Patterico's Pontifications

10/6/2009

Ayers Admits Writing “Dreams from My Father”??

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:28 pm

I’m not quite sure what to make of this.

Then, unprompted he said–I wrote Dreams From My Father. I said, oh, so you admit it. He said–Michelle asked me to. I looked at him. He seemed eager. He’s about my height, short. He went on to say–and if you can prove it, we can split the royalties. So I said, stop pulling my leg. Horrible thought. But he came again–I really wrote it, the wording was similar. I said I believe you probably heavily edited it. He said–I wrote it. I said–why would I believe you, you’re a liar.

He had no answer to that. Just looked at me. Then he turned and walked off, and said again his bit about my proving it and splitting the proceeds.

Sarcasm? An unprompted admission? Something else?

I don’t know anything about the blogger’s background and have no basis to judge.

Your thoughts?

UPDATE: Allahpundit says Ayers was clearly goofing on the blogger. That sounds right. (I wrote Ayers to ask but I don’t expect to hear back.) In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, I’d have to say it’s likely that anyone who unquestioningly bought this story probably fell into what Xrlq calls the “sarchasm.”

236 Responses to “Ayers Admits Writing “Dreams from My Father”??”

  1. Very interesting but then I imagined elite conservative Steve Hayward PhD issuing the following statement:

    My God you bookers are going to be the death of the GOP. Do you really think for one minute that if Obama didn’t write Dreams that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have discovered that?

    The evidence that Obama wrote Dreams is overwhelming. I’ve read the book. His name is on it for goodness sakes. I’ve talked to the publisher. They issued a cheque to Obama, not Bill Ayers or anyone else.

    Do you wingnuts understand how many people would have to be involved in a conspiracy of this magnitude? This kind of paranoia is destroying the Republican Party.

    Terry Gain (4045b4)

  2. Well a conspiracy of three (maybe 4) is all you would need to hide this — Barry, Bill, Michelle and optionally Bill’s wife, Whats-Her-Name.

    That being said, the comments from Mr. Bill read like sarcasm to me.

    Viktor Nehring (962372)

  3. Viktor

    Your comment proves that you’re not very good at recognizing sarcasm. How ironic.

    Terry Gain (4045b4)

  4. This does not seem like how I would expect something like this to be broken. It does not ring true to me.

    JD (787a1f)

  5. Distraction. It can’t be proven to the satisfaction of the far-left even if it’s true and they would love conservative bloggers spinning their wheels on this instead of the recent damage they’ve done with ACORN and such.

    Then they can point to the distraction as proof that conservative bloggers are not credible. “How can you believe them about ACORN when they’re willing to buy into stuff like this and can’t prove it?”

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  6. There’s no telling what kind of dirty socialist Chicago street trash horse-heady things he’s been waking up to. It’s not impossible he’s a for real threat to the little president man.

    But he’s not dumb enough to go about it like how he did.

    Which is not to say he didn’t write the little president man’s book.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  7. The little president man isn’t talented enough or patient enough to write a book. He wants it now now now. He’s such a practiced phony as president it’s logical that he’s a phony author. He’s never really worked that hard on a project what wasn’t running for office, and mostly he just had his opponents disqualified.

    Tell me again how did this happen that he became president? It seems silly.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  8. Stash – Agreed.

    Happy – Really agreed.

    JD (9d8cb8)

  9. I think I’d take anything Bill Ayers says with a large, economy-sized grain of salt. The man is, after all, a certified liar.

    I could see him trying to lay a false trail for people to run down, wasting their time. Frankly, I don’t care if Obama wrote Dreams or not. I’d bet Ayers did the heavy editing and probably brushed up the prose (enough that it matched his style more than Obama’s). But I think Obama still gets credit for the “book.”

    All we have to do is watch Obama’s performance as president to see how unqualified and unprepared he was to hold the office. The question of whether he wrote the book or not pales in comparison.

    Bill M (c5889b)

  10. Well after 9 months of Obama I’m not sure Ayers would be a worse president. At least we’d have a president that is honest about his anarchist beliefs.

    MU789 (3f9d29)

  11. Should be easy to reach Ayers by phone and ask him.

    gp (cb5e61)

  12. Ayers is a liar. He was a liar when he was running around with bombs and he’s a liar now.

    Glen Wishard (02562c)

  13. I concur. There’s no motivation for Ayers to slam his bosom buddy.

    That said, there are computer programs that can analyze word patterns and detect authorship. Have Ayers’ and Obama’s heartbreaking works of staggering genius been analyzed like that?

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

  14. Ayers is a liar. He is trying to get conservatives to start running down false claims instead of ruining Obama’s agenda. Sarcasm from Ayers all the way.

    Audacity (2fd5ad)

  15. Those who think Obama wrote Dreams should Google Jack Cashill.

    Terry Gain (4045b4)

  16. It seems to good to be true. Also I am the only conservative in Chicago.

    BT (78b929)

  17. I think it’s a well-accepted and understood practice for politicians to use ghostwriters for their books (heck, for that matter, pretty much anybody else who is not a writer by profession).

    Some identify their ghostwriters, some don’t. I can only hazard a guess that President Obama used a ghostwriter, but even if he didn’t, his editor would have had a great deal of influence on the outcome.

    Was Ayers the President’s ghostwriter? I don’t know. I would be surprised, though, if he didn’t have some input into the final result. However, unless Ayers or Obama flat out say that he was the ghostwriter, I’ll reserve judgment.

    Also, I have a difficult time believing that he would be going around telling anyone that he was involved.

    Ag80 (09b618)

  18. No, no, no. Ayers wrote Obama’s birth certificate. (Those who think Obama was born in Hawai‘i should Google Orly Taitz.)

    Andrew J. Lazarus (c1d0f0)

  19. AJL:

    Whoa, that was a good one. I just picked myself up off the floor from laughing. You should be a comedy writer what with your ability to come up with zingers such as that.

    Ag80 (09b618)

  20. So Obama had a ghost writer. All these politicians have someone else write their books. Usually they even get credit as co-author.

    Except Obama wanted credit for an accomplishment that isn’t his. He’s that insecure. Oh, and he lied about knowing Ayers… tossing him under the bus when Ayers wanted a little credit for a well written book. So Ayers is proven to be someone who isn’t acceptable even as friend to the man Ayers worked very hard to help.

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  21. AG80,

    Ayers is not a normal person. It’s been compellingly argued that Ayers’s writing is very, very much like Obama’s. It’s completely proven that Obama didn’t write Dreams… it’s just not Obama’s writing, but who wrote it?

    Well, Ayers dreams about killing people. He’s insane and an egomaniac. Of course it’s hard to understand why a normal ghostwriter wouldn’t keep their well paid mouth shut, but Ayers wants political impact of some kind. He wants to be known.

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  22. they would love conservative bloggers spinning their wheels on this instead of the recent damage they’ve done with ACORN

    Incorrect. We want you spinning your wheels on ACORN and pulling against America getting the Olympics while the real work gets done on health care reform. Your side has, thankfully, quieted down significantly on the issue of reform. The public has reached a verdict: The Dems have scary plans, true. But the GOP wants to do nothing, and nothing is not an option.

    I think the town halls were the best punch of the lead-armed, slow-footed slugger. The Dems weathered it. My belief is that, going forward, the Dems will carve you up in a scientific fight that will peter to a conclusion in November.

    Notice the subtle shift where fewer talking heads are even talking about reform not passing. The remaining fight is the public option. Today, I’m feeling good about it. Tomorrow, who knows? :) I’m not convinced a bill without it is worth it, except to get a foot in the door.

    You won’t here this on talk radio but, according to the AP:

    An Associated Press-GfK poll says 56 percent of those surveyed in the past week approve of Obama’s job performance, up from 50 percent in September. It’s the first time since he took office in January that his rating has gone up.

    People also feel better about his handling of the economy and his proposed health care overhaul.

    But not about the war.

    Oh, and to end the thread-jack, my view of this Ayers claim is basically what JD said in No. 4.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  23. And this “hear this on talk radio.”

    Myron (6a93dd)

  24. And “this” should be “that’s” Ugh. I better quit while I’m behind. :)

    Myron (6a93dd)

  25. Here, troll-ee, troll-ee, troll-ee…..

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  26. Yes, mainstream journalists, Chris Andersen has two Hyde Park sources for his published work tying Barack Obama’s 1995 memoir “Dreams From My Father” to Bill Ayers.

    http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2009/09/two-sources-for-andersens-ayers-obama.html

    Terry Gain (4045b4)

  27. I think most of us would agree that if and when Ayers tells the truth it is probably done with an intent to deceive anyway. Jesus was not interested in give and take with Lucifer; I don’t think it does much good to be in give and take with his self-appointed fan club, either.

    MD in Philly (d4f9fa)

  28. #24

    Ugh. I better quit while I’m behind.

    Consider that you’ve never been ahead.

    You ought to just quit.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  29. EW1(SG): You’re so clever.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  30. Myron said:

    The public has reached a verdict: The Dems have scary plans, true. But the GOP wants to do nothing, and nothing is not an option.

    That’s a pretty tired talking point that can be deconstructed in a myriad of ways. Here’s one:

    IMHO, the entire health-care debate is a Democratic construct, expertly disseminated and ineptly answered. It’s as if I’m reliving the ’90s.

    You can put the onus on the right as “do-nothing.” And, to extent that’s fair, but they didn’t start the debate, so why are they obligated to do “something.” Especially when the Democrats control the government, top to bottom?

    I think the right would like to do something about health care, but it’s not something you would like or agree with.

    But, your entire “talking point” hinges on the right acquiescing to what the left wants.

    And why in the heck am I answering this in a thread about Ayers ghostwriting Obama’s book? I happen to agree with you and JD.

    Sorry for the lapse.

    Ag80 (09b618)

  31. I’m not sure if Ayers intended this to be taken seriously or not but I believe he did help write or edit Dreams of My Father. If so, I doubt this is the first person he’s told. It might not even be the first person to publicize it. At this point Ayers could believe the cat is out of the bag.

