Patterico's Pontifications

6/14/2011

In Which I Come Out as a Lesbian Blogger…

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 10:22 am



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

No, not really. The title is a joke.  But for a fleeting moment I just felt trendy.  You might have heard in the last few days where one blogger who pretended to be a lesbian in Syria turned out to be a man and, well… how about I let Mark Steyn unravel this?

We’re one lesbian away from a bona fide Fleet Street “trend”. Further to yesterday’s post, a lesbian blogger who helped unmask the Syrian lesbian blogger as a middle-aged American male has herself been revealed to be a middle-aged American male:

In an apology to its readers, one of the other owners, Linda Carbonell, wrote: “The past three days have been devastating for all of us on LezGetReal. ‘Paula Brooks’ has been a part of our lives for three years now.”

Mr Graber told the Associated Press news agency he set up LezGetReal to advance the gay and lesbian cause. He said he felt he would not be taken seriously as a straight man.

Yeah, tell me about it.

That is right, the person who unmasked the faux Syrian lesbian blogger is “herself” a faux American lesbian blogger, which really kind of reinforces the adage that it takes one to know one.  Now admittedly I never even heard of the two bloggers at issue so it is hard to care except for the generalized sense of amusement I feel regarding this story, but there is a deeper point, here: it’s hard to know who you are talking to online.

Which means that even if Congressman Weiner didn’t intentionally contact any underage girls for sexting (and I suspect Patrick is still developing evidence on that front), this is still unacceptable:

It is unacceptable because if it turns out that we can definitively say he didn’t sext an underage girl (and I would be happy if that was the case), it will be purely a matter of luck.  It is, as us lawyers call it, reckless disregard of his moral (and legal) duties.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

130 Responses to “In Which I Come Out as a Lesbian Blogger…”

  1. reckless disregard of his moral… duties

    What are the moral duties of a Congressman, and in what statute or document are they spelled out?

    Kman (0ca272)

  2. Hush, kmart. Banned means banned. Creepy.

    JD (976b6a)

  3. Kman

    you yourself said at your blog that it would be wrong if he was doing this with children. so doesn’t he have a duty to avoid that?

    of course you said that and then quoted that excreble greenwald piece.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  4. *Insular bubble means insular bubble.

    ftfy

    Kman (0ca272)

  5. you yourself said at your blog that it would be wrong if he was doing this with children. so doesn’t he have a duty to avoid that?

    It would be wrong if he was intentionally doing this with children, but no — I don’t think he has a duty as a congressman to avoid that.

    Kman (0ca272)

  6. kman

    Oh, so you you think its perfectly fine to be sexting people without knowing their ages.

    if not as a congressman, how about as a human being?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  7. maybe if all the genuine lesbians got tattoos?

    happyfeet said helpfully (a55ba0)

  8. What are the moral duties of a Congressman, and in what statute or document are they spelled out?

    Comment by Kman —

    Moral != statutory.

    This is pathetic. It’s OK to expect men to honor their word. Weiner lied and lied and lied in a way that hurt people who were telling the truth. The little guy who doesn’t have the NYT to shill for him. He lied to his wife. He lied to America. And he’s a degenerate weirdo. We have every right to expect our leaders to be decent people.

    Nancy Pelosi made a big deal out of draining the swamp, and 100% of that was based on Rep Foley. Were you then demanding she specify what statute justifies her point?

    Ugh. Kman would defend Weiner. Both are creepy weirdos on the internet.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  9. “I don’t think he has a duty as a congressman to avoid that.”

    Kman – Congressmen get exemptions? Show me that rule, please.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  10. “maybe if all the genuine lesbians got tattoos?”

    Mr. Feets – And piercings. Don’t forget about the multiple piercings.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  11. Of course Kman defends Weiner; they both play creepy stalker on the internets.

    Have Blue (dbbcd4)

  12. Oh, so you you think its perfectly fine to be sexting people without knowing their ages.

    I don’t think you can EVER know their ages. It’s the Internet. People lie. If there was something obvious and in plain sight which inherently indicated childrenhood, like a picture of a five year old girl, that’s one thing.

    But you are talking about a duty to investigate. No, I don’t think such a “duty” exists as a congressman or as a person. It would be PRUDENT to investigate (for reasons which should be abundantly clear to anyone by now), but an actual DUTY? No.

    Kman (0ca272)

  13. And dalyrocks – believe it or not, but I had not updated the post and so did not see your 10:37 before my 10:42.

    Have Blue (dbbcd4)

  14. I guess that means sexting random strangers on the internet is a really stupid thing to do then.
    Sort of like high tech Russian roulette with your reputation and liberty at stake rather than your frontal lobe.

    Have Blue (dbbcd4)

  15. Kman

    > I don’t think you can EVER know their ages. It’s the Internet. People lie.

    Agreed, and for some reason the inherent recklessness in this situation is an excuse, not a reason to abstain in your mind. Seriously, it would be better if he just had an affair like a normal person.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  16. I guess that means sexting random strangers on the internet is a really stupid thing to do then.

    That’s where the bad judgement thing comes in.
    You want a guy this stupid in Congress?

