Patterico's Pontifications

4/18/2011

Watts Up With Taking Content Without Attribution? (Update: Watts Responds and Johnson Shouts “Squirrel!”)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 7:41 am



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Update: Mr. Watts replies in his post as follows:

I don’t follow tweets, I only broadcast them from my blog for the convenience of thos[e] who do, so it went into the bit bucket. But I’ll be happy to make a mention that you also found the same thing when you visited the UNEP URL – Anthony

Also apparently Charles Johnson thinks it is really important to make fun of me for not knowing what I admit I didn’t know, what UTC is (apparently it is universal atomic time).  I had assumed it was an Asian time zone because I happened to know it is exactly 12 hours difference in the Philippines, because I have family (wife’s side) living there and because it was on a site called “Asian Correspondant.”  He takes all this to mean that I have something against foreigners, which is strange given that at one time my wife was one.

If you are having trouble figuring out what it has to do with any of the issues in the post, you aren’t the only one.  This all amounts to him shouting “squirrel” to distract anyone who might have paid attention.  But you see Charles is mad at me because I have been calling him out for month, pointing out how he was caught on this site lying about calling Rachel Corrie “St. Pancake” (he has a soft spot for memory-holing) and impotently threatened Patrick’s job.

I will correct the record on one thing.  He did make a comment on about how there was an Islamofascist on stage at Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity and previously I said he said nothing on the subject.  When I challenged him on that, he linked to one comment.  Not a whole post, mind you.  Nothing on the main page.  No, you have to dig deep into the comments to find condemnation of it, with words that are ironically appropriate:

For someone who personified peace and love and all that stuff, to suddenly come out and sound so bloodthirsty was a nasty surprise.

Gee, its kind of like a guy making a blogging name of himself by proving CBS to be liars, then taking them at face value.  The whiplash is kind of hard to take.

We now resume the original post, as is.

————————————

One of the big stories this morning is that Glenn Beck is being accused by the Daily Caller of taking material without attribution.pl

Oh yeah, I really hate it when people do that.

For instance, yesterday I was surfing around on my phone (my landline internet was down), and I see this post over at Instapundit:

HIDE THE DECLINE (CONT’D): The UN ‘disappears’ 50 million climate refugees, then botches the cover-up. “Apparently, they’ve never heard of Google Cache at the UN.”

And given my post on Friday, I got excited that maybe I had been linked, or perhaps Gavin Atkins who caught the original mistaken prediction in the first place got the Instalink (which would give this site a trickle-down Instalanche, surely).  I mean I didn’t remember precisely how I said that about the UN. and the Google cache, but it was something like that.  So I followed Insty’s link and…  well, look at it.  It’s a bit by Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That?  Not this site or Gavin’s.

(Now are you starting to why I spelled the title that way?  And are you groaning, too, at the sheer awfulness of that pun?)

So I was a little crestfallen.  But I thought maybe I or Gavin would get attribution and at worst I would get Patrick a third level trickle-down Instalanche so I read the article in detail.  And as I read it, not only did I not see my name or post mentioned anywhere in the article, they also didn’t mention Gavin’s post catching the disappearing act.  Read the Daily Caller story carefully and follow the links.  They link to Gavin’s original post pointing out that they were wrong about the 50 million refugees, but not to his follow-up post discussing the U.N.’s attempt to send that bad prediction down the memory hole, which had a link to my original post.  Indeed if you read the Daily Caller article, you would have no idea that anyone besides Anthony Watts caught the U.N. Stalin-photoing* that embarrassing prediction.

And I won’t go through all the gory details, but it is pretty clear that my discovery came first.  Now, of course, the post itself was slightly “backtimed” so that Patrick’s post polling our readers stayed on top.   But we have ample proof that the post was originally posted by 11:09 a.m. Eastern time, because there were a flurry of emails back and forth when someone accidentally deleted it.  That was after I sent out emails and twitters announcing the post, leading Liberty Chick to tweet:

@AaronWorthing heh – getting a 404 error on that UN story link…

That would be a 404 error on the Patterico story talking about the 404 error at the old UN link.  Which is funny.  Anyway that resulted in a fast (and also funny) email exchange as I retrieved the post from the trash and moved it down to an earlier time.  All that was done by 11:28 a.m. as another email proves.  So by 11:28 Eastern time anyone could have seen it.

