did it a bit more than one time FYI.

    G (58c282)

  97. G – I guess I meant one time on this thread. But I had been operating on the mistaken premise for days, you are correct.

    If it really is the idea that he thinks I was backhandedly saying Dick…well, I do not know what to say to that. It was a mistake, and this has become downright bizarre.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  98. TAO, its actually better to point to this, that you’ve been calling him Richard for a bit now.

    Example 1

    Example 2

    Now, if you go back re-reading those comments, in a way, it does almost read as if you were using it as an insult.

    I don’t think you are, btw, I just think you are clueless. Why use a first name, if you aren’t absolutely sure?
    Example 3

    G (58c282)

  99. “…this has become downright bizarre…”

    LOL. I swear, this character is completely unaware of how he sounds.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  100. Now, G, you are losing the Troll Game: The Civil One got you to go do extra work because he wanted you to do so. He is very aware of what he writes. It’s a game, again.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  101. #

    I don’t think TAO was really using “Richard” as an insult. I think I noticed that he said it the other day in a different thread as well.

    And TAO, the 5th grade insult is “Richard” (meaning Dick).

    Comment by G — 8/2/2009 @ 2:18 pm

    OK, FWIW, that “insult” sailed over my head too, and I also don’t think he was using it as an insult. (I saw TAO using it the other day too, and no one corrected him.)

    But because I think it was an innocent mistake, I would think it’d be a simple thing to answer those two questions Patterico posed, esp. # 2 (Have gotten first names wrong myself for reasons I couldn’t explain, but why hold back on how you know the last name…I guess is what I mean).

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  102. Mr. Blair – do you believe I am lying as well?

    TAO was caught employing a 5th-grade level insult. Then he lied and tried to pretend that’s not what he meant.

    This is truly bizarre.

    G – I do not know…I mean, if I think I have the right name and have no other reason to think otherwise, then I WAS sure. I was just surely wrong about the name.

    *shrug* – Mr. Frey and Mr. Blair, if you want to continue to think I am a big liar and was insulting Mr. Frey, that is your right to do so, but you are entirely, 100% mistaken.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  103. The Civil One got you to go do extra work because he wanted you to do so. He is very aware of what he writes. It’s a game, again.

    Dude, really, it was a mistake. No game, no master plan. I am somewhat flattered that you think that I have been sprinkling the wrong first name throughout the days this argument has gone on in some kind of plan to troll…but really? What would be my purpose in that?

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  104. TAO –

    TAO was caught employing a 5th-grade level insult. Then he lied and tried to pretend that’s not what he meant.

    That isn’t bizarre at all. He’s making a point…

    And yeah, don’t use first names like that. I doubt you are on a first name basis with him.

    And Mr. Blair, Yeah, I’m probably guilty as charged, aren’t I?

    G (58c282)

  105. but really? What would be my purpose in that?

    Lack of respect, lack of honesty.

    G (58c282)

  106. TAO – Dude, really, it was a mistake. No game, no master plan. I am somewhat flattered that you think that I have been sprinkling the wrong first name throughout the days this argument has gone on in some kind of plan to troll…but really? What would be my purpose in that?

    FWIW, I actually believe you. Now, I don’t know if it was Patterico’s ‘master plan’ or not, but I would think that you could at least extend the same courtesy to Dunphy, as your complaint with him regards the ‘implied’ meaning in his post.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  107. Oh, no, TAO: I don’t think you are a liar in the sense you are trying to threadjack with. I think you are a troll running a game. That’s it.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  108. That isn’t bizarre at all. He’s making a point…

    Let me guess: Mr. Frey is saying that I am reading too much into Dunphy and am projecting something he did not mean into his piece, so Mr. Frey, to teach me a lesson, I guess, now projected too much into my use of the name “Richard”.

    That’s cute, but it completely ignores the context into which Dunphy inserted himself. Context means quite a bit, and the overly-generous parsimony granted to Dunphy does not pass the laugh test. Now, I am not one to make an argumentum ad populum, but if you have to post 10,000 words in an attempt to “clarify” and distinguish the point in response to outrage across the blogosphere, well, maybe the initial read was the correct read.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  109. G, I think you are trying to act decently toward someone who is wasting your good intentions.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  110. Eric,

    Yeah, that is a strong possibility. WTH is wrong with me. lol

    G (58c282)

  111. TAO – no, that isn’t it at all.

    G (58c282)

  112. It’s hard for me to not see the Gates arrest as law enforcement theater. We’re not safer, after all.

    Of course it’s not making us safer, because with all the woe-is-me, victimhood spiel from people like Gates and Obama, and a large variety of “progressives” in general, it’s encouraging the notion that cops have to be in a kum-bah-wah frame of mind and mood when dealing with people throughout society, including those they encounter when investigating a potential (or out-and-out) crime.

    As for Radley Balko, I’m assuming he’s a libertarian with overly obsessive-compulsive emotions regarding law enforcement and society.

    His opinion on cops and police departments would have made more sense over 50 years ago — well before the era of Miranda, circa 1966 — or certainly if the United States today were similar to a country like Mexico, saddled with crooked, abusive, law-breaking cops galore.

    Mark (411533)

  113. I would think that you could at least extend the same courtesy to Dunphy, as your complaint with him regards the ‘implied’ meaning in his post.

    Well, like I said, having read Dunphy’s apologia on the regular, I think that his personal context, combined with the context of when and how this piece of was phrased, means that that courtesy evaporates.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  114. And TAO, thank you for showing that you really are clueless.

    G (58c282)

  115. G – well, then what it is, please? Now we have two people believing that was the point, and Mr. Frey will not deign to cease being enigmatic on this point, so I only have guesswork.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  116. TAO, you really should be able to figure it out on your own. I’ll wait for Patterico to respond and such. Not my place to speak for him.

    G (58c282)

  117. Jaybird – One would hope that police wouldn’t come out and say that everyone out there should assume that the cop sees you as a potential perp

    But that, IMO, was Dunphy’s point. (and my point in comment #1 of this whole dustup)

    Again,
    1) Cops aren’t constitutional law professors
    2) They’re armed, and nobody is saying they shouldn’t be.
    3) Society has generally approved their use of force to maintain order until the facts of the case can be adjudicated by the court system.
    4) Cops aren’t sent out to give birthday presents and/or hugs. They are, by their definition, always looking for ‘perps’.

    Funny, the one thing that nobody seems to want to discuss is the process that would occur if Dunphy did fill an unarmed citizen with ‘holes’, regardless of the explanation.

    How well do you think that would go down for Dunphy? Remember, he works here, in Los Angeles. I think lots of paperwork, very possible suspension, wrongful death suit from the family against the city (and possibly against Dunphy depending on the breaks), and maybe desk work and/or passover for a Detective promo. And that’s if the citizen isn’t ‘connected’ politically.

    Not really a ‘cop fantasy’ AFAIC.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  118. Irony alert:

    “…the overly-generous parsimony granted to Dunphy does not pass the laugh test. Now, I am not one to make an argumentum ad populum, but if you have to post 10,000 words in an attempt to “clarify” and distinguish the point in response to outrage across the blogosphere, well, maybe the initial read was the correct read….”

    And how many words have you written playing your troll games?

    Speaking of things that do not “pass the laugh test.”

    Eric Blair (204104)

  119. G – I have experienced this “argument from esotericism” before, and it usually means that the speaker is full of it, i.e. you do not know either. That is fine, but you should just admit it instead of bluffing.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  120. That’s my take on it too.

    Dunphy’s post didn’t strike me as one that would change any minds.

    Those inclined to take the side of the police in any given altercation read that and said “hey, he’s just telling it like it is”.

    Those inclined to see themselves as the potential perp read that and said “IPSE DIXIT!!!!”

    I don’t think that there are that many people, on either side, who read that and said “hrm, after careful consideration, I will change my POV.”

    I will say that the cop who sent that email didn’t help Dunphy’s cause. Those cops that tazed that deaf guy in the bathroom didn’t help Dunphy’s cause. Not because the hypothetical Dunphy was talking about wasn’t a fair one… it’s that the people who tazed that deaf guy in the bathroom could have given the exact same hypothetical in response to tazing a deaf guy on the toilet.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  121. Mr. Blair – again, disagreeing with you is not trolling. If Jack Dunphy wrote “Gates should consider himself lucky he didn’t wind up like Amadou Diallo”, that would have been much shorter and to the point. To try to cloak an allegedly “benign” lesson in a shooting death is reprehensible.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  122. Could someone please link for me where Radley Balko volunteered that he would lie to advance the cause of Libertarianism? I want to know because it’s part of my reevaluation of Balko.