    MayBee (081489)

  17. Seriously, it would be better if he just had an affair like a normal person.

    Yeah, but then you probably wouldn’t get pictures and turn it into 50+ posts.

    Kman (0ca272)

  18. Kman tries to make it our fault that Weiner is a creepy little perv.

    Pathetic.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  19. Actually, a lot of people instantly realized ‘ethel’ was a minor because it’s often damn easy to learn the age of someone on the internet. Weiner knew she was a minor, and anyone claiming otherwise is the lowest form of democrat shill slimeball.

    He read about her ‘I’m gonna be the president’ combined with ‘I’m in marching band’ bio. He knew.

    Kman like that deny deny deny routine Clinton fell on his ass trying. Now we have to absolutely prove something that we all know because it was easy to see?

    Nope.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  20. Yeah, but then you probably wouldn’t get pictures and turn it into 50+ posts.

    Comment by Kman

    wwaaaaahhhh Kman is upset that Aaron’s blogging isn’t what Kman wants it to be. Waaaaaaaahhhhh

    Dustin (c16eca)

  21. Weiner knew she was a minor, and anyone claiming otherwise is the lowest form of democrat shill slimeball.

    Prove that he KNEW it, Dustin.

    Kman (0ca272)

  22. Kman

    > Yeah, but then you probably wouldn’t get pictures and turn it into 50+ posts.

    yes, and if we didn’t have pictures he would still be denying it. and he wouldn’t have admitted to private messages with that teenage girl, which even if innocent, still infuriated her parents.

    and we don’t know it was innocent.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  23. but shock of shock that Kman basically wants to say a person just shouldn’t care who they are sexting. its wrong to sext a minor, but you can’t expect anyone to avoid doing so. Which means that the wrong thing is guaranteed to happen.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  24. Aaron, if we didn’t have pictures, Kman would be denying it. Hell, he would be insisting Breitbart hacked him and photoshoped it. But having pictures is now a black mark on those who told the truth? Funny how every single fact happens to support Kman’s paranoia.

    Weiner is a national embarrassment. He’s shamed our country. What he did, sending that nastiness around the internet, was far more reckless than a discrete affair, which too would be shameful conduct, but at least it wouldn’t look quite so disgusting.

    If Weiner were a Republican, Kman would be screaming about how he needs to resign.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  25. Kman, has the best ‘look squirrel’ going round, it’s
    a very Python worthy subject though.

    ian cormac (72470d)

  26. AW – could you link to kmart’s douchebaggery at its site, so we can compare/contrast? Or maybe kmart would provide the link.

    JD (b98cae)

  27. reminds me of this cartoon
    http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.jpg

    PeterK (f11657)

  28. Prove that he KNEW it, Dustin.

    Comment by Kman —

    That she was in high school? You mean you want me to link something with a minor’s name on it? No.

    Are you crazy? Are you really willing to destroy kids to shill for democrats?

    Yes, it’s been proven Weiner knew it. Only idiots and liars pretend otherwise. This is simply a fact. He read a bio and quoted it, and that bio makes it perfectly clear she’s in high school marching band. You’re wrong, as usual, and you want me to prove something that would require talking about the minor specifically.

    How messed up.

    How come Kman gets to demand the outting of Ethel, and we can’t know who Kman is? At what point does his shilling become newsworthy enough to associate with his blog’s url?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  29. AW – could you link to kmart’s douchebaggery at its site, so we can compare/contrast? Or maybe kmart would provide the link.

    Comment by JD —

    I think it’s justified. We should see what this amazing Weiner shill is saying at his blog.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  30. Just so kmart can avoid being the host of an insular bubble, and all that.

    JD (29e1cd)

  31. There is little more hilarious that Kman asserting that people lie on the internet about their identity and then linking to a Gleen Ellersberg piece on his blog.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  32. As far as Ethel goes – Weiner knew she was a member of a high school class that came to the capital. He knew that when he followed her the first time, and he certainly knew it when he followed her the second time.

    This comment does not seem to be going through.

    Have Blue (dbbcd4)

  33. What are the moral duties of a Congressman, and in what statute or document are they spelled out?

    Comment by Kman — 6/14/2011 @ 10:26 am

    I prefer holding him to his moral duties as a man, as others said above, but if you’d like it in writing:

    House ethics rules state that members should conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”

    no one you know (325a59)

  34. Weiner is a national embarrassment. He’s shamed our country.

    Oh, Dustin. Chill out. He shamed himself… that’s all. Do you think this adversely affects our moral standing in the world? For realz?

    If Weiner were a Republican, Kman would be screaming about how he needs to resign.

    Wrong. Not for this. I never thought Representative Chris Lee should have resigned (although I was amused and pleased that he did).

    Kman (0ca272)

  35. Kman

    > Prove that he KNEW it, Dustin.

    Have you read Patrick’s post? She is talking endlessly about being in his school. he was following her, and it was all over her feed. and if you look at her picture, you certainly wonder, “is she of age?” or are you going to accept the defense of every pervert caught with a little girl “she looked 18?”

    sheesh.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  36. Have you read Patrick’s post?