Now, the Daily Caller piece first appeared at almost 5 p.m. the next day (Eastern time, I presume, since the Daily Caller is in Washington, D.C.).  And of course there is a substantially identical post at Watts Up With That? That post has no time stamp, but the first comment appears at 6:08.  If his experience at his blog is anything like my experience here at Patterico’s, my guess is that you could easily post something as late as 4 p.m. on a Friday afternoon and not get a single comment until 6 p.m.  So unless I am missing something, it appears that his post came at least four hours after mine.

As for Gavin’s post, it’s listed at 1:20 a.m. in something called UTC (which I guess is one of the Asian time zones) and I am unsure how to translate it into my time.  Still, you can see that at 1:27 p.m. on Friday, I retweeted this tweet from Gavin:

UN tries to cover up failed climate prediction.http://asiancorrespondent.com/?p=52560 #climatechange #un #co2

And that is referring to his post which in turn refers to mine.  And at 1:23 p.m., we see Gavin tweet the following:

@wattsupwiththat Anthony – please have a look at a story about a UN cover up here: http://asiancorrespondent.com/?p=52560

Which doesn’t quite prove that Anthony Watts was borrowing our work without attribution, but it is highly suggestive that he did.

So naturally, when I woke up this morning to see the Daily Caller complaining that Glenn Beck was using other people’s work without attribution I was darkly amused.

I’m not super-mad about the whole thing, just venting a little disappointment and even amusement at the confluence of events.  I guess I am not mad for several reasons.  First, well, I wasn’t even the first to catch it, either.  I was just the first to blog about it (as far as I know).  Regular commenter Carlitos is the first to catch them at it.  As I said in the first place, I never would have looked at that U.N. page again if it weren’t for him tipping me off that it disappeared.

Second, I could see it very easily just being an oversight that he will correct promptly when brought to his attention.

And third, this is much more about the message in my book than the messenger.  The message is that the science is broken.  The message is that the chicken-littles keep making predictions that turn out wrong, but it doesn’t lead them to revise their theories.  And when you call them on it, the original, laughably bad prediction disappears.  The message is that they want to restrict my freedom and trash the economy when they can’t even be sure the problem is real.

Indeed, the defense of this Global Warm-mongering often gets that point about messengers and messages exactly backwards.  When someone comes forth with data rebutting their claims, they attack the messenger with ad hominems, darkly suggesting that the only people who disagree with them are in the pocket of “big oil.”  As though that suddenly makes their arguments or data false.  And they rebut those claims by engaging in another fallacy that elevates the messenger above the message: the appeal to authority, for instance when they cite the so-called scientific consensus.  Every time we have gotten the science wrong in history, there has been a consensus that the wrong thing was right.  There always is, until someone convinces the consensus makers to change.

And truthfully when I heard in other contexts that other academics were borrowing the work of others, I have never considered it quite the serious offense that others apparently do.  Indeed, just the other day at Volokh I blew off concerns in judicial opinions, although that context is radically different.  In that culture, the lawyers I know positively want judges to do this, with or without attribution, because it means that the judge respects you, giving that much more of a chance of influencing his or her opinion in the future.  While I will respect another person’s desire to see their intellectual property respected, I personally don’t get very upset about it when my ox is Gored.

But it’s still nice to get a little recognition, you know?

And that all being said, Watts’ site is still excellent and a daily must-read (imho).  I dabble in in tearing down hysterical climate change claims here, but Watts makes it his mission in life and does a great job with it.

———————————

Also be sure to check out this post over at Volokh explaining why the U.N. likes environmentalism generally.

———————————

* That’s right, I just made up a new term.  Deal with it.

———————————

Update: Some language softened.  Update (II): Clarified that the D.C. post appeared the next day, on Saturday, and not Friday when my post appeared.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

76 Responses to “Watts Up With Taking Content Without Attribution? (Update: Watts Responds and Johnson Shouts “Squirrel!”)”

  1. Clearly we have too much government regulation which clearly caused you to not get credit when credit was due.

    Big government screwed you again. And we don’t need no stinkin copyright laws.

    jharp (f8a6a3)

  2. Not sure Stalin-photoing is the right term here. Stalin photo was just an early version of photoshopping, an attempt to delete part of the original photo and replace it with something else.