    Brad (e542a0)

  123. True enough, TAO, but you have been, and are trolling. You fool no one with your histrionics.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  124. Brad: See this 8/31/06 Patterico post and the links therein.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  125. “Could someone please link for me where Radley Balko volunteered that he would lie to advance the cause of Libertarianism? I want to know because it’s part of my reevaluation of Balko.”

    This goes back to an argument a long time ago on the concept of “Jury Nullification”.

    Balko thinks that jury nullification is a good way for a society to deal with unjust laws… like, let’s say that there’s a guy who, in accordance with State Law, runs a Medicinal Marijuana dispensary. Let’s say he gets busted by the Feds. If the judge says “does anybody in here believe in jury nullification?” and you know that anyone who raises his or her hand will be immediately dismissed… would it be wrong to leave one’s hand down? Or let’s say the judge asks “Mr. Balko, do you believe in jury nullification?” and then you say “no”… And then, of course, do what one could in the jury deliberation room to find the guy who sells pot in accordance with state, but not federal, law to be “not guilty”?

    That’s the “lying to advance the cause of libertarianism”.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  126. That is an amaazing post, DRJ. It explains a great deal. Thank you for linking to it.

    And Patterico, thanks as always for shining a flashlight into some unpleasant places. And also for issuing corrections when you think you have been wrong or unfair. It’s easy to forget how rare that characteristic has become.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  127. TAO – I think that his personal context, combined with the context of when and how this piece of was phrased, means that that courtesy evaporates.

    Unfortunately, (and I have read your comments) I don’t see how you can differentiate between what you seem to identify as a ‘threat’ or ‘warning’ from authority and the possibility that Dunphy might actually be admitting fallibility.

    The first is an expression of control (do as I say or I’ll shoot you) and the second is an admission of a lack of control (I might mistakenly shoot you out of confusion). Each are equally dangerous, but they are not interchangeable.

    I base my opinion on the other posts that Dunphy has made, and I don’t see him as an authoritarian, as authoritarians rarely feel the need to communicate in a medium that allows rebuttal. I have also read other work of Balko, and appreciate the fact that someone is ‘watching the watchmen’. That does not imply infallibility, however, on Balko’s and/or Dunphy’s part.

    And that’s the way I like it. Lately I’ve had quite enough, thank you very much, of the idea that certain individuals are infallible.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  128. Eric Blair and Brad,

    Just in case someone misses it, here is the follow-up post to Patterico’s 8/31/06 post.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  129. The jury nullification debate is worth revisiting, periodically. Might be time again…

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  130. TAO-119

    Heh, cute, but no. Why do I say I know? Because I read this blog (and the comments).

    G (58c282)

  131. Jaybird,

    It’s already arisen in the comments to the Music download case.

    DRJ (8d138b)

  132. “overly-generous parsimony”

    Now we have to deal with OXYmorons!

    (TAO: J/K)

    fat tony (9f8068)

  133. Comment by Apogee — 8/2/2009 @ 2:54 pm

    You forgot defending yourself in a Federal Civil-Rights Deprivation proceeding (see: the U.S. v. Stacy Koon, et al).

    AD - RtR/OS! (afd830)

  134. I don’t see it anywhere, and yes, I did search your archives.

    Funniest part of that exchange are the time stamps for our newest Troll – he’s told the links are on the site, yet comes back with his big “search your archives” statement less than two minutes later. Pretty much says it all regarding his MO here.

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  135. Dmac – of course, you assume that I just stated that point without having previously searched. Perhaps you can find it? Mr. Frey keeps asserting that it is there, but I cannot find anything overwhelmingly convincing in that regard.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  136. Thank you for the links and summations.

    After I read the summation, but before I read the links, I thought the accusation that Balko advocated lying to advance Libertarianism might be unfair. But after I read the links, I could see the point.

    I do think there is a moral conflict when it comes to the issue of jury nullification and jury selection. I think jury nullification is actually legal in Arizona? So the conflict wouldn’t even arise there. But the fact that is everywhere else potential jurors are automatically kicked off of juries if they expose the principle of nullification. Court practice is what creates this moral dilemma.

    I myself have come down on the side of acting totally upfront on my beliefs, even though the occasions I’ve been in the courtroom the jury was not put under oath nor was jury nullification specifically asked about. In theory I could easily slip into the sitting jury. But I always volunteer that I believe in nullification even when it isn’t even an issue for the case, such as the most recent time.

    It’s a shame too because the case sounded really interesting, a gang related shooting and attempted murder at a shopping mall, where one bystander was hit by gunfire. I didn’t have a problem with any of the laws at issue and said as much when the defense attorney asked me If would have trouble with the gang related penalty enhancer law. Naturally I was kicked off the jury, as I have been many times before.

    It’s funny, I want to serve as a juror yet I am always kicked off because of nullification, while many other people lie and do whatever the can to escape jury duty. Those people should just remember to claim belief in nullification to have a never fail excuse.

    I suspect one reason the court only asks jurors about nullification in a round a bout way (the question about “following the judges instructions about the law”) is because the court fears even bringing the issue up before jurors, as jurors in general are wholly ignorant of the topic. Aside from the moral issue, that is another reason why Balko’s stance on not being upfront is counter productive. Until the public and the potential jury pool is made fully aware of their full powers, the court will continue to impose a defanged version of the jury. Finally a respect for due process, which is at the heart of rule-by-law as opposed to rule-by-men, requires honesty when questioned about jury nullification.

    Brad (e542a0)

  137. Power of a Jury…
    Does a jury have the right to ask that a Judge be replaced?

    AD - RtR/OS! (afd830)

  138. Fred Funk and Loren Roberts were sensational today. I wish you bootlicking authoritarians could have been there with me. I see the mendoucheity continues apace. It is like they take turns.

    JD (bd7f0f)

  139. we can put this in the spare a kind thought for the libertarians file and xref the zomg this douchebag might could have been pezzydent file I think

    happyfeet (42470c)

  140. Jaybird

    Do you comment over at http://www.theagitator.com? If so has any of your comments here at patterico.com come back to bite you? Such as, “I’m not saying that Radley didn’t fuck up, mind. I’m saying that he didn’t go out of his way to fuck up. He fucked up accidentally… and posted a correction. Yes, he was a horse’s ass. I don’t see it as malice, though. He’s an ideologue.” Have you ever received the “what fluffy said” kiss off?

    I thought Balko demonstrated amazing hubris in his response to me and alex, when we challenged him over his smear of JD. It seems Balko only tolerates brown nosers.

    Brad (e542a0)

  141. The trolls here remind me so much of a few of my classmates in college.

    After asking a variation of a question they had already asked at least once before, the prof would just get this little smile on his face and say “review your material and your notes, it’s there if you were paying attention”.

    I mean, he couldn’t exactly say “some of you aren’t ever going to get it”

    harkin (f92f52)

  142. Well, another problem with the whole “jury nullification” thing is that, for a while there, there was a class of folks who didn’t see the laws against murdering someone who was black/uppity as just laws… so, when they got arrested and put on trial for murder, the murderer was found innocent. Jury nullification.

    Of course, jury nullification in that case is completely wicked… while it seems obvious to me that jury nullification would have been entirely justified in the case of, say, Charles Lynch. He’s worth googling. He’s the guy who ran a medicinal marijuana dispensary in California under the auspices of California law who was arrested on federal charges and who was convicted by a jury of his peers who were, apparently, livid when they found out that the evidence that he was doing this with a license given him by the state of California was withheld from them (they thought it was relevant to the fact that he was breaking federal law, for some reason).

    When people talk about “jury nullification” in the good way, they tend to think about Charles Lynch and not, you know, lynching.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  143. It is not that they cannot get it, harkin, is that they refuse. The angry angry hatey anarchist is an object lesson in that with his “I have not seen that” charade above.

    JD (bd7f0f)

  144. It is not that they cannot get it, harkin, is that they refuse. The angry angry hatey anarchist is an object lesson in that with his “I have not seen that” charade above.