    DRJ (b008f8)

  32. o why are they obligated to do “something.”

    Ag80: Because the system needs fixing. Millions are uninsured. Tens of thousands have been driven into bankruptcy due to medical bills or in part due to medical bills. Tens of thousands die each year for lack of insurance.

    Individuals and companies are seeing their plans become unaffordable.

    That’s why Republicans are obligated to do something. We need two, functioning adult parties with the crises this country faces.

    Let’s hope the GOP, since it has free time not being devoted to health care reform, will at least prove useful in helping us get through the Afghanistan conundrum. Here’s another problem where we could use “all hands on deck.”

    I think it’s clear where my allegiances lie, but I do not like the idea of a one-party state. And that’s what we are, de facto, at this moment in history.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  33. But yeah, Ag80, you’re right, this thread is about Ayers, and so I’m ending my thread-jack.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  34. More of Myron’s fabrications I see.

    Don’t worry, Myron, we won’t be a one-party state starting in 2010 when Democratic corruption together with Congress’ & Obama’s poor performance will result in the GOP taking back the House and Senate.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  35. Jack Cashill over at American Thinker suspected this last October and wrote an interesting piece speculating that Ayers wrote Dreams.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/evidence_mounts_ayers_cowrote.html

    In May, he wrote an analysis outlining very strong evidence that the artful style, some traits and even errors in Dreams mirror the writings of Bill Ayers.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/who_wrote_dreams_and_why_it_ma_1.html

    Apparently the new Anderson book about the Obamas confirmed it.

    It may sound implausible but after you read Cashill’s observations, you may change your mind.

    Arch (2ad073)

  36. Myron:

    OK, I agree with you, the system needs fixing. I can’t speak for the Republicans, but I do know they have ideas about health-care reform.

    You can go to the GOP’s Web site or scan the sites of Republican congresspersons. They, do indeed have ideas about health-care reform.

    But, first, they can’t really oppose the President’s health-care reform because, there is nothing to oppose. The President talks about health care a lot — I mean a lot.

    But, there is no “Obama health-care plan.” The work is being done in Congress.

    They also can oppose or support the bills in the Senate and House, which they are doing.

    And they are attempting to attach amendments to those bills, but they’re always voted down in Committee.

    But, it doesn’t make any difference. There will be Republican input into bills, but anything that eventually surfaces will be a Democratic bill. It can’t happen any other way. Please see my previous post.

    I really don’t understand what you’re so exercised about: What is the Republican obligation when Democrats control the entire government?

    They can protest and they can propose alternative legislation. But nothing will come of it.

    So, what do you want? The GOP to say: “You’re right.” The voters have already said that.

    You may not like the idea of a one-party state, but that, indeed is what we have.

    I think you’re chasing the wrong goose.

    Ag80 (09b618)

  37. SPQR: You’re quite the dreamer, huh? I expect some house pick-ups on the GOP side, true. Takeover of both chambers? Naw.

    But we’ll see.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  38. Myron:

    I was posting this as you wrote your last post. I agree. We can save this for another, more pertinent post.

    Thanks,

    Ag80 (09b618)

  39. Ag80: I guess what I’m exercised about is the notion that when a party is in the minority, it feels it can relinquish its responsibility to govern. The Democrats did that to some degree during Bush II: Vote against everything, no matter what.

    The founders didn’t give the minority party rights in the Senate just for grins and giggles. The minority party was meant to make an impact, just a smaller one than the majority. Congress is most decidedly not “winner take all,” or was not meant to be. But partisanship — on both sides — has made it that way.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  40. Ag80: No problem. I levied some charges in this setting and you had a right to respond in this setting. I’m sure we’ll take it up on another thread. :)

    Myron (6a93dd)

  41. The public has reached a verdict:

    Yes they have – they agree 100% that Trolls like Myron (“I only answer to MYRON!”)who regurgitate DNC talking points on right – leaning blogs are inane mouth – breathers.

    Myron, why don’t you go play in the traffic outside for awhile? Either that, or post some more awesome observations and mighty pronouncements from your recent readings from “Astroturfing for Dummies.”

    Dmac (5ddc52)

  42. Here is Ayers profile and phone number. Ask him:
    http://education.uic.edu/directory/faculty_info.cfm?netid=bayers

    gp (cb5e61)

  43. I’m sure we’ll take it up on another thread.

    “Although since I already thread – jacked this post to infinity, I work here is done.

    Dmac (5ddc52)

  44. Myron:

    Thanks. Your post at 39 makes me look forward to the challenge. I mean that in a good way.

    Ag80 (09b618)

  45. It may sound implausible but after you read Cashill’s observations, scholarly analysis you may change your mind.

    Unless you’re an idiot, in which case you’d stupidly compare Cashill to Taitz.

    Terry Gain (4045b4)

  46. gp,

    OK, I wrote Ayers and asked him.

    I’m not particularly expecting a reply, but you never know unless you try.

    Patterico (64318f)

  47. It would seem that it would greatly benefit the President if Ayers ended the speculation and came right out and unequivocally said, no, he didn’t write the book. And if he really didn’t, what’s there to lose by making the confirmation? Also removing the doubt from the President would also only be a good thing.

    Of course, if he really did write the book and denied it now, when the truth inevitably surfaced (and it surely would), the President’s credibility would be very, very diminished.

    So I just have to wonder, why has Ayers not come out and made a definitive denial already?

    Dana (863a65)

  48. Of course, if he really did write the book and denied it now, when the truth inevitably surfaced (and it surely would), the President’s credibility would be very, very diminished.

    It already has. Read Cashill’s analysis. And Andersen inadvertently confirmed it with his book on the Obamas’ marriage.

    And if Ayers denied it, you’d believe him? Good grief.

    Terry Gain (4045b4)

  49. “why has Ayers not come out and made a definitive denial already?”
    Comment by Dana

    Because who would believe him, anyway?

    MD in Philly (d4f9fa)

  50. This post is like a dog whistle to SEK. Prepare yourselves for lectures and condescension.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  51. If SEK comes then JD has to be nice.

    Patterico (64318f)

  52. Um…Patterico….why does JD have to be nice to people who sneer at him and his ideas, hiding behind a veneer of self-impressed faux-intellectualism?

    I mean, it is your blog and all. But….

    There is more than one way to be a boor or a bully.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  53. Comment by Terry Gain — 10/6/2009 @ 9:00 pm

    Sarcasm aside, no, if Ayers did say he didn’t write it, I would not necessarily believe him. But that’s my point: if he did deny this publicly, he would in essence have set the President up for a fall because inevitably the truth will out. (assuming that he is the author of the book and not the President). I don’t think he wants to risk that.

    I did read Cashill’s analysis and ultimately, isn’t it still speculation? What part of his *evidence* actually is the confirmation that Ayers wrote it? I don’t know where that line is.

    It’s clear that Ayers was,as Cashill notes, Obama’s muse. It’s clear that Obama was so influenced by him that he borrowed metaphors and analogies and reworded them to make them his own. As Cashill notes, There is an element of speculation in this, but new evidence continues to narrow the gap between the speculative and the conclusive. It does indeed narrow the gap but it does not yet make it definitive.

    Not yet, anyway.

    Dana (863a65)

  54. Um…Patterico….why does JD have to be nice to people who sneer at him and his ideas, hiding behind a veneer of self-impressed faux-intellectualism?

    Well, nice is relative.

    I just think he is entertaining to have around, but JD will scare him off.

    But then, I think Asher Yosef is entertaining to have around as well.

    Patterico (64318f)

  55. I mean, I think of the following. If a Republican President had a history with people who seriously suggested violent revolution, and worked with that person for years…well, the person would be considered unqualified.

    Right?

    Yet this particular POTUS has a free pass for friendships and associations with any number of extremists, and when called on it, the response is…um….inconsistent with Part A.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  56. #54: That’s because you are a Nazi thug.

    Seriously, I think that AY needs medication.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  57. But then, I think Asher Yosef is entertaining to have around as well.

    I think underneath all the words, he has issues with Jews. I hope he gets help for it. Grandma Stella was Jewish and she would not have liked his behavior here on the interwebs.

    Dana (863a65)

  58. I don’t think JD scares SEK off. SEK’s circular logic and lack of command of the facts is what usually does him in.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  59. [...] Ayers Admits Writing “Dreams from My Father”?? Truth or total hearsay? Or worse? Is the story a complete scam? While I have no doubt someone ghostwrote Obama’s books, was that somebody the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers? And even so, what benefit is there for him to blurt it out like that? Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)When the Right attacks: defending our allies even when they are not our fri…Good And Bad News About ACORNIn Defense of ACORNObama Backs ACORN Investigation [...]

    A Few Links That Caught My Interest « Truth Before Dishonor (962ecf)

  60. Dana – I left Asher some bait on the Polanski thread, but so far no appearance.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  61. Dana

    I apologize for the sarcasm. IMNSHO Cashill was being very modest. I found his analysis very convincing. Andersen’s inadvertent corroboration was icing on the cake for me.

    I am admittedly very biased against Obama. That doesn’t make me right or wrong.

    It’s very disappointing that the media is so unprofessional they won’t even investigate these questions.

    Terry Gain (4045b4)

  62. Oh no apology necessary, Terry Gain, but thanks. (I’m very cranky about the Tom Shales of the world still justifying the sick perverts of the world…)

    Anyway, I too agree his analysis is very compelling and yet not (IMO), conclusive.

    In this, I’m less concerned about having Obama exposed for a fraud and more concerned about a false conclusion being drawn by the right, only to be countered and somehow proven false by the left, yet giving them an opportunity to shame the right.

    I’m willing to wait until it’s airtight. And I believe the truth will out.