    This is memory-hole, in the full sense of Orwell’s term: trying to scrub the original completely out of existence.

    kishnevi (f206ca)

  3. kish

    the purpose of the stalin photo is to make the person disappear from history…

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  4. I’d be very surprised if Watts did that deliberately. I read WUWT regularly, and Watts is very scrupulous with attribution. It’s probably an oversight, and I expect Watts will give
    an explanation and apology.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (c30fbb)

  5. jharp finds it hard to fathom the importance of ethical behavior? Shocka!

    Icy Texan (715d68)

  6. Jharpy eats boogers.

    Where is your compassion?

    JD (306f5d)

  7. Brother

    I’d be willing to accept that it was an oversight.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  8. Its all about the linky love.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  9. “jharp finds it hard to fathom the importance of ethical behavior?”

    Ethical behaviour? Are you joking?

    Have you never been in business?

    God you people are stupid.

    jharp (f8a6a3)

  10. Thanks Man. It halped me a lot.

    neo (be5ac5)

  11. jharp @9

    have you ever been in business?

    The company i [work for] has loans from large companies. i mean household names in the banking industry.

    They include something in those contracts which i term an “economic morality clause.” it says that if they ever decide that we dealt with anyone else in an underhanded fashion, we could lose our loan.

    not to mention that man[y] companies want nothing to do with an unethical company.

    if you work in the business world, you realize that in fact it is “enlightened self-interest” to behave in an ethical fashion.

    [edited after the fact–not enough caffeine. –Aaron]

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  12. Because jharpy has no ethics, and the morals of an alley cat, he assumes the same of everyone.

    How many times has harpy the hate filled nozzle been banned?

    JD (67e974)

  13. jharp, you weren’t missed.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  14. “They include something in those contracts which i term an “economic morality clause.””

    No sh*t sherlock.

    It’s also known as “if you cost us profits” we’ll pull the rug out from underneath you.

    It has nothing to do with anyone being moral. It’s all about the money.

    Dumbass.

    jharp (f8a6a3)

  15. Harpy likes to call people dumb. It is his schtick.

    JD (67e974)

  16. Jharp’s comment tells us more about him than about anyone else. He asks “Have you never been in business?” because he knows that if he were in business he’d have no qualms about ripping everybody off. Which is probably why he’s not in business; he wouldn’t last long if he doesn’t realise that in that world reputation is more valuable than gold. This is very like lefties who imagine that without the government looting people in order to provide for the poor they’d starve; they know that they’d never voluntarily reach into their own pockets to help anyone, so they can’t imagine that anyone else would either.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  17. “Ethical behaviour? Are you joking?”

    Of course, he’s joking. As if lefties knew what ethical behavior was.

    To a lefty ethical behavior means cashing two welfare checks in one month and not getting caught at it.

    Dave Surls (0c1323)

  18. It has nothing to do with anyone being moral. It’s all about the money.

    Of course it’s all about the money; what else would it be about? How does that contradict it being about morality?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  19. jharp

    > It’s also known as “if you cost us profits” we’ll pull the rug out from underneath you.

    First, you’re the dumbass. No, the clause says literally that if you do anything unethical, the loan can be recalled. Profits has nothing to do with it.

    They figure if you screw another person, what is to stop you from screwing them when it suits you? Their estimate of your honor is considered a major element in assessing the risk of the loan. if that estimate changes, they want to be able to get out.

    only a person who has never worked in the real world, but instead in the halls of academia (perhaps playing his flute all day) would think life is ever as simple as “do the unethical thing => get rich.” It is naivete posing as cynicism.

    And i am sure you have a great reply, but I am willing to bet you are a certain stalkerboi using a proxy server and if that turns out to be the case, you will be banned. and even if not, your constant nastiness on this thread will almost certainly put you in moderation. So at best you will be moderated. most likely, if you are a certain stalkerboi i know of, you will be banned and you can go play with your flute somewhere else.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  20. ah, okay, moderation it is.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  21. hey, guys a quick bleg, here.

    I just tried to leave a comment over at Watts’ site, and the comment i left disappeared. Then i left a follow up comment at it said that it was “awaiting moderation.”