    Why would he read something? He already knows we’re wrong, and reading something might show we’re not, so he can’t read it, because he knows we’re wrong.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  37. and no i am not going to link to his blog. but he clearly said that if weiner was sexting with a minor he ought to go.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  38. NOYK just completely destroyed Kman’s argument.

    Let’s see if Kman apologizes.

    /holding breath

    Dustin (c16eca)

  39. and no i am not going to link to his blog.

    You’re a better man than me.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  40. For the win.

    Kman couldn’t have possibly read Patrick’s post if he thinks that Weiner wouldn’t have suspected high school girls are under 18. Silly man.

    carlitos (25ee92)

  41. Oops – this was ‘for the win’ – Gleen reference.

    There is little more hilarious that Kman asserting that people lie on the internet about their identity and then linking to a Gleen Ellersberg piece on his blog.

    Comment by SPQR — 6/14/2011 @ 11:00 am

    carlitos (25ee92)

  42. actually, let me amend that. i was innaccurate on two points maybe a mental block because it was so unbelievable hypocritical.

    first, kman did not [doubt] weiner was sexting underage girls. he said he “apparently” was.

    Second, he also felt that even though he was “apparently” sexting underage girls, that he shouldn’t resign. i apologize for getting it wrong.

    [edited after the fact to remove a brain f-rt. –Aaron]

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  43. ==In Which I Come Out as a Lesbian Blogger…==

    Oh goody! There’s a new Winnie the Pooh book out?

    elissa (5136ab)

  44. K-Pax morality: “It’s all fun & games until someone breaks a law.” All of a sudden he’s a member of the Ayn Rand Institute [huge eye roll].

    Icy Texan (158370)

  45. It was actually kinda fun seeing Kman get intellectually annihilated. It gets old seeing it 500 times in a row, though.

    Perhaps we could keep it in a box, and let it out once a week or so?

    I used to think Kman was just too easily beaten to be real. He often makes claims that are provably wrong very quickly, such as his claims about Ethel’s age or his claims that the House doesn’t have rules about behavior.

    He’ll even admit he didn’t bother reading stuff, and his demeanor is always so hostile and unjustified. All caps PROVE HE KNEW IT!!!! hysteria?

    So for a while, I wondered if Kman was just Aaron’s sense of humor. But no one is dedicated enough to keep that routine going for this long with this intensity.

    Anyway, no wonder Kman hides his blog from this ‘echo chamber’. He knows he would be absolutely humiliated if he were associated with his own words.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  46. but he clearly said that if weiner was sexting with a minor he ought to go

    I didn’t, but that’s beside the point.

    Kman (0ca272)

  47. Ok. Thanks for the correction.

    Kman (0ca272)

  48. he also felt that even though he was “apparently” sexting underage girls, that he shouldn’t resign.

    You promise this is a real person? Really?

    REALLY?

    Can you see if his family knows he’s completely nuts?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  49. kman

    see comment 42. you are right, i misrepresented your position.

    probably because i can’t believe what an immoral shmuck you must be.

    seriously, you believed the man broke the law and sexted a child but you didn’t think he should go?

    what happened to your belief that whatever two CONSENTING ADULTS DO is none of our business. you always endorsed the idea that the children should be left alone by pervy adults. you never came out in favor of pedophilia before.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  50. Kman couldn’t have possibly read Patrick’s post if he thinks that Weiner wouldn’t have suspected high school girls are under 18

    Nothing in Patrick’s post indicated to me that Weiner read the girls’ other tweets as closely as Patrick did.

    The truth is, we don’t know what Weiner knew about these other girls. We only know what he might have known.

    Kman (0ca272)

  51. Ok. Thanks for the correction.

    Comment by Kman

    This is so unintentionally hilarious.

    It’s like OJ calling into a show to demand they note he admitted killing Nicole in his book, and then thanking them when they do so.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  52. Kman – How many people have you sent pictures of your junk to and how many of them were knowingly or unknowingly minors?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  53. This is the most enjoyable Kman thread I’ve ever seen.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  54. seriously, you believed the man broke the law and sexted a child but you didn’t think he should go?

    I said he apparently sexted a minor. That’s doesn’t mean I think Weiner broke the law. Ever heard of mens rea? They cover that at all in your law school?

    Kman (0ca272)

  55. I said he apparently sexted a minor. That’s doesn’t mean I think Weiner broke the law. Ever heard of mens rea?

    They covered strict liability in my high school. What law school did you go to, anyway?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  56. Cooley Law Schooley

    I don’t think I’ve laughed this much at any SNL skit in the last 20 years.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  57. Kman apparently has a bit of sand in his vagina.

    Walt (6d7c8f)

  58. Kman

    > Nothing in Patrick’s post indicated to me that Weiner read the girls’ other tweets as closely as Patrick did.

    Well, he was so interested in her every word that he followed her, even after being scared off.

    > I said he apparently sexted a minor. That’s doesn’t mean I think Weiner broke the law.

    apparently you don’t know what apparently means.

    heh.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  59. Dustin: Sexting a minor isn’t a strict liability crime… which was my point.

    Kman (0ca272)

  60. apparently you don’t know what apparently means.