    Dana (863a65)

  63. He thought he was being clever.

    Jim Treacher (796deb)

  64. If JD has to be nice to SEKS, can I be mean to SEKS for JD?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  65. All I have to say is:

    BS
    MS (more of the same)
    PhD (Piled higher and deeper)

    And SEKS gets his underoos all in a bunch.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  66. I will ignore the douchenozzle. Promise. Cross my heart. Unless he tells a lie.

    JD (9d8cb8)

  67. JD, Patterico said to be nice to SEKS. You can’t claim you won’t be nice as soon as he shows up. That’s just not nice.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  68. There was a time when he did not lie lie lie all the time.

    JD (9d8cb8)

  69. John, a PhD is really a five or six year long fraternity initiation. In all kinds of ways.

    Trust me.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  70. Had I finished my college when I first started, I may have been inducted into a fraternity. But, at a Christian (Quaker) college with no frat houses, the fraternity would’ve been the academic (math) fraternity and not the chug-a-lug fraternity. Ah well.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  71. sigma something or something sigma, if memory serves

    Does that count?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  72. You know what I do not like? I do not like people who piss on my leg, and try to tell me its raining. Those same people always act shocked when you get mad at them for pissing on your leg.

    JD (9d8cb8)

  73. Oops, sorry bout that. It won’t happen again (for a while).

    Buy me drinky?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  74. You know what else I do not like? PhD’s that demand you call them Doctor, even though you would have know way of knowing that they were a PhD. As an example …

    JD – Insert a JD-type comment here
    Karl “my name sounds like a gay pronstar” Steel – Call me DOCTOR, bitch.
    JD – Okay, Dr. Bitch. STFU, Dr. Bitch
    Doctor Douchenozzle – You will give me the respect that I demand but have not earned.
    JD – Sure thing, Dr. Bitch.

    JD (9d8cb8)

  75. I guess I am just saying that a PhD has little to do with wisdom. I have known people who have won the Nobel Prize in the sciences. They are wise.

    Heck, I met R.P. Feynman when I was an undergrad. He was wise and all, but put on no airs at all. Aggressively so.

    Gosh, I sound like you-know-who, don’t I?

    Back to the point: I am impatient with people who confuse education with wisdom. Sort of like Twain’s observation about lightning and the lightning bug.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  76. I missed you doing that. I suggest much Mountain Dew.

    JD (9d8cb8)

  77. JD, you always make me laugh.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  78. C’mon. “Dr. Bitch” sounds like a new “reality TV” show.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  79. Reality is quite amusing sometimes, Eric.

    JD (9d8cb8)

  80. Me, I want happyfeet to explain why Mt. Dew has the color it does.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  81. Oh, and remember that Spinal Tap had that video “Bitch School.”

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  82. You might mention that Cashill (whose bio mentions no training in statistics) warmed up for the Ayers/Obama link with a conspiracy theory that the Clintons whacked Ron Brown. Obama Derangement Syndrome is producing one big clutch of Birthers.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (c670db)

  83. You can always visit that Bitch Phd site if you need some hardcore feminazi stuff.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  84. That must be where SEK and his angry band of hating haters got their PhD’s

    JD (9d8cb8)

  85. AJL – Don’t forget all the racists.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  86. AJL – What about the Cashill and Anderson works are you disputing?

    JD (9d8cb8)

  87. It’s always ironic to read posts by people who foam at the mouth about Republicans get all lofty about “Obama Derangement Syndrome.”

    How those polls treating you?

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  88. No Luke, I wrote, “Dreams of My Father!”

    darth vader (c598b9)

  89. Seriously, gang?

    I’d wager dollars to donuts that this is how the whole thing went down:

    1. Paranoid Conservative Blogger (PCB) sees Ayers in airport.

    2. PCB gets all up in Ayers’ shit with the “I know all about yer shenanigans, I’m from Chicago” act.

    3. Ayers sighs and says (sarcastically) “Ooh, yeah, so many conspiracies; did you hear the one ’bout how I walk around my house in a turban? Or that I actually control the man-sized robot that is Obama from a super-secret command console in my pantry? How ’bout that I wrote Dreams From My Father and let Barack put his name on it so he could get elected?”

    4. PCB gasps: “So you did write Dreams From My Father! I knew it!”

    Fail. Fail, fail, fail. We might as well be asking “What color is that turban, Mr. Ayers?”

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  90. Patterico, I try to respect you, but either you faked uncertainty here to stir up your audience, or your alternate political reality has finally started drawing in crayon over your basic ability to read people and understand context. How in God’s name are you not sure what this is? If Obama met Glenn Beck in a public hallway and said, ” oh hey!, you were right about those concentration camps for old people! dude!”

    what do you think the motivation and the implied meaning would be? it would be “i’m mocking you by literally restating exactly the fictional universe you live in”

    AJL – What about the Cashill and Anderson works are you disputing?

    http://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2009/06/polygraphlevel-scholarship-may-suffice-for-harmless-speculation-about-the-authorship-of-midsummers-n.html

    So both Ayers and Obama misquote the opening line of Carl Sandburg’s “Chicago,” substituting “hog butcher to the world” for “hog butcher for the world.” This mutual error would be significant (an “A-level match”) if Ayers and Obama were the only two people who ever made it, but according to Google Book Search—a secret search engine to which only I have access—the same mistake has been made by Nelson Algren, Alan Lomax, Andrei Codrescu, H.L. Mencken, Paul Krugman, Perry Miller, Donald Hall, Ed McBain, Saul Bellow, S.J. Perelman, Nathanaël West, Ezra Pound, Wright Morris, Allen Ginsberg, Langston Hughes, and the 1967 Illinois Commission on Automation and Technological Progress. (To name but a few.) According to Cashill, I have now proven that Dreams From My Father was written by many a dead man of American letters, a living mystery writer, a New York Times columnist and the 1967 Illinois Commission on Automation and Technological Progress. That bears repeating:

    ….

    You did read that right. Cashill did cite as “A-level” evidence the fact that Ayers and Obama used a word he didn’t know, despite his being the Executive Editor of Kansas City’s premier business publication, Ingram’s Magazine; despite his having written for Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and The Weekly Standard; despite his having authored five books of non-fiction; and despite the word “baleful” having appeared in print 342 times in the past six months alone. Granted, all those appearances were in high-minded literary publications like Newsday (“[w]ith his baleful countenance, wild hair, sonorous baritone and sage pronouncements”) or leftist rags like The Washington Times (“warn them in baleful tones if they’ve forgotten, say, the Constitution”), so it would be unreasonable to expect Cashill to have been familiar with the word . . . or would be, were it not for the fact that it also appears 19 times in the pages of the American Thinker, the publication for which Cashill penned this tripe. (Seems he can begin his careful literary analysis of the other 848,000 potential ghost writers closer to home.)

    Good enough for starters? I suggest you email the blog’s author with any point whatsoever from Cahill’s voodoo that you think is something other than utterly demolished when examined by someone actually looking into it.

    glasnost (c4954b)

  91. Quoting SEK as a rebuttal? Good Allah.

    JD (c26e0b)

  92. Would that be a good SEKS quote or a bad SEKS quote? At this time, I believe no SEKS is good SEKS. And anyone who enjoys giving a little SEKS to everyone has to be disturbed.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  93. glasnost – Are you one of SEK’s angry band of hatey haters what hate on his behalf?

    JD (c26e0b)

  94. John Hitchcock: I’m sure someone’s so proud that you learned how to copy and paste. You deserve a gold star! Have a nice day.

    daleyrocks: You’re a dishonest convenience artist who will win every argument because he can. Have a nice day.*

    JD: You’re a dishonest opportunist who imports nonsense from blogs the proprietor of this one thinks are worthless. You don’t realize that every time you do so, you diminish yourself in the eyes of people who share the proprietor’s low opinion of the even more dishonest opportunist whose nonsense you import … which is, frankly, sad. Have a nice day.**

    Also, your failure to realize that other people have friends who look out for them — and your continued insistence on making fun of someone who does — tells me that you have no friends, and for this I’m very, very sorry. Of course, if you weren’t you, you wouldn’t have that problem … but still, no one should be as lonely as you are, so I feel for you on principle.***

    Patterico: The gig is up. Ayers and I have been in contact for months now, and we agreed that should he ever be directly confronted with this question, he should confess all. I’m not lying: William Ayers, a tenured professor, and myself (contrary to what JD****, in his wisdom, has averred elsewhere) an adjunct, have been in emailing back and forth since Cashill published his first article. We decided, together, that when some brave soul confronted him with the outlandish rumors that proved to be true, he would confess to everything so as to enhance the credibility of the ghosters, which would, in turn, enhance that of the birthers, which would, in turn, enhance that of the truthers … basically, it’s all part of our non-sarcastic, completely real and now totally verified scheme to turn America into a socialistic communist empire of epic Marxist what-not and if you believe any of this you’re as dumb as JD.*****

    *I don’t mean that.

    **Still don’t. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    ***Seriously, albeit almost, because having interacted with you for a few years now, it’s fairly obvious why you have no friends.

    ****Who lies about me all the time, and claims that I’m a liar, but who, on the numerous occasions I’ve called him on this, has yet to provide even one example of my lying. Not that I haven’t been wrong, because I’ve admitted as much. But JD accuses me of lying on a regular basis, and every time I call him out on it and demand he provides evidence, he ignores that comment the way he will this one. Just watch … and once you have, feel free to join him in baseless slander because you disagree with me, or join our host who, despite disagreeing with everything that leaves my mouth (including, oddly, the occasional exhalation), but who’s never accused me of lying. The choice is yours.

    *****No, not really. I’m mean, but I’m not cruel.

    SEK (9e7eee)

  95. I did fill out the inside of the matchbook cover once for the Famous Artists School because it was convenient, so good point.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  96. JD – I’m not sure how you’re going to be able to live with yourself now.

    Must suck to be you.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  97. Quoting SEK as a rebuttal? Good Allah.

    Typical JD: ignore the evidence, attack the source. You’d make a lovely cheerleader … oh, wait.