    Could one or more of you try to say something over there and see what happens? I want to find out what is going on.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  22. About 10 years ago there was an article in the science section of the NY Times about the development of the reputation economy in the medieval Maghreb. With letters taking months to get from Morocco to Iraq and back, family reputation was everything in business, and a family would do anything to preserve its reputation for making good on any obligation any member took on.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  23. It is also possible that he discovered this himself, the same way Carlitos did. The late Charles Sheffield, at the beginning of his career as a novelist, had the misfortune to twice release a novel based on a previously-unused idea, at the same time that an established writer (first Arthur Clarke, and then Bob Forward) also released a novel using the same idea, leading to suspicion of plagiarism. In both cases the idea had been lying around unused for decades, and the direction they each took the idea was completely different, and both Clarke and Forward were quick to absolve Sheffield of any wrongdoing.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  24. Aaron, “jharp” is the pseudonym of a long time troll that we’ve not seen here in quite a few months. I may be wrong, but I believe it is a unique stalkerboi as opposed to a new pseudonym of the usual ones you’ve enjoyed here in recent months.

    As I mentioned, he wasn’t missed.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  25. milhouse

    its not impossible, but we are in a much more connected world these days and gavin did tweet it to him hours before he published it.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  26. “It’s also known as “if you cost us profits” we’ll pull the rug out from underneath you.”

    jharp – That comment just proves what a moron you are. Why don’t you produce language saying what you claim from one of your important loan agreements, nimrod?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  27. jharp claims to run a major import/export business which allows him to live a life of leisure and play golf most days.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  28. okay now he is unfiltering my comments and responded.

    REPLY: I don’t follow tweets, I only broadcast them from my blog for the convenience of thos who do, so it went into the bit bucket. But I’ll be happy to make a mention that you also found the same thing when you visited the UNEP URL – Anthony

    I could get into why i find that implausible, but i don’t want to get into an unnecessary internet food fight.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  29. “It’s also known as “if you cost us profits” we’ll pull the rug out from underneath you.”

    jharp – That comment just proves what a moron you are. Why don’t you produce language saying what you claim from one of your important loan agreements, nimrod?

    No, actually jharp gets it right; that is the bottom line, and how exactly is that not a statement about ethics? Is a business supposed to care about its clients’/customers’/suppliers’ ethics for some other reason than that doing business with an unethical person carries costs?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  30. milhouse

    you are being too charitable. a company that has violated its economic morality clause hasn’t cost the [bank] a penny in profits. it just becomes an unanticipated risk for moneys already disbursed. Which is nothing like what jharp said.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  31. Aaron, with Mark To Market, increased risk on a loan means a higher carrying cost today.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  32. FYI:
    UTC is the Universal Time Coordinate also known as GMT or ZULU time. Given that you should always be able to figure out the time relative to your timezone.

    eric (e40822)

  33. I’m not seeing the problem. Watts links to the earlier story, as you say, and cites Gavin through out the article before concluding the article with:

    “Thanks to the reality of census numbers, followed by the UN’s handling of this, we can now safely say that the claim of “climate refugees” is total fantasy. Be sure to leave comments on any website that makes this claim, and link to this and the Asian Correspondent website.

    Kudos to Gavin Atkins for asking this simple question after six years of this fantasy being used to push an agenda.”

    I’m not sure what the problem is with citing Gavin multiple times and congratulating him on his work.

    bastiches (c71541)

  34. If anyone was curious, UTC is standard time used for computers.

    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Utc

    Kurt (427ac3)

  35. Aaron, I have no interest in any food fights either and have great respect for you and Anthony. All I can say is that in the many years I’ve followed the AGW debate, Anthony has given me the impression of integrity.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  36. bast

    because he doesn’t attribute catching the scrubbing to gavin or me.

    And in reality was was carlitos a regular commenter here who caught it first.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  37. Watts cites Atkins’ April 11 properly and prominently in both his WUWT website and Daily Caller article. So I guess your issue is that Glen Reynolds didn’t link to Atkins rather than Watts?
    Not seeing that Watts did anything wrong here at all.

    What am I missing?

    J.pickens (2a961a)

  38. j.picken

    ask a simple question. who caught the scrubbing first?