    Don’t they cover abusing the English language at Yale or wherever?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  61. Yeah but if you are a republican sexting 21 year olds than you committed a crime punishable by the guillotine.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  62. I think that kmart quoting Teh Gleens about people lying about their identity is farking hysterical. Sadly, he is too much of a coward to share, and too much of a leftist shill to do anything but defened Weiner. Color me shocked.

    JD (29e1cd)

  63. Well, he was so interested in her every word that he followed her, even after being scared off.

    Maybe you are not familiar with Twitter that much. “Following” someone is a matter of pressing a single button. It does not mean you necessarily read that person’s “every word”. It just means that their tweets — and those of the dozens or hundreds of others that you “follow” — get fed to you.

    Kman (0ca272)

  64. Kman, how about you cite the relevant statutes, since you’re making the assertion?

    Show me the DE Criminal Code’s sections on sending obscenities to a minor, sending them Alvin Greene style (to people who didn’t expect or want them), solicitation of sexual conduct(such as talking about masturbation), or corruption of minors. Or God forbid, statutory rape of the girl conveniently located off I-95 between Weiner’s home and his work. Ginger Lee did mention Weiner sleeping with his twitter groupies.

    Perhaps you’re as accurate to claim there is no strict liability as you’ve been on other things, that is to say, not very accurate at all.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  65. Kman

    and he wanted that feed to happen. even after people were accusing him of being a perv. even while sexting with other women, knowing full well that if his online activities ever became known, it would cast suspicion on his relationship with that girl.

    its like patrick said. its like he can’t help himself.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  66. Isn’t it pathetic that if Mark Foley were a new york congressman sexting underage girls the sadsack left would demand he be hanged.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  67. Maybe you are not familiar with Twitter that much. “

    Yeah, we’ve heard this over and over again from lefties trying to prove breitbart and pals hacked and pranked this.

    Yet we know Weiner read her bio, since he talked specifically about it. So your ‘correction’ is meaningless. Sure, we can’t prove by video that Weiner eyeballed every single word. So what? He only followed 91 people.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  68. And how can I forget the child pornography aspect?

    Isn’t ‘but I thought she was 18’ the catchphrase of strict liability?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  69. And of course I know these crimes are not known at this point. Of course.

    But Kman is the one making the assertion, and he can’t back that up. He assumes a lot, and he only does so as a hack. But I’m sure he will pretend he did not.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  70. Wow, Kman used wikipedia to look up “mens rea”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  71. I think that kmart quoting Teh Gleens about people lying about their identity is farking hysterical.

    Kman strikes me as a person trying very hard to be just like Ellison Greenwald. Same douchey superiority ‘your law school didn’t teach you that! hahahaha!’ Same douchey lack of fairness towards those you disagree with. Same douchey attempt to say stupid arguments from a veil of anonymity/sockpuppetry. After all, Kman’s blog reportedly contradicts his comments here.

    And yeah, it’s really funny that anyone would mention Greenwald about dishonesty about one’s ID. This thread is easily the funniest one I’ve ever seen at this blog.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  72. Dustin:

    Perhaps you’re as accurate to claim there is no strict liability

    I am, and if you don’t believe me, I couldn’t care less. On the other hand, if you want to pay me $400 per hour, I’ll do your legal research for you.

    Of course, if I was wrong about strict liability, don’t you think one of the other lawyers would jump in at some point?

    AW:

    and he wanted that feed to happen.

    “Wanting that feed to happen” doesn’t mean that he read every single word of that girls’ feed (I “friend” people on Facebook; it doesn’t mean I care about their Farmville exploits).

    Anyway, being a “perv” in some people’s eyes shouldn’t automatically disqualify someone from holding office. History is full of “pervs” (Ben Fraknlin, I’m looking at you). Let his constituents decide. That’s what we have elections for.

    Kman (0ca272)

  73. Kman and Nishi heart Weiner’s weiner! Shocka!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  74. Kman, Ben Franklin is creeped out that you are looking at him.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  75. I am, and if you don’t believe me, I couldn’t care less. On the other hand, if you want to pay me $400 per hour, I’ll do your legal research for you.

    Yes yes yes, you are rich and elite and superior. Whatever.

    You made the claim.

    You back it up.

    It’s damn clear that there are potential ends to the investigation that do not require a demonstration of mens rea. This is exactly the sort of crime that leads that way all the time.

    You claimed that was absolutely wrong, and now you admit you do not even know what the statute says and refuse to look it up unless I pay you $400.

    That is hilarious. You are really outdoing yourself this time. Honestly, could you be any worse of a jackass?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  76. So now it’s “There’s no proof that Weiner ever read the 17-year-old’s tweets”?

    Other than the slightly important fact that Weiner stepped up to a microphone the other day and admitted exactly that.

    *sigh* Another caiman fail.

    Icy Texan (158370)

  77. Kman – You have already stipulated that Weiner’s conduct is wrong.

    Evidence has been presented that he violated Congressional rules of conduct.

    You believe he should not resign but have offered no suggestions for punishment. Why not?

    How about appearing naked or wearing only a banana hammock in front of his colleagues for censure?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  78. *sigh* Another caiman fail.