    JD (bd7f0f)

  145. Jaybird,

    I don’t think it’s fair to cast the “Southern” cases in with jury nullification. My understanding is that most of those were sham trials and that the prosecutions were conducted with a wink and a nod.

    fat tony (9f8068)

  146. If I had a chance, I’d ask the defenders of Gates in the confrontation, “would you say the same thing if it was a Black cop and a KKK leader?” I believe Balko would be one of the few that could honestly answer yes. He just hates all authority.

    The difference between Balko and other Gates supporters is that they make up stuff based on race while he does based on extreme libertarianism.

    Ken Hahn (a054a4)

  147. Jaybird

    Was OJ double murder case verdict an example of bad nullification?

    Brad (e542a0)

  148. The OJ trial is a weird one. If the jurors wanted to hide behind “the prosecution didn’t make its case”, I think they could… which is somewhat different than the cases in the South where the jurors just didn’t care. There’s a somewhat different dynamic with the OJ case… but I could see how someone could argue that the jurors, knowing that OJ was guilty, should have found him guilty despite the prosecution’s bungling and, as such, would be a case of nullification, yeah.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  149. harkin and JD – I have yet to see that you understand the explanations either. Perhaps a demonstration of your knowledge is in order? And do you best not to write a wall of text (a la Frey) making the same parsimonious arguments that Frey does. Contribute your own scholarship instead of saying “yo, word to what my boy just said”.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  150. I see TAO hasn’t contributed anything new to the subject of the thread, but has repeated a bunch of his stale arguments. No hope and no change there.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  151. TAO – perhaps it is you who should demonstrate how Patterico’s arguments are ‘parsimonious’, since it is you who makes that accusation.

    I’m all for ‘the bigger picture’, when the bigger picture is the subject of the discussion.

    Speaking of the OJ trial and its jury, there can be poor results when people attempt to ‘fight the bigger fight’ by ignoring inconvenient facts that run counter to an overarching goal. If you aren’t fighting for the truth, then what is it you’re fighting for?

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  152. Okay TAO, here is the explanation of just what Dunphy AND Patterico meant. This is a post that I made on a previous one of Patterico’s that you were a participant in. You can stop whining about how it has not been explained to you before.

    Verbatim as follows;

    In response to Joe’s statement:

    “The first is that if the officer did fear that Gates was arming himself I’d expect that to be in the officer’s statement. It wasn’t so I assume he had no such concern. Maybe this information will come out. If it does I’ll reconsider my opinion. But it hasn’t yet, and would have made the officer’s case much stronger so think it’s reasonable to assume it’s not there.”

    No it is not reasonable to ‘assume’ that. All you do is make an ass out of U.
    The officer also didn’t state in his report that Gates had a respiratory rate of 20 times a minute. Does this mean that the professor wasn’t breathing? Duhhhhhhh-NO!!!!!!! In police reports you don’t necessarily have to state the obvious, otherwise, reports would end up being book length! It is known by all reasonable parties, defense attorney, DA, other officers reading the report, that the reason you follow a possible suspect into the house is to insure that he doesn’t arm himself; be it with a knife, gun, grenade launcher, blunt object, or ANY OTHER DAMN THING HE IS INVENTIVE ENOUGH TO THINK OF!!!!!! Or escape out the back door. The officer must maintain control of the suspect at all times for his safety. See Terry v. Ohio. Quit being so fucking obtuse.

    You also state, “If they ask a woman to show their boobs? If they ask the driver to answer a question that might incriminate themselves? If the stop has involved 2 hours of me sitting there road side while the cop sits in his patrol car? If for some silly reason the driver decides that they’re going to sit mute and still? The officer might still shoot them? “— This is just a total asinine statement and does not deserve a reply, as I am so very really, really concerned that a police officer would ask to see a womans boobs in a felony stop situation.

    And let me assure you, if you fail to do as an officer asks when he has initiated a felony stop, it indicates that YOU are gonna be a big problem and it also indicates that YOU are a threat to the officer.

    For instance, the officer orders you out of the vehicle at gunpoint, lie face down on the pavement with your hands behind your head, and you refuse. You IMMEDIATELY become a threat to the officer by resisting his order. Officer then becomes more highly aware of potential danger that YOU represent. Then any move that YOU make that is not in compliance with his order can subject YOU to repercussions that YOU would not want to happen. Reach toward your waistband–YOU get shot. Reach toward your pocket—YOU get shot. Reach inside your coat–YOU get shot. Reach under your car seat—-YOU get shot, etc.,etc., etc.

    Whereas, if YOU had simply complied, Officer approaches, handcuffs you, searches you for weapons and ID. Upon discovering that you are not the perp that he is looking for, he removes the handcuffs, apologizes, and explains that you fit the description of a suspected armed robber, murderer, or whatever type of possibly dangerous perp you can inmagine. Incident ends peacefully with you going on your way and not in a body bag.

    If the officer asks you to do an illegal act, the time and place is not then to redress the issue, but in the proper places, i.e., complaint filed with IAD, FBI, or filing a civil suit. How many times have the police asked you to show your boobs, shoot somebody, dance a jig while naked or any other thing that your warped mind can imagine? None, I imagine. Such a police officer would immediately be suspended, sent for a psych evaluation, be subject to criminal and civil penalties, fired, and/or locked up in a mental institution because he has most likely gone totally fucking nuts.

    Comment by peedoffamerican — 7/30/2009 @ 5:40 am

    Now, you can cut out the bullshit, and quit arguing ad nauseum in bad faith!

    peedoffamerican (e16f90)

  153. Let me get this straight … TAO is requesting that we restate Patterico’s argument, an argument he claims to not be able to find, but despite his inability to find it, he knows it is parsimonious.

    I will do this is as succinct a manner as possible, because it matters not what we say, since we are bootlicking authoritarians. Your “interpretation” of Dunphy’s article is only possible if you divorce the words from their context, and applying meaning and intent that flies in the face of the readily apparent meaning, and more importantly, ignores the stated intent, and applies intent contrary to the stated intent.

    What fluffy said …

    JD (bd7f0f)

  154. TAO, keep on practicing being obtuse, you almost have it down perfectly.

    Oh, by the way, WHAT FLUFFY SAID!!!!!

    peedoffamerican (e16f90)

  155. Maybe Balko will correct his errors more promptly if he reads this.

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

  156. Ezekiel 12:2 “Son of man, you live in the midst of the rebellious house, who have eyes to see but do not see, ears to hear but do not hear; for they are a rebellious house.

    Fits these so called libertarians to a tee!!!

    peedoffamerican (e16f90)

  157. Contribute your own scholarship

    Funniest comment of the thread.

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  158. POA – Nicely done once again. Meanwhile, Joe has been over there at the Agitator seething and trying to reignite another months old flame war. Freaking whiny bitch.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  159. Maybe TAO and Jaybird ought to refrain from commenting until Radley tells them what to think and say next.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  160. Agitating at the Agitator? Hope the friggin dishonest site melts down in his flame war.

    peedoffamerican (e16f90)

  161. Patrick,
    It’s Sunday night.I’ve just finished a couple of Scotches after being called in to see patients so they don’t have to go to the ER.I’m tired.Even I can see TAO has no argument.Just ban him

    corwin (49c421)

  162. Joe – You are the single smallest most pathetic d*ckless chocolate starfish I have ever encountered. Ever. You make timmah seem like a good person. You make International Man of Parody seem sane. I would say what I really think, but I am not going into moderation over a twat like you.

    JD (bd7f0f)

  163. Daleyrocks, I went to the Agitator once, just once. After reading the shit that they spew, I took three showers. Still trying to figure out how to give my brain an enema to get the shit that I read out of it too.

    peedoffamerican (e16f90)

  164. POA – I find reading some of Radley’s pieces, not all, like reading Michael Moore screeds or watching clips from his movies. You know you’re being taken and not getting the whole picture, but you have to debunk it yourself. I agree that you do feel dirty after visiting over there and the comment threads are a real trip.