    And who do you think caught it, reading Watts’ site?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  39. jfap has trolled at Riehl World, Gateway Pundit, and several other conservative blogs. It always resorts to calling others “stupid”, or some such insult. It has claimed to be a successful businessman, intelligent, and other boasts which contradict anything it comments about.

    kfap may actually be a more likeable troll, and that’s quite a high hurdle to clear.

    jfap, you’re forgetting a rule regarding drugs. Don’t get high on your own supply. BTW, I doubt you could run a sucessful lemonade stand.

    ∅ (e7577d)

  40. Aaron, my reading of Watts’ article shows Atkins as the originator of the find. Are you angry that Atkins didn’t find this first, but it was you instead?

    I’m still not getting it.

    J.pickens (2a961a)

  41. Jharpy is a nozzle of douche, to be sure, but he is not the midget racist hilljack skin flute playin nozzle of douche.

    JD (306f5d)

  42. Hello Aaron,

    After seeing your comment this AM on WUWT I sent you an email also, but you and Gavin seem to live in the Tweet world, I don’t. I only use it to broadcast updates of news posts, I never follow any Tweets or use it for any comments of my own. If you’ll look at all my Tweets from WUWT you’ll see that there’s no personal comments from me, just notifications of posts.

    So, I never saw the Tweet from Gavin you cite above until I read it in your blog above.

    But, seeing that mentioned above, I’m more than happy to add your name and a link to the story.

    I took a direct path using my own tools, and found different things like the hi-res version of the map which I saved. The hi-res map is important because it has a number of false claims on it also.

    You write: “its not impossible, but we are in a much more connected world these days and gavin did tweet it to him hours before he published it.”

    You can be assured that had I seen that Tweet, you would be the highlight of the story.

    As for the comment you left at WUWT that went into the SPAM filter, our moderator DBS fished it out and brought it to my attention. Happens several times a day and since we are on wordpress.com free hosting I can’t manage the spam filter rules.

    Best regards, Anthony

    Anthony Watts (c0ebeb)

  43. “jharp claims to run a major import/export business”

    Never have made such a claim. You have me confused with Art Vandelay.

    I am in the trading business. I have never imported or exported anything.

    jharp (f8a6a3)

  44. You bring up some excellent points, Aaron. See, now, I think I saw that story before you did at one of the climate aggregation sites, perhaps Tom Nelsons. Info is out there, and we don’t always find it at the true first to mention it.

    Of course, I never got around to blogging it, saw something wackier from the climate alarmists, but, still, Beck should have mentioned me!

    William Teach (7df814)

  45. I read the article by Anthony at the Daily Caller. The article was not about who was the first to discover the memory hole. It was about the memory hole, not who found it first. All Anthony said was that a question in an article got him to thinking about the subject, and he goes on to expound on those ideas.

    If I were reading the article, the question of who caught the scrubbing first would not have occurred to me. All I want to know is if the scrubbing did or didn’t occur. If it did, what does it mean?

    I await Anthony’s remarks on the matter before coming to any conclusions. His readers will have a lot to say as well, and let me tell you, most of them are very sharp people. I’ve been an avid reader of his blog and I can’t imagine him intentionally slighting anyone. Unless of course it is Michael Mann, Phil Jones and the team, and even then with lots of attribution.

    And now I await further light and knowledge :)

    Jeff Mitchell (481f2a)

  46. Either way, Watts, your work is appreciated and I’m glad Aaron is being gracious. I think Aaron was more interested in showing that attribution is a tricky deal sometimes.

    I also think the evidence against Beck is somewhat stronger than in this case, what with videos having their watermark removed and origin unsaid. There’s absolutely no reason to do that.

    Milhouse is right, of course, that one of the underlying reasons to only do business with ethical people is because you make more money that way in the long run. Is that the only reason? I don’t think so, but it might as well be.

    This jharp guy, who assumes the worst about people more powerful than he is, probably uses that to forgive unethical ‘by any means necessary’ behavior on his political side. Without much evidence, he probably assumes Palin is paid off by Koch (or whatever the theory of the day is) while ignoring real corruption.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  47. Jeff M – Anthony’s words preceded yours by 21 minutes.