    Are you one of SEK’s angry band of hatey haters what hate on his behalf?

    Someday you’ll have friends and understand the concept of having other people look out for you … in fact, if they were here, my friends would recommend I not even be writing this. Care to guess why? Wait, I know: “Because they’re a gang of hating haters” … which is as close as you can come to understanding the concept of friendship. I’d feel for you, really, I would, if you didn’t so richly deserve your insensate isolation.

    SEK (9e7eee)

  98. I did fill out the inside of the matchbook cover once for the Famous Artists School because it was convenient, so good point.

    Thanks for proving that point for the studio audience. You win!

    SEK (9e7eee)

  99. SEKS I’m so glad you know I can copy/paste despite the fact your little apprentice did the copy/paste job and not me. Time for you to get your tri-focals, sugar britches.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  100. P.S. JD, I’m going to bed, but I await the proof that I’m a liar with the asleep-equivalent of baited breath. I’ll check back here first thing in the morning to witness your epic demonstration of my being a lying liar who lies.*

    *Not really. I’ve made this challenge before, so I know you’ll change the subject, say something about my having called you a racist (which, of course, is a prime example of you lying and/or being so stupid as to not being able to tell the difference between me and my commenters), puff your chest, say something you think is funny about feminine hygiene and then convince yourself that no one noticed how you failed to prove that I’m a liar. Then daleyrocks will also insult me and the shit-mist circle will be complete.

    SEK (9e7eee)

  101. Gah, the tiresome people are always the most tireless.

    I’m so glad you know I can copy/paste despite the fact your little apprentice did the copy/paste job and not me.

    You recycled that comment, Hitchcock, and I pointed it out. Please, try harder next time … I know you won’t.

    SEK (9e7eee)

  102. SEKS, honey, dearest, how long do you think it takes to type out

    BS
    MS (more of the same)
    PhD (piled higher and deeper)

    do you think?

    There is a big difference between copy/paste and typing it again.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  103. .niaga ti gnipyt dna etsap\ypoc neewteb ecnereffid gib a si erehT

    ?kniht uoy od

    (repeed dna rehgih delip) DhP
    (emas eht fo erom) SM
    SB

    tuo epyt ot sekat ti kniht uoy gnol woh ,tseraed ,yenoh ,SKES

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  104. Of course, SEKS is in the business of falsely claiming people copied their work, even from themselves, since SEKS is so smarter than everyone else.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  105. Ya know, SEKS, next time you trigger a Claymore, you might want to face it in the other direction.

    Just sayin’

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  106. Patterico – Aren’t you proud of me? After all of that word vomit, not one mean word from me, like I promised.

    JD (c26e0b)

  107. Sarcasm? An unprompted admission? Something else?
    Sarcasm? Yes.
    An unprompted admission? Not likely. More like someone seeking notice.
    Something else? Yes. A lie?

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  108. Ayers is possibly lying and we know Obama lies like he breathes. This is a tough one. I think Ayers would do this to get the rightosphere in a complete frenzy so I take it with a huge can of salt. OTOH I do not believe Obama is capable of writing a 6th grade book REPORT much less “Dreams” or any other book.

    Ayers could be motivated to undercut Obama by getting this message out. He lives in a growing crowd under that bus, after all. It must really grate and fester if the actual writer of “Dreams” doesn’t get the credit while a lying, talentless, narcissistic sociopath in the Oval Office does. This would be the argument in favor of the theory that Ayers is being truthful…

    Peg C. (48175e)

  109. JD,

    Hm.

    I think if SEK is going to come out of the gate calling you “dishonest” and saying that you have “no friends,” he would seem to be inviting a fairly forceful response. It would be unfair of me to prevent you from giving one.

    When I asked you to be nice to him, I didn’t quite expect that. I had sort of thought that my exhortation would help minimize the unpleasantness.

    Use your best judgment.

    Patterico (64318f)

  110. Well, didn’t I call it, Patterico?

    Eric Blair (184ac1)

  111. But not to worry. Our academic friend will be back soon, assuring everyone what he wrote was satire, and besides, everyone is mean to him, and JD writes worse stuff all the time, and that is the problem with everyone here—we have no friends.

    Eric Blair (184ac1)

  112. Why does SEK remind me of the “Percy Dovetails” character that Ernie Kovacs did so memorably? If you look up some of the old kinescopes, the resemblance is uncanny.

    PCB gets all up in Ayers’ shit with the “I know all about yer shenanigans, I’m from Chicago” act.

    Actually, quite a lot of Chicagoans (who are mostly Dem voters) think Ayers should have received the electric chair a long time ago. Outside of his home turf (Hyde Park, which is also the Obama’s), most people think he should have slunked away in silence after receiving his wholly – undeserved freedom. Daley almost imploded his mayoralty many years ago, when he unwisely decided to give the unrepentant bomber some kind of good citizenship medal (i.e. “thanks for paying me off, but good”).

    Dmac (5ddc52)

  113. I shall remain above the fray, and will remain a better person, and allow his words to aptly demonstrate what kind of person he is.

    JD (c26e0b)

  114. Wow. I really liked his funny stories about college and stuff. But this is kind of weird.

    carlitos (e4a83c)

  115. Dmac, I haven’t thought about “Percy Dovetonsils” in some time. Not politically correct as a parody these days, I know.

    Kovacs was brilliant.

    Carlitos, you detected the emotions behind the facade, did you?

    Just keep in mind this truth (and it applies to yours truly, as far as that goes): most academics are the people that no one wanted on their fourth grade kickball team.

    We don’t have good personal skills. The sad part is, most of us think we do.

    Eric Blair (184ac1)

  116. I think I’ll let SEK’s comments on Cashill speak for me. There isn’t anything in Cashill’s bio—nor in his article—to suggest he’s trained in this type of literary statistical analysis. And he has a history of anti-Democratic wild conspiracy theories. Is he dating Orly Taitz?

    Andrew J. Lazarus (c670db)

  117. Is a 13 year old, a 13 year old here? :)

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  118. Is a 13 year old, a 13 year old here?

    Are you looking for the latest Polanski thread?

    Andrew J. Lazarus (c670db)

  119. I shall remain above the fray, and will remain a better person,….
    Comment by JD — 10/7/2009 @ 6:45 am


    ROTFLMAO!!!! Did I just fart on myself?…LOL! :D

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  120. Percy baby, JD has quite a few good friends, and since I’ve actually met him in person (and had a good time of it), I consider him a friend as well. Your statements belie a projection borne of insecurity – better look into that, it could cause you problems in the long run.

    Dmac (5ddc52)

  121. I shall remain above the fray and not lower myself to such childish behavior.

    JD (c26e0b)

  122. Comment by Eric Blair — 10/7/2009 @ 7:19 am

    If we had good interpersonal skills,
    would we spend so much time on the ‘net?

    AD - RtR/OS! (108af0)

  123. I do not play well with others, or rather, I do not play well with people that piss on my leg and try to tell me it is raining.

    JD (c26e0b)

  124. SEK, I will be your friend if you like. Also I wrote Dreams of my Father. In the bathroom, mostly.

    carlitos (e4a83c)

  125. “…I don’t think everyone here is friendless — just JD…”

    Well I, for one, who have never met JD, consider him to be not just a friend, but a Comrade, a Bud, a Mate, or any other colloquialism you care for.

    And you, Sir, are just another obsequious turd that I shall scrape off the bottom of my shoe.

    AD - RtR/OS! (108af0)

  126. SEKS, you flat-out accused me of doing something I did not do but you have chosen not to retract that derogatory and condescending baseless accusation. You’re not the first “better than thou” person to make such baseless attacks against me and you’re not the first “better than thou” person to shift ground instead of retracting. You won’t be the last.

    Don’t let your wrongness stop you from being smarter than me, though.

    And I thought I warned you to turn the claymore the other direction before setting it off. The thing even has plain English wording on it: “This side toward the enemy.”

    But I liked EB’s statement: PhD is a 5 or 6 year fraternity induction process. (Thank you, sir, can I have another?)

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  127. This idea that I have no friends is … amusing. Let me go ask my not-friends that I am golfing with if I have any friends.

    brb

    JD (1d90a6)

  128. Yup. You are wrong.

    Maybe liar is too strong of a word. Aggressively mendoucheous and rabid sophist may be better descriptors.

    JD (1d90a6)

  129. JD:

    I shall remain above the fray and not lower myself to such childish behavior.

    Patterico said you could join in, so please, prove that I’m a liar. You keep calling me one, but you’ve yet to prove it. So, prove it already. Also, have a nice day.

    John Hitchcock:

    you flat-out accused me of doing something I did not do but you have chosen not to retract that derogatory and condescending baseless accusation. You’re not the first “better than thou” person to make such baseless attacks against me and you’re not the first “better than thou” person to shift ground instead of retracting. You won’t be the last.

    Yes, I mistook the fact that you’d retyped some nonsense you’d posted before for copy pasta. Mea culpa. But, as I said, the fact that you’re retyping what you take to be witticisms isn’t any better.

    SEK (9e7eee)

  130. “…the fact that you’re retyping what you take to be witticisms isn’t any better...”, since you are not obviously on the elevated level that I occupy.

    There, corrected that for you.

    AD - RtR/OS! (108af0)

  131. AD:

    That makes no sense. The joke’s tired because it’s been around so long it’s become a term of endearment.

    SEK (9e7eee)

  132. Jeez, all the trappings of the alleged intellectual better is all there; the parsing of words (bolded, even – gee, thanks for pointing them out to the plebes!), the strange syntax, the barely concealed passive – agressiveness, etc. And yet we still wonder: why is Johnny so stupid?

    Dmac (5ddc52)

  133. From SEK’s comment 120 – Was Obama the editor of the Law Review or the President or the Law Review? I have read that he did not publish any writing in the review (with the possible exception of a short unsigned piece on a moot court case). I have also seen claims from others that did work on the review at the time that he was not particularly engaged, rarely in the office and more than willing to let others carry the load.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  134. Because….He Is?