    Use of brain douches is recommended only sparingly, like after a trip to Sully’s place or Greenwald’s comment threads.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  165. you folks really do make me embarrassed to admit to some of my friends that I am conservative-minded. If this is what passes for intellectualism on the Right these days, I hope that the ghosts of WFB and Burke haunt you in your dreams.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  166. That’s it, TAO, keep digging the hole with substanceless comments like that.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  167. Right back at you, SPQR.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  168. The Angry Optimist,

    It seems like your anger is aimed at conservatives. In a way, I can understand being mad at conservatives who don’t share what (I perceive) are your libertarian views. It may feel like getting attacked by a family member. But if you are really conservative-minded, aren’t our views more alike than different?

    DRJ (8d138b)

  169. Angry angry angry anarchist – I answered your question in #153. Your response, or lack thereof, is exactly what I predicted.

    JD (bd7f0f)

  170. JD – the overall argument is parsimonious. On the other hand, I did not see anything addressing the reprehensibility of glibly and gleefully using a police shooting as a good example of an instruction aid.

    DRJ – apparently not. The Right that I knew never would have become so obsequious to the state merely because some dudes in turbans pulled off The Big One. Seriously, defending endless liberal foreign interventions overseas? Defending an arbitrary, capricious and unlawful arrest? That is not the conservatism I knew.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  171. TAO, let me guess this straight, you don’t think using a real-life scenario isn’t a good example of an instruction aid?

    G (58c282)

  172. This is the very definition of bad-faithed discussion, angry angry hatey person. You have declared the answer, the one you could not find, to be parsimonious out-of-hand, and privilege your b*stardized interpretation over the actual words, in their context, and the expressed written intent of the author.

    JD (bd7f0f)

  173. The Angry Optimist,

    Obama is engaging in a similar foreign intervention in Afghanistan, only this one is 8 years after 9/11. In addition, apparently both Obama and Gates have decided to drop their objections to Gates’ arrest. Why can’t libertarians find common ground on these issues if liberals and conservatives have?

    DRJ (8d138b)

  174. JD – yet again, I found the overall characterization of Dunphy’s post to be parsimonious. I “cannot find” an explanation for why a police shooting was such a funny thing to Dunphy.

    G – I do not think that it is a good idea to be positively gleeful at the prospect. If Dunphy wanted to state that it would be sufficiently regrettable, sure, but he breezily talked about a killing. Not acceptable.

    JD, learn to get my handle correctly. I do not mistype yours, and it is the equivalent of mocking a name. Grow up.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  175. “Defending an arbitrary, capricious and unlawful arrest? That is not the conservatism I knew.”

    TAO,

    Tsk, tsk. Defending child molesters victimizing toddlers? That is not the libertarianism I knew.

    Patterico (cbbd1d)

  176. JD,

    Grow up. And learn to call TAO by his proper name: the child molester’s advocate.

    That name is every bit as honest as his claim that Dunphy is defending unlawful arrests.

    Patterico (cbbd1d)

  177. So, are you saying the arrest was lawful, Mr. Frey? And forgive me, but one of those statements is an evaluation of the arrest; your statement is a blatant falsehood. If you do not like my evaluation, please spell out why the arrest was lawful and not an arbitrary exercise of power, but, again, comparisons here fail you. One is demonstrably false; the other requires analysis.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  178. Mr. Frey – I never said Dunphy. I was directing that to your ‘conservative’ commenters who did defend the arrest, not to Dunphy.

    The Angry Optimist (3cb899)

  179. Richard – You declared that it was parsimonious while at the same time claiming to have not seen a clear explanation. Since it is apparent that you care little about what Jack actually wrote, and his written expressed intent of what he meant by what he wrote, why bother asking in the first place? Really, why? You gave his piece the most uncharitable reading possible, and then when he explained his intent quite clearly, to anyone that actually read it, you essentially claim to know what he intended, even though the intent you claim flies in the face of the expressed intent.

    What fluffy said

    JD (bd7f0f)

  180. TAO,
    You folks really do make me embarrassed to admit to some of my friends that I am conservative libertarian-minded.

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

  181. “So, are you saying the arrest was lawful, Mr. Frey? And forgive me, but one of those statements is an evaluation of the arrest; your statement is a blatant falsehood.”

    Dickface (that *is* your first name, I think I read that somewhere)::

    I am saying Dunphy and I did not defend the arrest.

    What fluffy said.

    Patterico (0928af)

  182. The “conservative” in my last comment should have been struck out, but didn’t.

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

  183. TAO:

    A reader writes to say your real first name is not “Dickface.”

    I’m terribly sorry for the mistake.

    I sincerely thought your first name was Dickface. I thought I saw that somewhere. It appears (if my reader is correct) that I misremembered.

    I hope you will forgive me for what I assure you was a completely inadvertent error.

    Patterico (51d4eb)

  184. Assface:

    It would be nice if you would make one argument regarding why you think Dunphy said anything wrong. I have searched the archives and can’t find a thing.

    Patterico (d9ad0f)

  185. To paraphrase happyfeet, take this comment to be the worst possible thing I could say to avoid going into moderation. There is no reason to continue to even try, seeing as though we will just get the same bootlicking authoritarian response back. You are all just a bunch of pusillanimous parsimonious bootlicking authoritarian racists.

    JD (bd7f0f)

  186. Patterico – Dunphy said he would shoot them full of holes!!!!!!!

    JD (bd7f0f)

  187. Arg.

    TAO,

    The same reader writes to say that your first name is also not Assface.

    I could have sworn that he corrected your name from Dickface to Assface.

    I’m just at a loss for where I got that name.

    Again, my very most sincerest apologies.

    Now, could you please point me to a comment where you made an actual argument criticizing Dunphy? I still can’t find one for the life of me, and I have spent nearly 120 seconds searching my ass off for it.

    Patterico (d9ad0f)

  188. At the reason site, some libertarians commentators suggest that an individual has a “right” to be rude and argumentative to the police, and that unquestioning deference (WHICH is not what officer Dunphy is advocating) to an investigating officer is to encourage unchecked, intrusive statism.

    But (not being a cop myself) I’m wondering if such defiance is actually an arrestable offense. Someone mentioned here that in some states, disorderly conduct before an officer is indeed some sort of felony.

    I used to watch “Cop”, and I recall officers arresting belligerent suspects all the time. A female officer warned a jerk that calling her a “b*tch” could get him arrested.

    lee (86706b)

  189. I asked Danny what he thought about TAO’s silence in the face of my questions, and he said that TAO’s suspicious silence does not bother him in the slightest.

    Patterico (ce088b)

  190. A belligerent attitude could be considered to be obstructing a police-officer in his duties.
    Plus, if you give any answer or statement that is factually untrue… Oopps! Major Problem!

    AD - RtR/OS! (afd830)

  191. Brother Bradley – Hey, I’m libertarian minded. I’m not embarrassed to say that because libertarians value individuality.

    I’m not on TAO’s ‘team’. That’s the point.

    It means never having to utter a sentence such as “I chose Joe Biden because he is intelligent, thoughtful, and well spoken.”

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  192. Hmm…is overuse of the word “parsimonious” well…parsimonious?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

    Eric Blair (204104)

  193. No, but it could be “niggardly”.

    AD - RtR/OS! (afd830)

  194. Danny writes to say that TAO’s first name could be Dickface or Assface. He doesn’t believe it’s true, but it is the mark of the intellectual man to consider all possibilities, or something.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  195. Patterico, I thought the guy’s name was Francis. At least that is what I heard. Would you mind having him search the archives to check?

    Eric Blair (204104)

  196. I have to decided not to respond to idiots like TAO and Danyy anymore, and will follow my advice:

    Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!

    They both have unlimited bounds of experience as idiots of which I can not begin to match.

    Oh by the way TAO, what fluffy said.

    peedoffamerican (e16f90)

  197. POA, just remember that this guy’s goal is to irritate people, and play literally sophomoric word games. And then smirk that he didn’t really mean that. Puh-leeze. I teach freshmen every semester and I recognize the approach to life, regardless of this fellow’s chronological age.

    It’s a game. And in back of it is a lot of pent-up hostility and resentment.

    Just like that “Francis” fellow from “Stripes.”

    Eric Blair (204104)

  198. While it was running away, it stopped by Balko’s to call y’all a bunch of retarded racist hicks what lurvs to lick authoritarian boots, or something like that.