    JD (72168b)

  48. THANK YOU for posting this! Your homepage rocks!!!

    Steve
    Common Cents
    http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

    Steve (88e6e2)

  49. Spam comments ROCK!!!!!!!!?!!?!?

    JD (72168b)

  50. “Without much evidence, he probably assumes Palin is paid off by Koch (or whatever the theory of the day is) while ignoring real corruption.”

    Of course Plain is paid off. She made 10 million plus last year and has the IQ of a turnip.

    And she’s also a private citizen and whom ever wants to pay her is their business.

    I could not care less.

    jharp (f8a6a3)

  51. The return of Harpo to Patterico’s brings back visions of many a painfull interaction with him at Riehl World View years back.
    I recall him flinging his Monkey Poo one too many times here at Patterico’s and being banished a couple of years back. Dan would always just let him rant and refused to ban him for the longest time. I think he finally got sick of his “yea well your stupid” posts!!
    He would always claim to sell imported Chinese crap and get drunk and golf daily!! I recall a couple of real entertaining “I’m drunk so you can go screw yourself” posts. He was ALWAYS the first to post and never linked ANYTHING!! He could hijack a thread with dozens of posts and never say one word that made his point!!
    Just another angry, lowlife, troll douchebag!!
    Time to crawl back under your rock Harpo!!

    SacTownMan (0a0272)

  52. Hey there SacTown

    And you’re the guy sucking off the government teat for a paycheck and health insurance.

    It’s been awhile. I hope you are well.

    jharp (f8a6a3)

  53. Aaron,

    In the United States to calculate time from UTC, you subtract 5 hours for the east coast and subtract 8 for the left coast where I live. Unless it’s daylight savings time (DLT), then you add another hour, but only if that state supports DLT (Arizona doesn’t). So in the case of 1:20 AM – (5 + 1) = 9:20 PM the previous day.

    DLT gets tricky when dealing with other countries. Some do and don’t support DLT, some start and end at different times of the year and not all increment by an hour.

    Tanny O'Haley (12193c)

  54. Gee and here I was am posting about civility. Think I’ll switch to umm “Boobies”.

    Keeyrist, it’s (you know, the C word) gotta’ start somewhere. Damn sure ain’t gonna’ start with the Left, with elections around the corner

    Anyone beat a pair of 36 DDD’S?

    JP (c4988c)

  55. He mostly haunts PJM threads, and frankly he’s Otto,
    from ‘Wanda’, not worth the trouble, but then neither is Yelverton’s Sybillity or kmart,

    narciso (8a8b93)

  56. btw, over at the twitter, Johnson and I am having a smackdown.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  57. On the possibility that other folks developed this independently:

    – tweeting something to someone doesn’t seem to me the same as “I talked to him about it” or even “I asked him later if he saw my post and he said yes, but didn’t bother to link to me.” There’s no confirmation that someone saw your tweet.

    – plagiarism can be of ideas (which this seems to be, or at least an accusation of such), or of literal words — you don’t claim that your post’s words were copied verbatim.

    You’re accusing bad faith and hypocrisy with this post. These require knowledge of the others’ knowledge, sort of like “Bush lied about wmds” rather than “Bush didn’t know about wmds”.

    I don’t think Johnson has much to do with this one way or another. You accused Watts of stealing your stuff. He says “nope, found it myself and didn’t see your tweets.”

    You can now say “you’re lying” or do an Emily Litella and say “never mind”, which really seems appropriate at this point.

    twestberg (82f18e)

  58. Chuckles johnson?

    JD (109425)

  59. Che Guevara was an anti-fascist?

    News to me he shared the same hatred of captialism as them.

    [Accidental double posting fixed. –Aaron]

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  60. JD

    yep.

    Twest

    > You can now say “you’re lying” or do an Emily Litella and say “never mind”, which really seems appropriate at this point.

    I am going to leave it where I left it.

    as for Johnson, no, his sniping is irrelevant to Watts and really anything. but longtime readers know we have a bit of a feud going, probably honestly dating to when the @$$ banned me for mild criticism.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  61. Yes and Chuckles claims to be anti-fascist but yet if KKKilgore trout called for obama to throw gays and dissidents into jail he’d tolerate it.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  62. You accused Watts of stealing your stuff. He says “nope, found it myself and didn’t see your tweets.”