    Comment by Icy Texan

    For some reason, it’s just so funny in this case. Deny deny deny. Even stuff already admitted or proven. He’ll insist on being a legal expert, and if you ask him for… a law, he runs away.

    He’s nothing but a 100% balls to the wall hack. Weiner could be caught in bed with a pre schooler and Kman would claim Weiner is his own country and not subject to US jurisdiction.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  79. Other than the slightly important fact that Weiner stepped up to a microphone the other day and admitted exactly that.

    Did he admit to knowing that they were 17 year olds’ tweets when he read them?

    Kman (0ca272)

  80. Kman

    > “Wanting that feed to happen” doesn’t mean that he read every single word

    Put the question to a jury and they will say he knew she was in high school.

    > Anyway, being a “perv” in some people’s eyes shouldn’t automatically disqualify someone from holding office

    Of course you feel that way. you want to keep hope alive that you might serve in higher office.

    > Let his constituents decide. That’s what we have elections for.

    Except he didn’t. he hid that side from them, potentially opening himself to blackmail. what if instead of breitbart, a mafioso got those pictures? what would he have done to keep those pics out of the public eye.

    but let’s not gloss over this point. you say let the constituents decide, but by lying to them and his wife, he denied them their most recent opportunity TO decide. so even by your formulation, he is wrong–elected under false pretenses.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  81. Dude if Weiner were a repub he’d be shown the door from the beginning.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  82. Put the question to a jury and they will say he knew she was in high school.

    Hey, I’ll say it, too, if someone can give me some evidence.

    you say let the constituents decide, but by lying to them…., he denied them their most recent opportunity TO decide.

    To decide what? Whether to re-elect him? They’ll get to decide in the next election. Of course, it’s YOU who don’t want the constituents to decide. You want him ousted now.

    Kman (0ca272)

  83. Still waiting for Kman to back up his assertion. It would be easy to prove, especially for someone as elite as Kman claims to be.

    He can’t though. I doubt he has the skills.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  84. Kman is withholding his opinion of OJ’s guilt until he sees some evidence too.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  85. Kfax strikes again:
    being a “perv” in some people’s eyes shouldn’t automatically disqualify someone from holding office

    — Two things about the above statement:
    1) The inclusion of “some people’s eyes” indicates that Kman doesn’t see ANYTHING morally wrong with Weiner’s behavior.
    2) The phrase “shouldn’t automatically disqualify” shows a profound disregard for ANY standard of morality being applied to our elected officials; IOW, even IF he agreed that Weiner is a perv, his conclusion is still “So What?”

    Icy Texan (158370)

  86. How about appearing naked or wearing only a banana hammock in front of his colleagues for censure?

    Comment by daleyrocks — 6/14/2011 @ 11:56 am

    OK, I laughed. Maybe that’d actually work as a deterrent for some of these guys. For once.

    no one you know (325a59)

  87. Yes, Icy Texan, that’s remarkable. Kman is a degenerate, isn’t he? I didn’t think he was over his drag queen thing… I just thought that helped explain his biases. But this… this is just Kman being a degenerate. He thinks Weiner’s behavior is just scarequote “perv” in some people’s eyes. People who aren’t as elite and libertine as Kman (who honestly sounds like a loser).

    His claim that there is no rule, and then his dismissal of the rule when shown to him, shows he’s just not capable of reading or understanding even simple rules. How could this guy be an effective lawyer? I don’t really know or care. I’m sure there are many lawyers like him.

    If I were a potential client, I’d want to know that Kman read those house rules, saw Weiner’s behavior, and asserted there was no violation. That’s important, just in case you want him to evaluate your practices and he tells you they are legal.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  88. I’m still fascinated by the claim that Kman has a blog that he will not share with people. Nor have I ever read him confirm or deny this. If he doesn’t have a blog, coolio. But if he does, then he should be held accountable in terms of consistency for his bizarre “argument room from Monty Python” style here.

    Which leads me to the conclusion that he has written lots of stuff that would embarrass the heck out of himself, if folks got to read it over.

    If he is going to play word games here, maybe he should own his statements on his own blog?

    Simon Jester (7ee517)

  89. By a show of hands, who thinks kmart ever got $4000 an hour for practicing law from anyone? If so, should they be allowed to sue for material misrepresentation and fraud? Or, were they just too stupid to keep their money?

    Even OBarcky thinks kmart is a drooling imbecile.

    JD (d48c3b)

  90. Kman

    > Hey, I’ll say it, too, if someone can give me some evidence.

    Your hyperbole gives you away. We presented “some evidence.” The only question is whether it is sufficient to prove it. I say yes.

    > To decide what? Whether to re-elect him? They’ll get to decide in the next election.

    That’s completely hypocritical. You said that his constituents should decide if they want a perv as a representative. But he denied them that opportunity. In 2010, he gets marred to this woman, promises to be faithful to her, makes everyone think he has a normal sex life. He misled his constituents and denied them the opportunity to decide whether to re-elect a perv. Indeed he tried to continue to deny his constituents the opportunity by lying and saying he was hacked, only fessing up when he had no other choice.