    JD (bd7f0f)

  199. My advice to moonbats by Qui-Gon Jinn: The ability to speak does not make you intelligent. Now get out of here.

    peedoffamerican (e16f90)

  200. Apogee,
    Brother Bradley – Hey, I’m libertarian minded. I’m not embarrassed to say that because libertarians value individuality.
    Good reminder. Thank you. We don’t fit in with all the individualist clones in Balkoland, but that’s a good thing.

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

  201. I think we lost TAO and Danny.

    Shame, that.

    Patterico (d910b5)

  202. Uh, nope. Sorry, Patterico. But that would not be a shame.

    SPQR (5811e9)

  203. Patterico – I think TAO is briefing a case on the unconstitutionality of the Iraq and Afghanistan AUMFs for the Supreme Court at the moment based on his comments in the detainee thread. He’s also hanging out at high clearing and annoying people there.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  204. You bootlickin racist authoritarians were not nice even and were not generous enough to their analysis.

    JD (b292bd)

  205. You parsimonious jackbooted thuggish racists. Rich Puchalsky, Karl Steel, Joshua, danny and angry angry hatey person not named Joe told me so.

    JD (b292bd)

  206. JD – You just know whiny bitch shit stirrer Joe is up to no good somewhere. I haven’t looked around.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  207. JD – Go here to 1:32 for a better description of the commenters at this horrid site.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  208. “Lighten up, Francis.”

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  209. Nice, SPQR. I think it captures the calm demeanor quite well.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  210. Dude, I’m always calm.

    SPQR (5811e9)

  211. I’ll bet you remind the Balkons of the club officers who wouldn’t let them into a fraternity, SPQR.

    That is why they start off calm and end up freaking out like Cleese.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  212. “Do you comment over at http://www.theagitator.com?”

    Missed this question. No, I tend to not comment over there. I think a search will show, oh, a dozen comments of mine over there over the last few years. I do comment at Hit&Run, though.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  213. Eric – SPQR’s going to start wondering what you’re talking about.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  214. Eric, LOL. Probably.

    SPQR (5811e9)

  215. Oh, I did email him a joke once. He used it (along with my real name) as a post. But I don’t really comment over there that much.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  216. Jaybird,

    You never answered my question:

    If Balko waited 36 hours because he initially thought he was right, and it took him 36 hours to come around, then why did he lie and claim that he just didn’t have time to make the correction?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  217. “Why did he lie”

    I’m sure that he was under the impression that he was lying. I have no doubt that he would have passed a lie detector test and, if asked right now whether he had time, he’d say “I didn’t” and believe that he did not.

    I mean, if you asked me if I had time to sit down at the computer before 3PM yesterday, I’d say “no, I didn’t” when I am pretty damn sure I could have carved some time out if I made an effort to do so.

    And yet, if you asked me if I had time to do much of anything before 3PM yesterday, I’d tell you “nope”. And I’d pass a lie detector test.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  218. To be fair to Jaybird, it is orders of magnitudes less mendoucheous than the angry hatey person and danny.

    JD (5b6053)

  219. The main place where I am disagreeing on the whole Balko thing is not whether you justifiably can say that he wronged you.

    Of course you can.

    It’s whether he can say that he didn’t intentionally slander you (or libel, whatever) and that he didn’t lie about the retraction. I honestly think that he did not intentionally slander you nor did I think he was lying about why it took him 36 hours to retract it.

    Was he a horse’s ass? Sure.

    But I don’t see him sitting down with *INTENT* to be malicious.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  220. That may be. But it seems to be you are making two contradictory arguments:

    1) He realized that it was an error the evening of July 29, but waited 36 hours to correct it because he thought he didn’t have time. He would pass a lie detector test, because he truly thinks that he didn’t have time during that 36 hours. (This is the argument you just made.)

    2) He was notified of the error the evening of July 29, but did not believe it was an error. 36 hours later, when I made a big deal of it, he looked at it again and realized that he must have erred. (This is your argument from the weekend.)

    These arguments are not consistent.

    Can you please explain how they are?

    Even more directly, please answer this direct question clearly: when do YOU believe he realized he made an error?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  221. “He realized that it was an error the evening of July 29″

    I don’t believe that I ever made this argument.

    I believe that I argued that, when told that you left that part in there, he checked his own memories (in which he looked for that section and his ideological blinders did not have him see it), saw that it wasn’t there, then dismissed it.

    By the next day, he saw that it was there, immediately dug in and said that it wasn’t there before but you probably added it later (it wasn’t in his memory banks, after all) and then finally reconciled himself to printing a correction after sleeping on it.

    “when do YOU believe he realized he made an error?”

    When do I believe he realized he made an error? Probably sometime before bed in the middle of those 36 hours. Before that point, he was sure that the error was yours (and, besides, it wasn’t the point of his post, you only addressed a minor portion, etc, etc, etc) and that sort of thing.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  222. So then why the explanation that he was just too busy, if that’s not the real explanation?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  223. And, you think it’s a COINCIDENCE that he made the correction right after I wrote a long post about it? You actually think he was going to do it anyway?

    You realize he has waited a year to make a correction, right? He would have waited as long as it took for someone to mention it again.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  224. Well, looking at the post, you pointed out to him that he needed to correct it first at 1 in the morning (according to the logs there)… and you point it out again at 10.

    He checks his memory banks, sees that that part wasn’t there, figures that the error is not his. He sleeps on it, figures out that, yeah, you probably wouldn’t have left that part out and that he missed it for whatever reason, and writes a retraction.

    “He didn’t have time” because it was at least 24 hours after he wrote the post that it started gnawing at him that, maybe, he didn’t see it rather than you not posting it.

    Again: The dude’s an ideologue.

    After sleeping on it, he posted a correction.

    Is this really less likely to you than for him to say “I will destroy Patterico by lying about him and then lying about why I lied about him! Muah-ha-ha-ha!”?

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  225. “And, you think it’s a COINCIDENCE that he made the correction right after I wrote a long post about it?”

    No. I’m sure that if you never mentioned it again that he would have moved on to discussion of, oh, the police officer who called Gates a “jungle bunny” or the police officers who tazed that deaf guy in the bathroom who, let’s face it, acted as any cop ought to have, or those cops who were colluding to frame the lady they rear-ended. He wouldn’t have mentioned it again because he would have started thinking about the other stuff he blogs about all the time.

    I mean, why haven’t you been posting about Charlie Lynch? See? It’s not a relevant topic anymore. Neither would it have been relevant to Balko if it was not forced to be relevant… which is what forced him to review his opinion and, eventually, post a retraction.

    It’s not a coincidence but neither is it indicative of intention of malice.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  226. I first pointed it out at 6:30 p.m. or so the day before. GUARANTEED he was glued to my site looking for the post he knew was coming. He is always (with the exception of Jimmie Duncan) very quick to respond to one of my criticisms.

    He would have waited a year if I had waited a year to mention it. He has done that before — and lied about it.

    Your denial is spurring me to consider a new post about when he did that. Xrlq blogged it before, but maybe it’s time for a reminder. If I’m going to put together the evidence of his past lie (because you won’t admit that he would have waited as long as it took for me to mention it) then I might as well blog it.

    The evidence is all linked here. Guess I’ll start that post.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  227. Gotta go for a bit. If you’re wondering whether I was scared off or anything, I wasn’t. I’ll be back later tonight.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  228. So he never would have corrected the error if I had never mentioned it again. Yet, he’s not lying when he says that the only reason he didn’t correct it is because he didn’t have time.

    Is he your son or something? I’ve seen fathers of murder defendants in less denial than this.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  229. Gotta go for a bit. If you’re wondering whether I was scared off or anything, I wasn’t. I’ll be back later tonight.

    I ought to have the post proving him a liar done by then.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  230. Meh, don’t care enough. Just read Xrlq’s post.

    He waits to see if you bring up the error again. It’s a pattern.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  231. Oh, it is quite fair to say there is a pattern there. Just like the pattern that the angry hatey person exhibits during his visits.

    Jaybird does not seem to care that his multiple explanations refute each other.

    JD (5b6053)

  232. Patterico

    That link really damns Balko. Since Balko seems to care about his popularity, perhaps when his errors begin to cut into his audience he will finally srart pulling back on his reckless snark. What I think is more likely though is that he won’t change and his influence will plateau and never excel because of his credibility problems.

    His symbol on his blog is of a ranting street punk propagandist, perhaps that’s all he ever aspired to.