    Is that true? Can you quote the accusation? I didn’t see it. I saw Aaron noting something that is obviously unusually coincidental timing. He makes no accusation beyond noting the obvious implication.

    In fact, Aaron carefully avoids making this accusation, so why force him to defend something he tried not to do? Draw your own conclusions from the facts, which are not in dispute beyond this twitter thing.

    And Charles Johnson remains a real POS.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  63. And Charles Johnson remains a real POS

    Yeah he reminds me of the anti-jew BNP leftys.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  64. Thanks Aaron for taking away that second post.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  65. Aaron: I need the traffic and the hits. That’s why I am letting you thrash me and am once again trying to get Patterico fired from his job

    Charles Johnson (4379d6)

  66. I hope Charles Johnson chokes on his twinkie.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  67. I hope Charles Johnson chokes on Andrew Sullivan’s twinkie.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  68. Eeeeeeeeeeeeew and by the way I just went and double posted again so feel free to delete the second post.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  69. Speaking of Charles Johnson:

    Charles’s present use of the term “teabagger” is every bit as offensive and demeaning as his previous use of the phrase “Saint Pancake”, if not more.

    Charles, your character is showing. It’s not pretty.

    Chuck Roast (663ce8)

  70. “Them damn Chinee furriners — now they’re stealin’ our time! What’s next, our womenfolk?”

    That’s how Charles Johnson paraphrases this post?

    That is absolutely hilarious. Coming from someone more credible, it would be disgustingly nasty, but that goes without saying with Johnson.

    he (Worthing) still feels completely qualified to dismiss the conclusions of the entire world’s climate scientists.

    Um, Charles, you idiot, UNEP deleted this study. they owned it, and they sent it down the memory hole. How does that show Aaron is dismissing the ‘entire world’s’ climate scientists? What an hysterical and ridiculous claim. So anyone who asks for the scientific method to be followed has to suffer with this stupid argument from authority? And no reason to leave aside the fact that there’s plenty of scientists who don’t agree with Charles Johnson… and he dismisses them! His post is far more dismissive of contrary POVs than Aaron’s. Why can’t we analyze why a prediction failed, Charles?

    Oh, because we’re teabaggers.

    His blog is terrible. Entire posts devoted to nothing but making fun of Sharon Angle singing the national anthem. It used to be so interesting. What in the hell happened to this guy?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  71. I mean I had better memorize every aspect of time zones to make sure I’m not racist too, eh Charles Johnson?

    I can imagine playing trivial pursuit with this guy. If you don’t know the year Liz Minelli last appeared on SNL, he burns your house down for being a Nazi.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  72. Just saw this post by Charles:

    9 Charles Mon, Apr 18, 2011 11:59:18am

    Worthing won’t be able to resist responding with a blast of hatred. Should be a hoot.

    So, basically he admits to being nothing more than an overgrown 4chan troll. Does he not realize he’s 60, not 16? I think maybe his ballcap is on too tight.

    Anonymous (e18c19)

  73. Worthing won’t be able to resist with a blast of hatred.

    What, did he just say that with a straight face?

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  74. And not only that he considers EDL fascist because of their opposition to islamofascism.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  75. Anonymous, I think it’s clear LGF wanted to instigate a fight to get more attention, and thus more ad impressions. LGF used to be a prominent blog, but it’s not doing well anymore, and so he needs stunts.

    I find it odd that he couldn’t come up with a more interesting attack than ‘you are racist because you didn’t know this trivia about time zones’. Sure, he’s got a point that you can google information, but Aaron was completely open about his ignorance (and why shouldn’t he be?). Charles doesn’t understand why someone would admit to being less than perfect, but that’s why his blog is a failure.

    Charles should have come up with a substantive post, disagreeing with Aaron on some kind of thoughtful issue. He’d get more ad impressions that way (but then he would no longer be Charles Johnson). This ‘correction’ that nothing relied on was easily added to the post, and leaves Johnson calling Aaron a racist for no reason. It’s just wildly too aggressive and weird.

    We should be prepared for LGF mobies pretending to be one of us, and dropping little racial slurs.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  76. The home page is Grate carry it on so it can help people like us [object TextRange]

    Neosys (96889e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5358 secs.