    AD - RtR/OS! (108af0)

  135. “President of the law review” not “or the law review”. PIMF

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  136. As a wise man once said, I refuse to let my schooling interfere with my education.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  137. ^^ Mark Twain

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  138. Have Blue, I heard Obama was a good President of the HLR, and that he was fair minded about issues that came up.

    To be honest, Law Review doesn’t have to be a very hard job. If it’s a huge journal with lots of staff for cite checks, it’s just not that bad.

    Obama graduated in roughly the top ten percent of students at Harvard. There are some tricks, such as taking seminars, that would have worked at that time to boost his GPA, but he couldn’t have done it without being very smart and working hard. AA got him in, but his first year’s classes would have been very competitive, and he must have done fairly well in them.

    What’s interesting is that Obama admits to being a poor student in undergrad and apparently had a very bad time at Columbia. I think he had a drug problem.

    It really doesn’t matter, though. He’s not good at being president. We don’t need to rely on a proxy issue like school to see that.

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  139. I am not going to let someone like SEK ruin a perfectly good round of golf. Especially when I am putting so well. Played Victoria National yesterday. Wow. The new Pete Dye course at French Lick is eating me up so far, and the Donald Ross course is likely to do the same.

    JD (b279d0)

  140. Yeah, this sort of feels like something i would do, frankly. See, in the mall they sometimes have scientologists trying to recruit. When I see them, usually say mutter things like, “Lord Xemu is coming to get you!” Of course i don’t believe in Xemu. But i know they do, and i believe it is ridiculous, so i mock them.

    Or in another example i was in a chat room with a bunch of 9-11 truthers. This was pre-2008. in other words, morons. and at some point i said something like, “you know, if you were really sincere in this, you wouldn’t be just moaning and whining. if i believed what you did, i would crack out the guns and start a revolution. so why aren’t you?” They then decided that i was actually an FBI plant, trying to trick them into saying something that would incriminate them, at which point i said, “yes, you are right. we have your whole house surrounded. come out of your house right now, lay face down on your front yard and put your hands behind your head. do this even if you don’t see our agents and do this now.”

    I am not sure of any of them obeyed, but i certainly had fun regardless.

    That being said, the argument that he did write it has some substance to it, but in the end isn’t terribly relevant. ultimately in 2012, obama will be judged on what he has done as president, not what he did before. i mean, barring being found with a dead woman or a live boy type stuff.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  141. DMac:

    Jeez, all the trappings of the alleged intellectual better is all there; the parsing of words (bolded, even – gee, thanks for pointing them out to the plebes!), the strange syntax, the barely concealed passive – agressiveness, etc. And yet we still wonder: why is Johnny so stupid?

    The only bits I bolded were in response to this comment by JD:

    There was a time when [SEK] did not lie lie lie all the time.

    I bolded them because I was calling him out, not because I thought my point would be misunderstood.

    SEK (9e7eee)

  142. Was Obama the editor of the Law Review or the President or the Law Review?

    There are something like 100 editors, and they elected Obama president.

    I have read that he did not publish any writing in the review (with the possible exception of a short unsigned piece on a moot court case).

    I’m not sure how it works at HLR, but I know that most humanities journals don’t allow their editor-in-chief (which is, I take it, the position of president) to publish in the journal they oversee, as there is a clear conflict-of-interest when the person with the final call on what ends up in an issue could be allowed to select something he or she’s written.

    SEK (9e7eee)

  143. I guess that the bolding at #132 is an inconvenient truth?

    AD - RtR/OS! (108af0)

  144. I guess that the bolding at #132 is an inconvenient truth?

    No, they’re, to quote myself, “in response to this comment by JD.” That’s why they happen right after I address, to quote myself, “JD.” There’s nothing inconvenient about that because it’s what I said.

    SEK (9e7eee)

  145. SEK, in Law Reviews, it’s normal for editors to publish in their own journal. It’s called a ‘note’, and it’s disappointing that Obama failed to take part in this basic aspect of working for a law review.

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  146. AW, actually, scientologists at lower ‘levels’ are not aware of Xenu. They may have been told that if they learn that stuff to early, it will be harmful to their minds. They will probably have been warned about folks like you in such a way that you only confirm their paranoia.

    but mocking Scientology probably is great at preventing people from falling into the trap. I just don’t know if mocking it is as good at getting people out of the trap as sympathy.

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  147. Dustin,

    Okay is it Xemu or Xenu? just wondering…

    and i don’t know if it helps or not. admittedly helping these morons is the least from my mind. if you are going to give to a faith that was invented by a guy who said that faith was a great way to make money, and where they aren’t going to tell you what they believe until you hand over alot of money, then i think there is little hope in helping such a person.

    But you know, you would think that the infamous South Park would have gotten around by now.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  148. [...] read on this subject today are falling for it, there are rare exceptions such as Allahpundit and Patterico. Posted in Barack Obama, Blogosphere, Sarah Palin. RSS. [...]

    » Ghost Writers and Conservative Gullibility Liberal Values (b97736)

  149. Sorry this had to be a test or a goof on the blogger. Ayers isn’t stupid, psycho yes, stupid no. He wouldn’t admit something like that if it were true. No way. I need to see real proof before I can buy this story.

    Jenn of the Jungle (1bc2c5)

  150. Is there a currently recognized psychological term for “JD Fixation?” I’m concerned that Scott just can’t quit him.

    What happened to you, Scott? You used to be a pretty engaging guy but now … sneering seems to be the focus of your post graduate work.

    JD, however, is simply too mean, even when he rising above the fray. I’ve just spoken to him on the phone and chastised him in very severe language to stop this this vile and uncivil attitude towards Scott … even when rising above it all … as I previously mentioned … What was I saying?

    Oh, Bill Ayers is a twatwaffle.

    BJTexs (a2cb5a)

  151. Yes, and SEK is still a something to avoid stepping in.

    AD - RtR/OS! (108af0)

  152. Is there a currently recognized psychological term for “JD Fixation?” I’m concerned that Scott just can’t quit him.

    BJTexs, I haven’t seen you around here so much, but I’m not the one with a fixation: every time I comment, no matter what I say, JD throws three or four shit-pies in my direction. The only one that could possibly hit me is his all-too-frequent claim that I’m a liar, so I ask him to provide evidence . . . and he disappears or changes the subject. I’d love to see his list of items I’ve lied about, but because he lacks the strength of character, integrity, commitment to fact, etc. required to share the links to all my purported lies, the smears just sit there and people who don’t know better might come along and think they have some basis in reality.

    SEK (9e7eee)

  153. (I should also note that said shit-pies inevitably derail the conversation, leaving me in the awkward position of having apologize to the posters because of JD’s behavior, which is why Patterico had to indicate, in this post, that JD shut his trap.)

    SEK (9e7eee)

  154. Don’t forget that I don’t have any friends, SEK. That was particularly insightful. Biting. Hurt me to my core. Since you cannot read, apparently, you will note that above I acknowledged that maybe lie was too broad, and not the best descriptor. Now, go get your band of angry hatey haters and tell Rich Puchalsky and Karl “CALL ME DOCTOR BITCH” Steel that I said hello. I would wish you a nice day, but I am not a passive-agressive little bitch like you.

    Now, run along and spam a bunch of links to a bunch of your word vomit.

    JD (3399c0)

  155. JD has no friends. He mistakes lackeys for real friends. How sad. :(

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  156. SEK,

    In the past, you have claimed the Bush Administration manufactured evidence to justify a war in Iraq. I believe that is your opinion but you present it as fact. Is it fact or opinion?

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  157. And The Emperor lacks both.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  158. Another ‘confession’ at NRO’s the corner.

    [note: fished from spam filter. --Stashiu]

    jeff (7226af)

  159. Hey, SEK:

    I’m guessing you are having a bad couple of days. But consider:

    “…which is why Patterico had to indicate, in this post, that JD shut his trap…”

    Um. You did see what Patterico wrote, above, did you not?

    “…I think if SEK is going to come out of the gate calling you “dishonest” and saying that you have “no friends,” he would seem to be inviting a fairly forceful response. It would be unfair of me to prevent you from giving one.

    When I asked you to be nice to him, I didn’t quite expect that. I had sort of thought that my exhortation would help minimize the unpleasantness.

    Use your best judgment….”

    Looks like maybe you are not covering yourself in glory. Which is too bad. Patterico has always treated you with a lot of respect.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  160. Hi SPQR.
    Friend-making tips for JD.
    1) Be nice to people.
    2) Be honest about your weaknesses.
    3) Stop calling people “racists”
    4) Stop using words like “mendacious”, “douchnozzle” and (I cant remember more…)
    5) Vote for Obama.
    6) Challenge Daleyrocks and call him a bigot.
    7) Make the “D” in your name stand for “Democrat”
    8) Support The Emperor.
    9) Apologize to SEK.
    10) Stand up to Patterico.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  161. JD:

    I acknowledged that maybe lie was too broad

    After having made the accusation for ages. How big of you.

    Now, run along and spam a bunch of links to a bunch of your word vomit.

    I don’t even know what this means. I suppose it’s cutting though, what with all the times WordPress automagically links back here when I quote Patterico . . . funny how only you and Jeff are bothered by that. Two peas in a pod, you two are.

    DRJ:

    In the past, you have claimed the Bush Administration manufactured evidence to justify a war in Iraq. I believe that is your opinion but you present it as fact. Is it fact or opinion?

    I’ve said that the Bush Administration misled the American people into the reasons for going to war in Iraq, yes, and there’s abundant evidence that not even Cheney believed what he was saying about the Iraqi nuclear program in the run-up to the war. Again, that’s a factual issue, to be dealt with via evidence, and if I’m wrong about it, I’m wrong. There’s a difference between that and lying, as JD’s accused me of doing for months and months now. (Also, yes, I see the irony there.)