    Brad (e542a0)

  233. Lizardian Credo of Sanity…

    I’m extracting this from the comments of a Dave Ross post and posting it here. Just because. Lizardian Credo of Sanity (a required taste) We hold these truths to be self evident… That Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not fake the……

    Big Lizards (5ca406)

  234. Jaybird – Does Balko ever track these sensational stories after posting a short blurb from the initial reporting to show which ones fall apart after more information is known. Like the one you mention about tasering the deaf guy in the bathroom like all good cops should do? How many of these stories that are initially reported as police brutality and abuse wind up that way in the end? It would be nice to know that for credibility purposes instead of trying to make the blog just look like the National Enquirer, just sayin’.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  235. I criticized Patterico, perhaps a year ago, for being hard on Balko. I only follow the blogs off and on depending on what I’m up to, and I guess I just didn’t see the reality of it.

    Balko is really a jerk. He’s also able to present compelling accounts of police abuse, but I don’t trust him anymore. Patterico and Balko should be on the same side, but only one of these parties is genuinely interested in furthering the discussion as an honest man.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  236. I criticized Patterico, perhaps a year ago, for being hard on Balko. I only follow the blogs off and on depending on what I’m up to, and I guess I just didn’t see the reality of it.

    Balko is really a jerk. He’s also able to present compelling accounts of police abuse, but I don’t trust him anymore. Patterico and Balko should be on the same side, but only one of these parties is genuinely interested in furthering the discussion as an honest man.

    I don’t know anyone sensible who tracks these discussions for any length of time and sides with him. He has a blog where you can go post “Fuck the police” and that little comment rating system will shoot up with thumbs up ratings (seriously, someone go do it right now), but how reflective is that of serious society?

    Meanwhile, sensible people like Juan are starting to figure him out.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  237. Jaybird – Does Balko ever track these sensational stories after posting a short blurb from the initial reporting to show which ones fall apart after more information is known. Like the one you mention about tasering the deaf guy in the bathroom like all good cops should do? How many of these stories that are initially reported as police brutality and abuse wind up that way in the end? It would be nice to know that for credibility purposes instead of trying to make the blog just look like the National Enquirer, just sayin’.

    I never posted about the one where he fell very hard for the guy with a history of credibility problems who set up a camera inside a house and claimed the cops had gotten a warrant by lying about using infrared technology. The very second I saw that, I knew the guy must have nudged the police along with a tip — and sure enough. But he falls for this shit every single time. Criticize the police and any semblance of skepticism goes out the door.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  238. The irritating thing is that there are plenty of serious police abuses to be covered. He does not need to invent any nor to give biases accounts of incidents.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  239. I think it’s becoming clear that Balko is a zealot, and that his zealotry interferes with his accuracy. But perhaps it takes a zealot to pursue some of the abuse stories that he does. Just sayin’.

    Brad (e542a0)

  240. I would trade Joe for Brad any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

    JD (5b6053)

  241. “If you’re wondering whether I was scared off or anything, I wasn’t. I’ll be back later tonight.”

    Jaybird – Very good to know. What’s your schedule look like for tomorrow?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  242. “But perhaps it takes a zealot to pursue some of the abuse stories that he does. Just sayin’.”

    Brad – I agree, but I don’t think being a zealot means you have to sacrifice accuracy. Unfortunately you see it in a lot of instances like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  243. “Yet, he’s not lying when he says that the only reason he didn’t correct it is because he didn’t have time.”

    You aren’t understanding my argument.

    My argument is that Balko was not intending to be malicious.

    Let me ask you a question, a direct question. I have answered your direct questions, please answer one for me. When Balko included the parenthetical comment “(a portion that Patterico neglected to include in his post)”, do you think that he wrote it when he *KNEW* that you had, in fact, included it in your post?

    That is my direct question.

    Here, again, is how I see what happened.

    Balko wrote that parenthetical portion of his post. He did some stuff, went off to bed. The next day, you brought it to his attention that you had, in fact, included that portion in your post. He, checking his memory, didn’t recall seeing it (indeed, had he recalled seeing it, he never would have added the throwaway parenthetical remark). His automatic assumption, then, was that you added it after the fact. The day passed, it sunk in that, no, he didn’t see it because of his failings, not because of your failings, and, after sleeping on it, printed a correction.

    Now you’re asking whether he would have printed a correction even if he never had it pointed out to him that you had, indeed, included that portion of the post? Of course he wouldn’t have!

    What he did do, as far as I can tell, was asterisk his parenthetical remark to show that he and you disagreed over whether that portion (that he didn’t remember being there) was there at the time of your original posting.

    And, of course, he eventually (after 36 hours) retracted his statement after thinking about it and it sinking in that, no, he made a mistake and was blind to the portion of the statement that you, indeed, included.

    This timeline does not, apparently, make sense to you… and so we come back to my direct question:

    When Balko included the parenthetical comment “(a portion that Patterico neglected to include in his post)”, do you think that he wrote it when he *KNEW* that you had, in fact, included it in your post?

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  244. “Jaybird – Very good to know. What’s your schedule look like for tomorrow?”

    You misunderstand my reason for the comment. Many times, when a commenter who takes a position contrary to the position of the host happens to do something like “run errands” or “go to bed”, a commenter who shares the position of the host says something to the effect of “ha ha lol, looks like he stopped commenting because he is filled with shame, shame at how wrong you have proven him to be! Man, I’d hate to be that guy.” or something similar.

    A tiny insight into my character follows: Those comments usually irritate the hell out of me. (They strike me as a variant of “it’s been 20 whole minutes and Patterico is suspiciously silent.”) I was hoping to forestall such a comment in an effort to keep my own blood pressure down.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  245. Balko wrote that parenthetical portion of his post. He did some stuff, went off to bed. The next day, he couldn’t remember where he had parked his car. He looked and looked, but it wasn’t in any of the usual places where he parked it. “This is very odd,” he thought to himself. “Wherever could my car be?”

    And that’s when it occurred to Balko that with all the lookings and the searchings and the not findings, it was well past his usual time for breakfast.

    “Oh bother,” sighed Balko, and scurried about to put things to right, because a Balko what is unbreakfasted was not the sort of Balko that Balko was at all prepared to be, car or no car.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  246. When Balko included the parenthetical comment “(a portion that Patterico neglected to include in his post)”, do you think that he wrote it when he *KNEW* that you had, in fact, included it in your post?

    Doubt it.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  247. Balko wrote that parenthetical portion of his post. He did some stuff, went off to bed. The next day, you brought it to his attention that you had, in fact, included that portion in your post. He, checking his memory, didn’t recall seeing it (indeed, had he recalled seeing it, he never would have added the throwaway parenthetical remark). His automatic assumption, then, was that you added it after the fact. The day passed, it sunk in that, no, he didn’t see it because of his failings, not because of your failings, and, after sleeping on it, printed a correction.

    Great. What you don’t seem to understand is that your story is different from his story.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  248. “I was hoping to forestall such a comment in an effort to keep my own blood pressure down.”

    Jaybird – If you have problems with your blood pressure you should seek medical help. That would be my unsolicited helpful advice to you.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  249. “Jaybird – Very good to know. What’s your schedule look like for tomorrow?”

    daley,

    I understood why Jaybird was saying that, and I appreciated it.

    I don’t appreciate his seeming inability to understand that his story is different from Balko’s.

    If that’s what had happened, maybe he would have said that’s what had happened?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  250. Jaybird,

    Did you see my Xrlq link? He took a year to fix an error because that’s how long it took me to bring it to his attention the second time.

    Here, he took 36 hours becuase that’s how long it to me to bring it to his attention the second time.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  251. So is the timeline I’ve concocted in my head so very unthinkable, then?

    Or is it another piece of evidence that I must be someone other than who I present to be (a sock puppet, perhaps) as only someone fundamentally dishonest could possibly come to this conclusion.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  252. “I understood why Jaybird was saying that, and I appreciated it.”

    Good to know. I was wondering if we would have the pleasure of his company tomorrow as well.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  253. Patterico – He took a year to fix an error

    That was some nasty headache.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  254. Patterico – Jaybird seems to have an inside line on Balko’s thinking, it’s almost like he lives or works with him the way he claims to know how he thinks, so obviously he’s a valuable commenter to keep around.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  255. Jaybird – Are you saying that you know better why Balko did something than Balko himself?