    If you really think this is a matter for the voters, then you should be angry that he didn’t inform them he was a perv all along. You say the people should decide but you have no problem with him having denied the people the chance to make that decision in 2010.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  91. If his firm is charging $400 an hour for his work, then his clients are sophisticated enough to interview the firm to ensure they don’t employ morons who would say Weiner’s behavior don’t run afoul of House rules NOYK linked.

    I’d hope.

    Though I do worry that someone in need of legal assistance would rely on Kman to verify they are following the rules, and Kman behaves as he does here, not reading the rules, and stubbornly insisting on a conclusion long after that’s proven ridiculous.

    That would be terrible. I’m glad I’m not Aaron, who has to weigh the principle of not outing dissenters against the good it would do for people to know about this guy

    Dustin (c16eca)

  92. Which leads me to the conclusion that he has written lots of stuff that would embarrass the heck out of himself

    Not “embarrass”, but it’s not the quality I would like. It’s very poor writing. Usually done quickly and on the fly. Lots of grammatical errors.

    On the other hand, it doesn’t resort to ad hominem attacks constantly, so some of you probably wouldn’t like it anyway.

    Kman (0ca272)

  93. Did he admit to knowing that they were 17 year olds’ tweets when he read them?

    — No, but YOU asserted that maybe he hadn’t even read them; then I reminded you that Yes he had; then you, all too predictably, moved the goalposts.

    Icy Texan (158370)

  94. Indeed he tried to continue to deny his constituents the opportunity by lying and saying he was hacked, only fessing up when he had no other choice.

    Yup.

    Weiner and his many many shills are fundamentally undemocratic.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  95. I thought for that first few seconds, “Hey! A non-Weiner post!”

    Then I scrolled down.

    And then, to add injury to insult, the comments turn out to be a gigantic “dialogue” with Kman.

    The internet is truly a strange place.

    Gesundheit (d7ea47)

  96. Well, well, well.

    So post the link, Kman! My theory is that—grammar aside—you have posted all kinds of things that would make you appear to be quite the hypocrite based on your postings at Patterico’s.

    Aaron, you have clearly spent time reading Kman’s site. Is the spelling that poor?

    Sounds like an excuse to me. Dustin has been asking you about this for months.

    Simon Jester (7ee517)

  97. Ges

    well, there was one on cnn earlier today.

    and kman on weiner, is weiner on weiner action.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  98. simon

    no, no, he proofreads, i guess.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  99. Yeah, Simon, he’s ashamed of himself. He knows he’s a hack trying to cause trouble for Aaron, whom he’s been obsessed with for about ten years or so.

    And I really grew more interested in commenting on his blog when he started calling this blog an echo chamber. We aren’t always as kind as we could be to lefties, but I think many here do a good job having constructive conversations with lefties. Even rude ones. And we are largely nice to polite democrats.

    So it’s not an echo chamber. That’s really unfair.

    And that’s about the time I realized that Kman was doing all he could to hide his blog, so that we couldn’t dissent against his blogging. He’s got the echo chamber he was looking for.

    Let’s have a full dialogue. If you say something you’re ashamed of, don’t hide it. Correct it. Kman’s long running hackery is pretty hilarious if taken in low doses, but imagine ten years of this BS.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  100. On the other hand, it doesn’t resort to ad hominem attacks constantly, so some of you probably wouldn’t like it anyway.

    — Hmm, maybe Aaron’s right. Paying attention to you might be leading you to believe that we actually like you. Scary.

    Icy Texan (158370)

  101. We presented “some evidence.” The only question is whether it is sufficient to prove it.

    No, you presented evidence of what Wiener COULD have read/known. You presented zero evidence of what he actually DID read/know.

    In 2010, he gets marred to this woman, promises to be faithful to her, makes everyone think he has a normal sex life. He misled his constituents and denied them the opportunity to decide whether to re-elect a perv.

    I think there’s something pervy about his constituents if they obsess that much over their representatives’ sex life. You think people actually pull the lever based on judgmental views of whether or not a candidate has a “normal” sex life? That’s pretty sad.

    Of course, in the real world, as polls show, Weiner’s ACTUAL constituents (as opposed to the imaginary constituents in your head) aren’t as bent out of shape as you had hoped.

    Kman (0ca272)

  102. So is Kman saying he behaves like a complete clown and jerk here because he’s anonymous?

    And he doesn’t think we already knew that?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  103. Gesundheit at #95:

    I thought for that first few seconds, “Hey! A non-Weiner post!”

    I thought that too. Except it was AW, in his post, who made it about Weiner. He’ll make anything about Weiner these days. I’m sick of it too. But… it’s his (well, Patrick’s) blog. Free country and all that.

    Kman (0ca272)

  104. I am shocked that kmart is massaging the messaging for Weiner. Even Teh One chucked him under the bus.

    JD (29e1cd)

  105. Kmart hearts weinerz.

    JD (29e1cd)

  106. I find it impossible to get mad at Kman over this one. It’s just too stupid and ridiculous a degree of hackery. He’s disputing the uncontroversial and making quite a show of it.

    It’s as though it’s all an act.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  107. Now, if the Village Voice had claimed kmart was typing with one hand, would anyone really be surprised?