    Eric:

    I’m guessing you are having a bad couple of days.

    Not in the least. Quite good, actually.

    You did see what Patterico wrote, above, did you not?

    I was referring to this comment, in which he preemptively struck against the inevitable JD-derailment.

    Which is too bad. Patterico has always treated you with a lot of respect.

    As I have you, which is why I’m always surprised with your recent hostility towards me. There’s nothing I can do about it but keep on treating you with respect.

    SEK (9e7eee)

  162. SEK,

    You said the Bush Administration manufactured evidence to justify a war in Iraq. I didn’t ask whether you said it or if it is true or false. I asked if you consider that fact or opinion.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  163. Don’t worry, DRJ. The guy is more concerned with the “lies” of others right now.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  164. which is why Patterico had to indicate, in this post, that JD shut his trap

    That is, factually, not true. It’s not what I said.

    Patterico (64318f)

  165. “…your recent hostility towards me…”

    Of course, it wouldn’t have a darned thing to do with your recent actions.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  166. As I wrote, SEK: you are not covering yourself with glory.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  167. I asked if you consider that fact or opinion.

    Comment by DRJ — 10/7/2009 @ 5:55 pm
    I believe it is an opinion based upon facts, DRJ. It’s very complicated.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  168. SEK,

    Here is your earlier statement and part of my point is you don’t have a good grasp of what constitutes a lie if you can’t tell the difference between fact and opinion.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  169. SEK,

    Now let’s discuss this quote from the same link:

    So you can call it whatever you’d like, but if you can look at yourself in the mirror every morning and think, “By golly, me and every other American is safer because we went to war with Iraq instead of focusing our attention on Afghanistan,” well then . . . you’re an idiot who’s actively working to make sure more Americans die.

    You just said that people who believe Iraq made Americans safer are “actively working to make sure more Americans die.” Is that a lie or just more SEK opinion?

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  170. DRJ…but…but…but…but….

    …that’s different™!

    Remember, hyperbole from someone with an R after their name is craziness. Hyperbole form a progressive is art.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  171. Correction DRJ. I think it is an opinion based upon facts that come from opinions supported by facts whose source are unknown. Like I said, it is very complicated. You wouldn’t understand.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  172. Thank you, Emperor Obama.

    And it’s not complicated. It’s an opinion.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  173. Don’t patronize DRJ, you little git.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  174. The little president man reeks of phony. I think we can all agree on that.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  175. DRJ:

    I didn’t ask whether you said it or if it is true or false. I asked if you consider that fact or opinion.

    Given what I’ve read, I believe that’s a fact.

    You just said that people who believe Iraq made Americans safer are “actively working to make sure more Americans die.” Is that a lie or just more SEK opinion?

    That’s my opinion — based on my interpretation of the facts — not a lie.

    Patterico:

    That is, factually, not true. It’s not what I said.

    Don’t be a lawyer: I was paraphrasing. You knew I wouldn’t post a comment if JD was going to delve into his tired repertoire of canned insults, so you told him to “be nice.” Because, when it comes to me, his knee will jerk in a predictable fashion no matter what I write. Were I to say, “I earnestly agree with this conservative position and I’m not being sarcastic, I think it is the superior one,” JD would still respond with all the wit and wisdom of a second grader.

    Eric:

    it wouldn’t have a darned thing to do with your recent actions.

    Which would be . . . ? Not wanting to interact with someone who reflexively insults me? This is a strange moral high ground to be taking, Eric. How would you respond to someone like JD? I feel I’ve taken the high road by disengaging unless specifically addressed, because I realize that my presence here causes every thread I participate in to be about me . . . which is ridiculous, and which, were I running this place, would annoy me to no end. I still read and respect the people who write and 99 percent of the people who comment here, but unless I see something like this, I’m going to bite my tongue because I respect the bloggers enough to know that they would rather not have their comments turn into yet another of JD’s referendums on me.

    SEK (9e7eee)

  176. SEK:

    “I believe that’s a fact.”

    I believe in God so His existence must be a fact, too.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  177. JD would still respond with all the wit and wisdom of a second grader.

    that’s grossly hyperbolic. My mom used to tell us if we were getting close to making her mad about something that you better be good or you’ll be on my list. You didn’t want to be on her list. What’s happened is you’re on JD’s list is all I think.

    For me what would help is going out and weeding her rose garden.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  178. Don’t be a lawyer: I was paraphrasing. You knew I wouldn’t post a comment if JD was going to delve into his tired repertoire of canned insults, so you told him to “be nice.” Because, when it comes to me, his knee will jerk in a predictable fashion no matter what I write. Were I to say, “I earnestly agree with this conservative position and I’m not being sarcastic, I think it is the superior one,” JD would still respond with all the wit and wisdom of a second grader.

    SEK:

    “Shut your trap” and “be nice” are not the same thing. At all. I would not tell JD to shut his trap; I would tell him to be nice.

    And I don’t like having my request for him to “be nice” (which I would say to him) turned by you into a demand that he “shut his trap” (which I would not say to him).

    And I further dislike being told, when I point out that you have absolutely distorted what I said, that I am just being a lawyer. I.e. I am being persnickety and nitpicky. Bullshit. I am simply pointing out that you (badly) distorted what I said.

    Patterico (64318f)

  179. Evidently, “paraphrasing” means “grossly misrepresenting”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  180. Some second graders are pretty smart.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  181. Evidently, “paraphrasing” means “grossly misrepresenting”.

    Apparently.

    Patterico (64318f)

  182. Comment by DRJ — 10/7/2009 @ 6:29 pm

    Do you believe that George Bush did not send those soldiers to war based on false intelligence? I mean on hindsight now.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  183. that’s grossly hyperbolic.

    ok I think I may have constructed that part a little less carefully than I meant to but you know what I mean.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  184. The Emperor,

    I think President Bush and Congress authorized the War in Iraq for several reasons, including that Iraq had used WMDs before and that it posed a threat of using them again. The fact that Western intelligence did not know the exact status of Iraq’s WMD program concerns me, but it doesn’t change my mind about whether war was justified for the reasons listed at the link.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  185. SEK,

    I’m willing (when I have time) to try to police things so that people aren’t exceedingly rude to you, but your performance in this thread is making that difficult. You come out of the gate insulting JD (and obviously there’s history there but you could have tried letting him land the first blow, which I suspect he would not have done because I asked him to be nice). Then you misrepresent something I said, and when I point it out you insult me by suggesting I am being lawyerly.

    Want to start over?

    Patterico (64318f)

  186. DRJ:

    I believe in God so His existence must be a fact, too.

    Not in the least. However, were you devout and claimed that God existed, you wouldn’t be a liar because you wouldn’t be lying. Again, on the one hand, we have disagreements of interpretation in which, as I admitted, I could be wrong; but on the other, we have JD repeatedly accusing me of deliberately lying. Sticking with your example, do you believe I’m wrong or lying?

    Patterico:

    “Shut your trap” and “be nice” are not the same thing. At all. I would not tell JD to shut his trap; I would tell him to be nice.

    Which is what you did. The evidence is there. I don’t think anyone’s going to mistake what you said with what I did.

    And I further dislike being told, when I point out that you have absolutely distorted what I said, that I am just being a lawyer. I.e. I am being persnickety and nitpicky. Bullshit. I am simply pointing out that you (badly) distorted what I said.

    I didn’t distort what you said: I filtered it in an obviously sarcastic way. You never say things — as your readers well know — like “shut your trap.” I included a link in my second response to what you actually said so that the intelligent folks here could see what I was up to. I’m not trying to misrepresent what you’ve said, merely acknowledging that you seem to have noticed that when I comment here, JD throws an unwanted and unwarranted hissy fit.

    That said, I want to ask you and DRJ a direct question: do you want me to continue commenting here? I would like to, because as I said earlier, I think y’all are the most intelligent wrong people around, and I enjoy a good debate. But because JD turns everything into a dog-and-pony show about me, that can’t happen here. I don’t know why he’s obsessed with me, but he clearly is . . . and is intent on derailing any conversation I might take part in. It’s up to you.

    SEK (9e7eee)

  187. Comment by DRJ — 10/7/2009 @ 7:05 pm

    Fair enough.

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  188. The Emperor said:

    Do you believe that George Bush did not send those soldiers to war based on false intelligence? I mean on hindsight now.

    I wanted DRJ to respond to this first and I’m glad she did, in an intelligent and detached manner.

    So, I have a question for The Emperor:

    Have you been able to beat that drinking problem, yet?

    Do you see how that works? Do you see why, sometimes, you may not be taken seriously?

    Here’s a better way to ask your question:

    “Although Saddam Hussein was in violation of several U.N. resolutions and continued to threaten other nations in the Middle East, President Bush also considered the intelligence arms of his own nation, as well as those of trusted allies, in making the decision to invade Iraq. So, in hindsight, should he have disregarded the intelligence information he had, and simply invaded on the basis of the U.N. resolutions and not mentioned the intelligence information? Or should he have done nothing?”

    See, if you had asked it that way, you still win. And you wouldn’t have had to insult DRJ’s intelligence in the process.

    Ag80 (d1363b)

  189. OK, Emperor, you beat me. Please ignore my response and accept my apology for jumping the gun.

    Ag80 (d1363b)

  190. I find it most disturbing that although JD is not presently on board, he has dominated this thread over the past 11 hours or so. He is not even here and yet he has successfully thread-jacked this thread that was supposed to be about a comment Ayers made about writing Obama’s best-selling book. That to me is racism in its purest form. You continue to remain friendless, JD. Racist!

    The Emperor (0c8c2c)

  191. SEK:

    Not in the least. However, were you devout and claimed that God existed, you wouldn’t be a liar because you wouldn’t be lying. Again, on the one hand, we have disagreements of interpretation in which, as I admitted, I could be wrong; but on the other, we have JD repeatedly accusing me of deliberately lying. Sticking with your example, do you believe I’m wrong or lying?