    JD (ff4baa)

  256. Oh hey did y’all know the url for fun.com was still available?

    If you say you did I’ll know you’re lying.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  257. I did see the xrlq link. I will have to read it again as I didn’t see anything so terribly damning that it took my breath away.

    I came up with my timeline based on my interpretation of the events as I saw them (I was watching this stuff, more or less, as it happened… though my schedule is about as busy as my commenting windows indicate).

    In addition, I don’t see how the timelines are necessarily mutually exclusive.

    Could you give a timeline (a paragraph, perhaps) of what you see happened and, of course, how it’s mutually exclusive with mine?

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  258. What a timewaster.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  259. Could you give a timeline (a paragraph, perhaps) of what you see happened and, of course, how it’s mutually exclusive with mine?

    Since I’ve given it maybe 15 times now, why don’t you guess what I would say?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  260. You go do this. You go do that. No matter what you come up with, Teh Narrative will not change.

    JD (ff4baa)

  261. Let me make one point, Jaybird: your version is not what Balko says happened.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  262. Let me also say this: your version is not what Balko says happened.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  263. One final point: your version is not what Balko says happened.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  264. See if you can guess what I’d like you to respond to.

    If you fail, I’m going to start treating you the way I’m treating TAO and Danny. Because I really don’t know if you’re playing with me.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  265. This is an example of what I call “argument from ignorance” wherein the troll pretends that its own ignorance of something is somehow earthshaking evidence that that something does not exist.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  266. My extensive search of your archives fails to produce that which you claim to have done. And even if you did, it was parsimonious. Also, it knows better what Balko thinks than Balko.

    JD (ff4baa)

  267. Jaybird – something that gets my blood pressure up is when commenters demand others do research and or presentations for them.

    Patterico spelled out what he believed, and asked you why your and Balko’s descriptions differed.

    Your response is some homework assignment. Better that you refute Patterico and show how your and Balko’s assertions correlate, otherwise you should concede Patterico’s point.

    This is my problem with zealotry. Balko sacrifices truth in pursuit of victory. If the prize is individual freedom as outlined in our constitution, then without truth that battle is already lost.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  268. What a timewaster.

    I’m starting to think that’s the point.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  269. Parsimonious is the best garnish.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  270. The pattern of the smarmy “I don’t see what you are saying” can you explain it to me, even though it has already been explained 20 times seems sort of familiar, just sayin’.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  271. Ah, rereading the xlrq site reminds me why I said “yeah, I’m not seeing the scandal”.

    In response to Radley saying “I attributed an opinion to the U.S. Supreme Court that actually came from a lower court. Fine. I posted a correction on this site, and plan to correct it in the next Fox column I write about nullification.”, it got the response “That’s a little like saying “I robbed a liquor store and sped away at 60 mph in a residential area. Someone later pointed out that the posted speed limit was 35. OK, I admit it, I was speeding. My bad. But the liquor and the money are still mine.”

    This first, erm, simile sort of told me that, yes, this post was written by an ideologue who disagreed with an ideologue and would be as informative as such posts usually are.

    For my part, I don’t equate misattribution of an opinion with robbing a liquor store.

    Which is part of my disagreement with you… Radley engaged in an error of fact. This is different from “lying”. Now, when I say “he didn’t lie” it should not be read as me saying “he told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. He made an error of fact. For it to have been a “lie”, it would have required intent/malice. I don’t see how either has been demonstrated and even you have admitted that you doubt that he intended to engage in an error of fact.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  272. Patterico – I’m starting to think that’s the point.

    That may have been the point, but the result is that Balko looks increasingly untrustworthy. Maybe Jaybird really doesn’t like Balko very much.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  273. I have done my best to show that I am acting in good faith. I have answered direct questions, clarified previous answers I’ve given, failed to engage in name-calling, and been up-front in the face of being treated somewhat rudely (it’s not my turf, though, it’s your turf… additionally, I point this out not to complain but to point out that I have, in fact, noticed how I’ve been treated).

    I will now try to put together a condensed version of what I think your timeline is and how your timeline is incompatible with the one I’ve given and ask for you to correct what I’ve got wrong. Would that be fair? In any case, I’ll spend the next few minutes on that.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  274. Jaybird – For my part, I don’t equate misattribution of an opinion with robbing a liquor store.

    No, but it robs people of somthing much more valuable.

    Time.

    I don’t see how either has been demonstrated and even you have admitted that you doubt that he intended to engage in an error of fact.

    Malice occurred when Balko avoided dealing with Patterico’s correction. There’s your dishonesty.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  275. Your version is not what Balko says happened.

    Your version is not what Balko says happened.

    Your version is not what Balko says happened.

    Let’s start with that.

    Your version is not what Balko says happened.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  276. “I will now try to put together a condensed version of what I think your timeline is and how your timeline is incompatible with the one I’ve given”

    Please don’t.

    Please put together a version of your timeline, and quote Balko’s explanation, and explain how in the world they’re the same thing.

    Your version is not what Balko says happened.

    Your version is not what Balko says happened.

    Your version is not what Balko says happened.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  277. Dodge, parry, deflect. Move right along to the next talking point, and simply ignore the abandoned point.

    JD (ff4baa)

  278. Malice occurred when Balko avoided dealing with Patterico’s correction. There’s your dishonesty.

    Apogee,

    How is it that you’re able to see that, but that Jaybird supposedly can’t even though I’ve said it to him perhaps two dozen times?

    I suspect we’ll get this:

    He wasn’t malicious when he made the mistake.

    [Repetition of Jaybird's theory of what happened.]

    I said, Balko was a horses’s ass and not gracious.

    But there was no malice, no intent, and no lying.

    With nothing to address the facts that

    1) His version is not what Balko says happened, and

    2) The malice is Balko’s failure to correct when he knew of the error and had time to correct it.

    If I get another repetition like I just described, I will decide that Jaybird is either arguing in bad faith, or too thick to communicate. Either way, I will start treating him like I’m now treating TAO and Danny, both of whom I believe did argue in bad faith.

    But we’ll see. I’m giving him one last chance.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  279. Patterico – How is it that you’re able to see that, but that Jaybird supposedly can’t even though I’ve said it to him perhaps two dozen times?

    I have special glasses.

    I also specifically used the word ‘dishonesty’, because I didn’t want to get a response about how not saying anything doesn’t equate with an action such as ‘lying’.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  280. But I really think he might be sitting there giggling with someone else, saying: “Can you believe how much time I made this blogger waste?”

    It’s the hazards of trying to debate with people who disagree with you. Sometimes you run into people who are just playing with you.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  281. Hopefully he’s not sitting there with Balko, because the correct retort to that giggling phrase would be “do you have any idea of how much of an asshole you just made me look like?”

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  282. Well, let me look at what Balko says happened.

    “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.”

    The time stamp for the post was “Friday, July 31st, 2009 at 12:40PM”.

    So Balko had a migraine since midnight. I’d say that that accounts for most of the morning the other portion of which was spent writing the post. So, prior to that, we just have to look at the 24 hours. I’ll assume that he spent *SOME* time sleeping each night following the time that he wrote the original post (10:48AM Wednesday). Six hours a night, fair? I mean, sure, he didn’t say that he slept but… I’m going to assume that he got six hours a night.

    July 30th, 2009 at 1:10 am is where you left your comment. Here is my assumption, let me know if it is unreasonable, my assumption is that this comment is the first time that Balko was informed of his error of fact. Until this point, he had no reason to believe that he got anything wrong.

    1:10AM. He sees your comment, notes it mentally, then goes to bed or whatever. He wakes up the next morning and checks (obsessively!) his comments and comments himself (9:19AM). He then checks your website and then confirms, again, that your post has that language in the post. It is at this point that Radley knew, *KNEW* that he was wrong and ought to have issued a correction. Instead he went out cavorting, eating, drinking, and having a headache *WHICH* might have been true and reason enough to not post a correction, but he also had time enough to frig around on the computer which demonstrates that he had enough time to print a correction and since he did not do so until 36 hours after initially being informed of the error, demonstrates that he was acting in bad faith. Indeed, since he said “36″ rather than “24″ he gives the game away that he knew about the error at 1AM rather than at 10AM because he would have said “over the last 24 hours” had he not set the clock inside his head with your 1AM comment.