    JD (b98cae)

  108. Kman

    Here’s what you wrote at 72:

    > Anyway, being a “perv” in some people’s eyes shouldn’t automatically disqualify someone from holding office. History is full of “pervs” (Ben Fraknlin, I’m looking at you). Let his constituents decide. That’s what we have elections for.

    And now this is what you write now:

    > I think there’s something pervy about his constituents if they obsess that much over their representatives’ sex life. You think people actually pull the lever based on judgmental views of whether or not a candidate has a “normal” sex life? That’s pretty sad.

    So first you say the people should decide then you denounce me for saying they should have been given that opportunity. Which is it?

    The fact is you said his constituents decide. But when I pointed out that they could have decided in 2010 but he covered up his perviness you decided to adopt new “principles” that fit the situation—its not our business anyway.

    And, by the way, a poll in a district dominated by othrodox jews on a jewish holiday when they will not pick up the phone is not exactly persuasive, you know.

    And I love you’re whole “you’re the perv for noticing his perviness” routine. But that is the far left talking point. stop investigating him even if he was DMing a high school girl.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  109. Kman

    > I’m sick of it too.

    and yet here you are.

    while i hope gesundheit sticks around, we sincerely hope you just leave. forever.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  110. But that is the far left talking point. stop investigating him even if he was DMing a high school girl.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing —

    What Kman is doing is asserting the right to shove his morality down everyone’s throat. He’s being puritanical and intolerant, claiming anyone who deviates from his particular sexual views is a pervert. Particularly, those who criticize and scrutinize what Weiner was doing with young ladies and government property and all that.

    In his dissonant head, this is because he’s more tolerant. But that’s a lie. In this case, I think he doesn’t know that.

    Anyway, he’s the judgmental puritan, as is the Village Voice.

    Also, gesundheit is a nice commenters, and like Aaron, I would like Kman to leave. He comes here to complain about how horrible this blog is, hides his own blog, and refuses to leave. It’s really pathetic behavior.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  111. And, by the way, a poll in a district dominated by othrodox jews on a jewish holiday when they will not pick up the phone is not exactly persuasive, you know.

    It’s not dominated by orthodox jews. That’s just plain incorrect. And even then, the poll margins are too big that the jewish vote wouldn’t have swung it around.

    And I love you’re whole “you’re the perv for noticing his perviness” routine.

    Aaron, 60+ blog posts on one subject isn’t “noticing” something — it’s obsessing.

    and yet here you are.

    Touche.

    Kman (0ca272)

  112. Kman

    funny, you ducked your contradiction in saying first “let the people decide” and then “they have no right to decide.” i guess you are called out.

    > It’s not dominated by orthodox jews. That’s just plain incorrect

    There’s enough of them to make the poll dubious, especially because they are the most likely to be offended by this BS. the first poll said this constituents wanted him to go.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  113. 60+ blog posts on one subject isn’t “noticing” something — it’s obsessing.

    And counting them, that’s just totally normal. 🙄

    carlitos (25ee92)

  114. Aaron, that depends on the definition of “is”. Isn’t this the kind of nonsense Kman peddles.

    Too bad his grammar is poor, isn’t it? Otherwise, he could open up his blog for commenters. Because there is just nothing worse than an echo chamber.

    Or a hypocrite.

    Simon Jester (7ee517)

  115. funny, you ducked your contradiction in saying first “let the people decide” and then “they have no right to decide.”

    I didn’t duck it. I never said “they have no right to decide”. So there’s no contradiction.

    I said that, in my opinion, it’s a little pervy for constituents to obsess over a candidate’s private sexual life, but that’s not even CLOSE to saying that constituents “have no right to decide”.

    Another fail at trying to put words in my mouth, AW. THAT’S why I ignored it.

    There’s enough of them to make the poll dubious, especially because they are the most likely to be offended by this BS

    Well, they vote for the Republican anyway. Again, it wouldn’t change the outcome.

    Kman (0ca272)

  116. Actually, multiple bloggers covering a story at this blog doesn’t seem that bad.

    Patterico explained that his intention is not to cover things we can read everywhere, but to provide a lot of depth on certain stories. That’s very valuable. So what that it produced a large quantity of individual posts?

    And yeah, at first, I didn’t grasp the merit of the story. Had this blog not covered it depth, there’s a real chance I never would have. Especially about the MSM and the left’s dishonesty and bias, which is particularly ugly in this case.

    So, I guess… if you have a problem with detailed coverage, this isn’t a good blog to read, Kman. So go away.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  117. Brokeback kmart just can’t quit the weiner.

    JD (d48c3b)

  118. Now, if kmart had read this title as AW coming out of the closet, and then found himself disappointed to the point of being scorned when kmart realized that he did not have a chance, then through that lens, his hysterics in this thread make more sense. Having had his advances spurned by this object d’amour, he lashes out.

    JD (306f5d)

  119. Kman types with one brain tied behind his back.

    Icy Texan (158370)

  120. “Not “embarrass”, but it’s not the quality I would like. It’s very poor writing.”

    Kman – Heh. So it’s just like the crappy comments you produce here? Sweeeeet. No thought or logic. Inconsistent. Self-fisking.