    You’ve adopted a subjective standard that if a person really believes what they say, then what they say can’t be a lie. I think a person has to have a reasonable belief in what they say. I really believe in God but that doesn’t mean I can prove He exists or that I can reasonably take the position that it is a fact so other people have to agree with me. To do so is tantamount to a lie.

    Similarly, I don’t think you can reasonably believe there is proof that the Bush Administration manufactured evidence to invade Iraq or that people who support the Iraq War are “actively working to make sure more Americans die.” You can believe those things are true but that doesn’t mean you can can reasonably take the position that they are facts so other people have to agree with you.

    That said, I want to ask you and DRJ a direct question: do you want me to continue commenting here?

    Not really, because I don’t think you are sincere in expressing and evaluating your positions. But Patterico likes the give-and-take that comes from having commenters on all sides of an issue. I see value in that, too, so I welcome your participation in that sense.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  192. I didn’t distort what you said: I filtered it in an obviously sarcastic way. You never say things — as your readers well know — like “shut your trap.” I included a link in my second response to what you actually said so that the intelligent folks here could see what I was up to. I’m not trying to misrepresent what you’ve said, merely acknowledging that you seem to have noticed that when I comment here, JD throws an unwanted and unwarranted hissy fit.

    That is two things in one: 1) a lengthy and unconvincing rationalization for distorting what I said, and 2) another attempt to put words in my mouth that I didn’t say and don’t believe.

    It’s nice to see you finally admitting that you can’t win by making an honest argument, so instead you consciously choose to misrepresent others.

    See what I did there?

    Patterico (64318f)

  193. SEK, when you “paraphrase” someone else’s words to mean something completely different than what that someone said, that’s called plagiarism.

    Thought you’d like to know.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  194. That said, I want to ask you and DRJ a direct question: do you want me to continue commenting here?

    Yeah, sure, but not if you’re going to distort what I say. That just makes me angry, and I can do without that.

    If you can avoid that, comment away. If I’m around I’ll try to see to it that you’re not unfairly disrespected — but you have to do your part, too. That includes refraining from insults and being careful not to misrepresent people’s views.

    Patterico (64318f)

  195. I would like to give Mr. SEK this here immunity idol.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  196. Hey, Patterico, I just heard (on tape-delay) the stand-in for Mark Levin praising your work on outing the fake doctor Sheila Jackson Lee used. He pronounced Patterico the same way I do (before I correct myself). puh-TARE-i-coh

    Sounded good to hear you on the Mark Levin show, even if it was a stand-in.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  197. No, SEK, look at your own posts. You have been pretty darned rude, to no good purpose I can see, except that someone has disagreed with you. You have been rude for some time, then claimed that you were being sarcastic or exaggerative for effect. It’s a clever game I see academics play all the time with people who they believe aren’t quite worldly or intelligent enough to “get it.”

    I do. I have spent decades listening to people like you. And the other posters here see it, too. I have strong feelings about the concept of collegiality, having seen far too much lip service to the concept in academia. While a blog is not an academic environment, a little civility goes a long way. Particularly if you feel you are being poorly treated.

    Look at DRJ. Emperor here decided to make a snide comment about her, and DRJ did not reply in kind, nor complain that she was being insulted. Guess who looks like the end product of canine digestion?

    So consider being polite, particularly if you feel you have been poorly treated. Don’t insult people and then claim later you were being sarcastic and clever. You were neither of those things; you were being snide and rude…and more to the point, displaying unseemly arrogance on top of it. The “intelligent people here” crack is juvenile, for example.

    There is a reason that many people heap scorn on academics.

    When you misstated Patterico’s position in a way that suited your purposes, and he corrected you, the correct response is “Whoops. I’m sorry that I did that.” You don’t need to play Clintonesque parsing games about what Patterico said; you can simply stick with what you yourself think and intend.

    But instead, you continue to defend your misinterpretation, and then up the ante by insulting Patterico, who has actually been pretty darned polite to you over the time I have posted here. He has told me personally that he holds you in high esteem. So why rattle his cage?

    As for JD, so what? For one thing, JD could clearly care less if you dislike him. JD is much ruder than I like to be, but here is a hint: he has never, not once, been rude to me. Guess why? Because I agree with him on all things? Nope. He is MUCH more conservative than I am.

    It’s because we treat one another with respect. And I know for a fact that JD used to think pretty highly of you. Antics like you are displaying today is the reason he likes to smack you around.

    But notice that Patterico asked JD to be polite, and he was. You have not been so civil, yourself. Considering how you say you perceive JD, that should give you pause.

    But hey, it is your business. But it is bizarre that, when Patterico tells you have misintepreted him, you continue to argue about it, and in fact insult Patterico.

    These actions are not your usual style, which is why I thought you might have some bad stuff going on elsewhere in your life. You say all is grand; great news.

    Be rude, or not. But it sure seems like you are spoiling for a fight. And isn’t that what you complain of in other posters here?

    Eric Blair (184ac1)

  198. He said you did the leg-work and you offered it to the Houston Chronicle but it didn’t bite? (Or was that DRJ leg-work, since Houston Chronicle was named?)

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  199. Hey, Patterico, I just heard (on tape-delay) the stand-in for Mark Levin praising your work on outing the fake doctor Sheila Jackson Lee used. He pronounced Patterico the same way I do (before I correct myself). puh-TARE-i-coh

    Sounded good to hear you on the Mark Levin show, even if it was a stand-in.

    Someone told me the blog was mentioned on Mike Gallagher’s radio show this morning as well, re Polanski.

    It’s weird when your blog is mentioned on the radio or TV and you didn’t hear it or see it. Doesn’t seem right somehow.

    Patterico (64318f)

  200. I still like my plagiarism angle when dealing with SEK cause them there perfessers and arthers don’t much like bein called plagiaristicaters. Ya know?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  201. It is my opinion that SEK is a mendoucheous twatwaffle. And, I would like to thank all of my non-friends.

    JD (51ec96)

  202. Well, if you don’t get a chance to hear Mark Levin during his regular time-slot, I get off work at 2230 and listen to 1.5 hours of Mark Levin on 610 WTVN before Coast to Coast rubbish. You can catch the broadcast online surfing that link. ;)

    I think, not sure, I think you can get re-broadcasts from Mark Levin’s website.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  203. I’ll consider you a non-friend, JD, so I can say “you’re welcome.”

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  204. merely acknowledging that you seem to have noticed that when I comment here, JD throws an unwanted and unwarranted hissy fit.

    HA! Welcome to the club, Scott. JD’s not exactly a nice person, but he throws a pretty fit

    timb (449046)

  205. And timb should know, he’s a hissy that is fit to be tortured repeatedly before being cast aside like the garbage he is.

    You know, if timb supports you, you got some serious problems because I don’t remember timb ever having anything of value to say about anything.

    Aphrael and Leviticus, on the other hand, they offer value in their comments.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  206. That read sort of like an SEK clown nose on/clown nose off routine.

    Can’t you tell I’m being sarcastic?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  207. DRJ – Nice job with the fact discussion. Good to know we have subjective facts, objective facts, personal facts, etc.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  208. So we have SEK and the creepy timmah piling on. All we need now is caric.

    JD (2c0fe3)

  209. Wow, three people better educated and smarter than you on one thread would bother you? That surprises me, since you are nearly always the dunderhead on any thread and I thought you’d be used to it.

    And, heck that’s not counting Patterico, Eric Blair, daley, and several people on this thread who are WAY smarter than you are but you don’t Tourette’s on because they agree with politically.
    It must hard to have that massive of an inferiority complex.

    I long for the day when you aren’t an ass.

    Then again, you’ll always be smarter than BJ.

    timb (449046)

  210. Oh, Johnny, you do hurt me so. Oh, ouch, the witticism from the half-wit, it does hurt

    timb (449046)

  211. SEK’s statement that people who believe Iraq made Americans safer are “actively working to make sure more Americans die” is obviously a belief of his. But it’s an unsubstantiated belief. He presents no evidence that Iraq war supporters have this as a goal. It’s the equal of saying that Iraq war opponents want to undermine the United States . . . wait … there’s plenty of evidence that a significant contingent of Iraq war opponents hate the United States.

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

  212. oh. timb… remember how we talked about maybe there are things what you can do on your side to make people not have attacky feelings towards you? Maybe now would be a good chance to start exploring that. Just… type what you would usually type and then delete it and say something nicer.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  213. It is always disturbing when the creepy people show up. Maybe they should go back to deep-throating classic liberals like Barrett Brown.

    JD (3e97b4)

  214. Good advice, happyfeet, if only timb would be wise enough to take it. And as for SEK . . . it’s just sad. I thought he was better than that.

    I’ve been away all day at an algae biomass summit in San Diego, but it seems that’s not the only place biomass has been piling up.

    Congratulations to Patterico for his blog mention on the Mark Levin show!

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

  215. [...] with proper citation is another method of the above. When a person, like SEK, (look above and below this link) paraphrases someone else and that very paraphrase completely distorts that other person’s [...]

    Plagiarism Is BAAAAD But What Is It? « Truth Before Dishonor (ea1fd5)

  216. But it is not a stalker-type. No sirree. It just happens to show up wherever certain people are getting bashed. But it is most certainly not a creepy stalker-type. Not at all.

    JD (3e97b4)

  217. Look at DRJ. Emperor here decided to make a snide comment about her, and DRJ did not reply in kind, nor complain that she was being insulted. Guess who looks like the end product of canine digestion?
    Comment by Eric Blair — 10/7/2009 @ 8:24 pm

    Now wait a god-damn minute there, Eric! I never made a snide comment to DRJ in any shape or form. Neither did I insult her. You are lying and trying to insinuate a quarrel between me and DRJ. If anything, I have the greatest love and respect for her. I would never say a word to disparage her. Never. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for trying to sow seeds of discord between friends. I demand you retract that statement and offer an apology.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  218. Correction DRJ. I think it is an opinion based upon facts that come from opinions supported by facts whose source are unknown. Like I said, it is very complicated. You wouldn’t understand.