    Did I get that wrong?

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  283. Thank you very much for that forthright answer to the question I repeatedly asked. Now you may ask me any question you like and I will give you a direct answer.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  284. If you are seriously under the impression that I am not arguing in good faith, I can just leave.

    Just ask, and I will go.

    I will say that being talked about in such a way in absence of demonstrated ill will is frustrating to me and I suspect we’ll all be happier me not discussing this further with you.

    You asking?

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  285. I said, you may ask me any question you like and I will give you a direct answer. I’m right here. You answered my question; it seems to me the least I can do for you is answer one of yours.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  286. I see that you would.

    Fair enough.

    Jaybird (f420c4)

  287. Once you type up that question, do this for me;

    1) Find the quote where Balko sets forth his explanation. Quote it.

    2) Find your best summary (short) of what you claim happened. Quote it in the same comment.

    I’ll be working up my answer as you do that.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  288. What’s your question?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  289. From the sidelines: Following this whole discussion, I conclude that Jaybird has discussed this in good faith. If he were here just for kicks, it’s a sure bet he’s pretty darn hard up for a good time. But his patience has been evident as well as his attempts to understand the original point of the post.

    It takes a lot of thought and consideration to frame’s one’s pov and even more to re-consider and put together a timeline and explanation in answer to specifics that one may have a blindspot with. This may also be easier for some who argue and debate for a living than others who don’t.

    It’s been very interesting watching this discussion. I wish there were more who wanted to work through an issue/discussion and come to some sort of honest conclusion instead of the usual trollish erosion we see. I continue to learn here.

    Dana (57e332)

  290. While we wait.
    P – What’s your question?

    If a hippo swallowed a cat, could the cat do enough internal damage to the hippo to eventually kill it?

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  291. Dana,

    Could you point me to where Jaybird, in good faith, answered my point that his version is not what Balko said happened?

    I could have sworn I asked him that.

    I’ll gie him credit for this: he recognized that I was about to start fucking with him. But now here you come proclaiming his good faith when I’d just decided otherwise. So now you’re making me reconsider.

    I have asked him the same question now dozens of times, comically putting it several times in one comment. Dana, please tell me where Mr. Good Faith responded to that question: namely, how does he reconcile his version with Balko’s very different version?

    Patterico (1d1217)

  292. “@f a hippo swallowed a cat, could the cat do enough internal damage to the hippo to eventually kill it?”

    Good question. Let me answer that directlyk

    Jaybird’s justification for Balko’s delay is different from Balko’s, isn’t it?

    Next question?

    Patterico (f07aef)

  293. Ok.

    Q: Were the nazis attempting to manufacture deuterium oxide or tritium at the Norsk Hydro plant during World War II?

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  294. I’m sure Jaybird will chime in any time now.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  295. What is Iludium Phosdate?

    Eric Blair (204104)

  296. Apogee,

    If I may answer your question with another:

    How does Jaybird reconcile his version with Balko’s very different version?

    Ooooh, I have another one:

    Did you notice that I asked that question before?

    Oh, and another:

    Did you see where he answered that?

    Finally:

    Is it YOUR impression that he is arguing in good faith?

    Patterico (35bda9)

  297. And how much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

    Eric Blair (204104)

  298. Seriously, Patterico, it seems like most of these inhabitants of Balkon IV were just posting to get people like you to run around checking out links and posting arguments with them.

    Reading Dr. Seuss while you wait is probably a good idea.

    Eric Blair (204104)

  299. OK, you want to know what Jaybird is about? Check this comment he left at Balko’s site in 2008:

    The point is *NOT* to be offended. We’re talking about people who are incapable of offense.

    The point is point out to women (also known as “swing voters”)who feel some sort of identification with Palin because she squoze out some retard crotchfruit that Obama doesn’t respect women/motherhood.

    And you just know that they eat that shit up like so much blueberry buckle.

    h/t to a reader.

    Jaybird?

    What Fluffy said.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  300. Dana,

    Care to re-evaluate the scum that I was stupidly trying to have a rational discussion with?

    I seriously wonder whether anyone who religiously follows Balko doesn’t have some kind of screw loose.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  301. Patterico – Jaybird says at 10:07pm:
    …he also had time enough to frig around on the computer which demonstrates that he had enough time to print a correction and since he did not do so until 36 hours after initially being informed of the error, demonstrates that he was acting in bad faith.

    And then ends with:

    Did I get that wrong?

    To answer your question Is it YOUR impression that he is arguing in good faith?

    I would honestly say that his methods seem strangely similar to Balko (not indicating sock-puppetry).

    He makes an assertion, is evasive when questioned about it, and finally concedes that the facts he used to form his initial assertion are incongruous with that same initial assertion.

    All without addressing his initial assertion.

    Statement: “He didn’t cheat on his wife.”

    P – “But there’s video of him naked in bed with another woman that’s not his wife. Why did you say that he didn’t cheat?”

    Statement2: “Judging from the video, it appears that he did, in fact, cheat.”

    P – “And?”

    Statement3: “;alkj;lkj;asdlkjfwpoj; oihjnad;vjknh;kljna;kljn;avjiha;ihv ;adhf ;ajken;klnj”

    Again, not saying sock-puppetry, but the similarities in argumentative style are striking.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  302. [...] UPDATE: Hat tip to Radley Balko/twit, via a hat tip from Balko’s best friend, Patterico: [...]

    Lizardian Credo of Sanity - UPDATED already! | America Watches Obama (4ab9a2)

  303. Referring to Trig Palin as retard crotchfruit does not sound like somebody worried about his blood pressure, just sayin’.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  304. Check this comment he left at Balko’s site in 2008:

    Wow.

    Jaybird? Go fuck yourself.

    You’re a whole new level of dumb.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  305. Comment by Patterico — 8/3/2009 @ 10:26 pm

    Wow. Okay then. I go back to my original thought: if he were here just for kicks, it’s a sure bet he’s pretty darn hard up for a good time. But his patience has been evident as well as his attempts to understand the original point of the post.

    I’m continually surprised anyone would waste so much time trolling for kicks…don’t they have a life elsewhere?

    And perhaps I’m not as cynical or shrewd as this place demands at times, or too naive, because I believe he showed patience and was not a typical garden variety trollish (no smartassery or anger…much more subtle) and as I mentioned, too, perhaps he had difficult in admitting the actual point due to just being blind to it (incredibly dense? I dunno).

    But I don’t think it’s the end of the world if I misjudged. And I’m sure it will happen again in this life.

    Dana (57e332)

  306. I think I got it:

    1) 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. No, that’s not a suggestion that Patterico is lying; it’s just an admission that I can read something several times and miss a critical passage every time. Sometimes I wonder what the hell is going on inside that head of mine, ha, ha! I guess I see what I want to see sometimes when those damn police become the topic!! Anyhoo, consider this a correction. The rest of the post stands.

    . . . .

    4) I haven’t responded to point (1) because in the last 36 hours, I’ve told two commenters to fuck off, written three posts, been working on a breaking story, had a lunch appointment, had a drink with a friend, cut my toenails, went for a facial, and for the last 12 hours have had a massive migraine. Just when in the h-e-double hockey sticks was I going to find the time to do a 14-word correction, with all THAT going on?? Sheesh.

    Also, I read Patterico’s post, and, checking my memory, didn’t recall seeing the passage he claims was there. I assumed that Patterico had added it after the fact, and then deliberately and dishonestly pretended that it was there when I first read the article. But then, the day passed, and it sunk in that, no, I really hadn’t seen it. After sleeping on it, I printed a correction, which had nothing to do with Patterico writing a post about my lack of a correction. I have no idea why I just went on about the last 36 hours; hell, I didn’t even realize I had gotten it wrong until a few hours ago, just before getting some shut-eye.

    I hope readers can see that this all makes sense and is internally consistent.

    Is that about what our friend “retarded crotchfruit” Jaybird is saying the explanation is?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  307. My first thought on reading #299 was “Wow”. My 2nd thought was what on earth is Blueberry Buckle?

    Turns out it is this:
    http://simplyrecipes.com/recipes/blueberry_buckle/

    Looks too sweet for my taste, but it is interesting. I cook quite a bit and had never heard of “buckle” cake.

    GB FL (9ee562)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.1729 secs.