    Shocka!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  121. Kman – Even Obambi says Weiner should resign. You are a terrible person.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  122. #Hacked! One of my #packagepics was stolen and posted! Fortunately, the image file is so very large, it cannot be displayed by most platforms. But be #warned.

    gp (72be5d)

  123. Kman’s more worried about his inability to handle the challenges of the English language than his tolerance for perverted creeps.

    True, just based on quality of his writing, he’s not worth $400 an hour. Or $4 an hour.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  124. So basically, Aaron, your point is talking about sex on the Internet should be illegal because the other person might be lying.

    Humans naturally talk about sex. It’s a huge drive for people.

    To think anything like this would ever happen is ridiculous. People will talk more and more online, and sex will be a big part of it. It’s instinctive. Women like it too, a lot. Even 20 something young women who are — for some crazy reason — attracted to fit, lean, muscular seemingly powerful men who are on TV all the time and are elected by huge margins within their district (popular), and who share the same political and ideological views of the (adult) woman in question.

    I mean, how crazy is that!?!

    I think Weiner is a dick (no pun intended) long before this came out. Because of his awful views, because of his over-aggression. Because he’s a pro-abortion Democrat. Lots of reasons.

    But do I think the young adult women were old enough to decide who turns them on? Yeah. They are actually.

    If they’re old enough to vote for the man who controls the nuclear trigger, if they’re old enough join the army and remotely pilot UAVs and kill people on command at a distance, if they’re old enough to be a marine and go out in a convoy and engage in firefights and face IEDs and landmines …

    … then surely in a free country they are old enough to decide who turns them on. And unless he forced himself on them, they’re not victims. They may even be victimizers, depending on how you view the sanctimony of marriage, but in no way, shape, or form, is some adult woman who decides to sext with and get off with him a victim.

    As for your point about you can’t know the age of everyone online, that’s true (and it’s always been true: people borrow ID to get in bars, etc.), but at a certain level, people have an obligation to tell the truth.

    MILLIONS of Americans and others around the world go online into chat rooms and other places, meet people, and — among other topics — talk about sex. Sex is one of the more popular and common topics.

    They’re all criminals because they ask someone else’s age and the other person might lie?

    I think that’s a stretch.

    Random (662312)

  125. Well said, Random. But Aaron’s already established himself as a puritan on this subject.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  126. So basically, Aaron, your point is talking about sex on the Internet should be illegal because the other person might be lying.

    I don’t think that’s what Aaron actually said. Basically. At all.

    But before you start really getting obscene, sending photos, talking about masturbation (AKA soliciting sexual activity), you should make sure the person you are sexting is not a minor.

    That’s not Aaron’s call. That’s the law of the land.

    Somehow, I have managed to avoid this being a problem in my life. I’ve even talked about sex without this being even a remote risk.

    It’s not puritanical at all.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  127. “So basically, Aaron, your point is talking about sex on the Internet should be illegal because the other person might be lying.”

    So basically, Random, you have succeeded in completely misinterpreting Aaron’s point. Well done. Carry on.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  128. I’m restating Aaron’s point in simplified, hyperbolic terms for rhetorical purposes, Dustin and daleyrocks. I know that’s not literally what he said.

    But … effectively … it’s what he said as internet “sexting” or cyber or whatever you call it is actually practiced.

    Women don’t generally go online and say:

    “Here’s my full name, address, employers, SN number for verification purposes. But you need to know this is really ME, so let me stand in front of the camera, passport in hand, while you contact the state department. By the way, do you have have an Internet business of any kind? I can make a small purchase on your site and prove to you I’m old enough to have a credit card.

    “Oh — and by the way. I’m kind of turned on right now. Hurry up, K, before I lose my mood.”

    I mean, that MIGHT happen. But it’s not normal human behavior, is it?

    Come to think of it, I must be an awful criminal because I met someone online recently. She TOLD ME she was 39. She even told me she’s a Republican (BUT she likes Pizza Hut more than Dominos, the cad). We talked on the phone.

    We … — I’ll stop there.

    But I never thought to get her to give me all of her personal info so I could do identity theft on her, stalk her, or verify her age as the mood hit me down the line.

    So, yeah — that was awful of me. I should have respected her by demanding all of that first. Considering her voice tone at the time, I’m sure she would really have appreciated that.

    Aaron, I agree with you on all of the legal points, but if there’s some online age verification scheme necessary, it had better be implimented quickly, and perhaps you could propose how that would work while also protecting people’s physical security and identities from actual, real criminals, as opposed to normal, and randy humans.

    And it had better happen fast because this internet thing? It’s kind of a big deal. Lots of people are using it. It seems to even be gaining in popularity.

    I’m not even joking. I think that would be a good idea, were it possible. Which I’m not sure it is. Which is why people are left with asking, “How old are you?”

    Random (662312)

  129. So basically … What follows rarely resembles the actual position it purports to describe.

    JD (822109)

  130. “You might have heard in the last few days where one blogger who pretended to be a lesbian in Syria turned out to be a man and, well”

    What a story. Orientalism in action.

    stone (c1a6da)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1286 secs.