    Comment by The Emperor — 10/7/2009 @ 6:13 pm

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  219. @219
    Is that all you have for a defense? Weak. Besides, I wasn’t referring to you, noyk.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  220. Lovey, you’re not fooling anyone.

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

  221. Yeah, JD, you get called out for being a punk who attacks SEK whenever his name appears and THEN you have the balls to complain about me doing that to you? And, history has shown no matter what I write on this site, you will appear with your “wit” and indefinite pronouns to make a non-sequitor AND you still have the balls to whine!

    My hat is off to you for the amazing chutzpah it takes to bitch about being attacked when all you do is attack…well anyone you’re not a sycophant of. Kidos to you, JD, the biggest balls and the smallest brain on any Patterico thread.

    As for this:

    oh. timb… remember how we talked about maybe there are things what you can do on your side to make people not have attacky feelings towards you? Maybe now would be a good chance to start exploring that. Just… type what you would usually type and then delete it and say something nicer

    Yeah, hey, sweetie, but color me surprised you’re here with your Rodney King impression. Happyfeet the peacemaker!

    Now, I’ve seen everything the right wing has to offer on just this thread: A chattering chorus of gibbons hoots in approval as a sarcastic retort is taken seriously. An offer of dialogue shouted down by a kook. Jd feigns outrage over tactics he uses everyday. Happyfeet attacks while pretending to be civil.

    And, all in the service of character assassination of Obama.

    Wow, and it’s not even an election year.

    timb (449046)

  222. timb,
    Yes, it’s so scandalous that our precious ObaMessiah is being subjected to criticism by citizens of a democracy. And it’s not even an election year! How dare people oppose him?

    The nerve of those darn right-wingers!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (b4b78f)

  223. deep breaths, timmy. You should have a nutritious breakfast and try and make the most of your day I think. Dirty socialism is a cruel master and sometimes a fella needs to unplug and just enjoy a day. The little president man ain’t nothin but a thang, timmy, but a short stack of buttermilk pancakes and some bacon on the side is very tasty.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  224. @222
    Comment by timb — 10/8/2009 @ 5:26 am

    The name of the game here is accept insults with a smile and never retaliate. Or someone will accuse you of whining. But I have learnt how to handle some of these folks here!

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  225. Creepy stalker-type people never fail to act like creepy stalker-type people.

    JD (ce1a92)

  226. Comment by JD — 10/8/2009 @ 7:27 am

    You have not shown your gratitude to me for the helpful tips I gave you somewhere up thread. (Comment by The Emperor — 10/7/2009 @ 5:40 pm). How in the hell are you gonna get some friends with that type of attitude? Now go back, read them and tell me what you think. Thank me later.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  227. It’s good to see that there is still a portion of the American intellectual community still willing to get a rise out of the conspiracy theory gormandizers on the right, I think this is the only righteous reaction to the mouthbreathers interpretation of Mr. Ayers’ latest comments:

    Wishful Thinking

    beatgrylls (b9b538)

  228. DRJ:

    You’ve adopted a subjective standard that if a person really believes what they say, then what they say can’t be a lie. I think a person has to have a reasonable belief in what they say. I really believe in God but that doesn’t mean I can prove He exists or that I can reasonably take the position that it is a fact so other people have to agree with me. To do so is tantamount to a lie.

    No, it isn’t. The reasonable standard is that, for example, when someone says they believe in God, they’re lying neither about their faith nor in the facts that underpin it. They are, in my opinion, wrong, but accusing them of lying is the epitome of bad faith. (That is, after all, the counter-argument thrown in the face of atheists every time they confront the validity of statements about faith.)

    I don’t think you can reasonably believe there is proof that the Bush Administration manufactured evidence to invade Iraq[.]

    I can and do, because Cheney has admitted as much. That’s not the issue under discussion here, however, so I’ll drop it.

    Not really, because I don’t think you are sincere in expressing and evaluating your positions.

    Note: I don’t think you’re lying, but I do think your evaluation is wrong. That said, I don’t comment where I’m not wanted — that’s what led to Jeff’s saying he’d delete everything I wrote amounting to a ban to my mind — so I won’t comment on your posts anymore.

    Patterico:

    Because I consider you a friend, I rib you like one. Absolutely, I shouldn’t have written that thing I shouldn’t have written, but the fact remains that the disconnect here is that you’re responding to my sarcastic take on what you said in a spirit different from the one I uttered it in. Obviously, that’s my fault for defaulting to a private register in a public forum, so your response is warranted. I did, in fact, twist your words . . . because I was treating you like a human being. I thought, however, that the obviousness with which I was twisting your words would be, you know, obvious both to you and your readers, such that qualifications of the sort you made wouldn’t be necessary. Or, as they say in movie tag-lines:

    On The Internets No One Can See You Smirk.

    John Hitchcock:

    SEK, when you “paraphrase” someone else’s words to mean something completely different than what that someone said, that’s called plagiarism.

    No, it isn’t. If I’d done it seriously, it’d be a form of intellectual fraud; but in no way, shape or form is that plagiarism. I don’t want to sound like an elitist here, but as someone who doesn’t work for a pay-for-grades university — I don’t even think conservatives believe that the University of Phoenix, Online is a reputable institution — and who has spent the past decade dealing with plagiarism, I think I know what I’m talking about here.

    happy,

    You are good people.

    Eric,

    You have been pretty darned rude, to no good purpose I can see, except that someone has disagreed with you

    As I noted, you only see about half the nonsense JD says about me — him disagreeing me has nothing to do with the way I treat him.

    You have been rude for some time, then claimed that you were being sarcastic or exaggerative for effect

    I’d like to see some examples of this, because to be frank, I haven’t been. People have been responding to me more violently since their party hasn’t been in power, but I’ve been responding as I always do for months now. I could bring up what you wrote in that post from not but four months linked above, when I obviously hadn’t been grating on your nerves, but I won’t . . . because this isn’t about settling scores, scoring points or winning rounds. Since Obama’s been in office — and with the exception of happy — conservatives who once thought the positions I espoused were reasonable have decided that I’m a raving socialist despite my not having said or believed a damn thing different. I haven’t changed . . . the political environment has, and people are treating me differently not because I’m saying anything different, but because the ground’s shifted from under their feet.

    I’m still as far to the left of Obama as I was during the election, it’s just that the people who used to humor me when I was out of power now call me a liar because I represent a section of the party in power, and therefore have some say in the shaping of policy.

    But instead, you continue to defend your misinterpretation, and then up the ante by insulting Patterico, who has actually been pretty darned polite to you over the time I have posted here. He has told me personally that he holds you in high esteem. So why rattle his cage?

    As noted above, because I consider him a friend, think what I did was an obvious poke in the ribs, and like to think that human beings can behave like human beings even when their fingers do the talking.

    As for JD, so what

    As noted above, I don’t like it that any comment I make will cause the resulting thread to be about me, but that’s the way JD rolls. He makes baseless claims — which he’s now revoked, and might hold off on making again for, I’d wager, a week — and if I defend myself, I look like an egomaniac for taking a thread that was about X and making it about me. To which I say, well, fuck it. I’m not a narcissist and don’t want to thread-hog. If, however, every word I write is countered by a lie that the liar JD admits to having lied about when he lied about it all those times, well then, actually, now that he’s admitted and given me proof that he was lying when he wrote all that . . . I’m going to make my point this once and move on.

    Bradley:

    SEK’s statement that people who believe Iraq made Americans safer are “actively working to make sure more Americans die” is obviously a belief of his. But it’s an unsubstantiated belief. He presents no evidence that Iraq war supporters have this as a goal.

    As someone else I respect here, I’ll say this: I didn’t substantiate it here, but I could if I wanted to. I don’t want to derail this derailment any more than it’s already been, but my comments can be substantiated. If you’d like, you can send me an email and we can have a civil exchange in which I quote Cheney and members of the Bush cabinet to the effect that the larger goal of a democratic beachhead in the Middle East was more important that actually going after bin Laden in Afghanistan . . . and I say this as someone who initially supported the war on that basis.

    SEK (9e7eee)

  229. I found SEK’s last comment in the filter and released it.

    SEK,

    You clearly don’t understand the difference between fact and opinion.

    DRJ (7fbae6)

  230. I’m still as far to the left of Obama as I was during the election…

    What’s left of socialist?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  231. “I haven’t changed”

    I disagree. You’re on a power trip now.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  232. I don’t think you can reasonably believe there is proof that the Bush Administration manufactured evidence to invade Iraq[.]

    I can and do, because Cheney has admitted as much. That’s not the issue under discussion here, however, so I’ll drop it.

    No, it’s my blog, so it’s now the issue.

    Cheney has never admitted any such goddamned thing.

    Are you ribbing Cheney because he’s your good friend? Are you distorting something he said to twist it into something you can use in an argument? Or what?

    As far as your poking me in the ribs, if I take your explanation at face value, then it’s pretty tin-eared. You obviously have a serious, non-light-hearted problem with JD — and then, you continually twist my words to make me look like I’m saying things to/about him that I have not said and would not say. Given how much you seriously dislike JD, it doesn’t read like a joke when you twist my words to make it look like I am being rude to him.

    In fact, calling it a “joke” just looks like a feeble and dishonest rationalization of something you know you can’t seriously defend.

    I’m not saying it *is* — but that’s what it *looks like.*

    Patterico (64318f)

  233. Comment by John Hitchcock — 10/8/2009 @ 8:23 pm

    The bottom (6-o’clock position) of the political circle is occupied by the anarchists – you can get there from both the right and left.

    AD - RtR/OS! (814db9)

  234. SEK, I am still awaiting the evidence to support, or the retraction of, your statement re Cheney.

    Patterico (64318f)

  235. As if that will ever happen?

    AD - RtR/OS! (eaac12)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8953 secs.