Patterico's Pontifications

3/29/2012

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves or the Troll Gives Up

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:43 pm

Remember that post by Ken at Popehat about anti-free speech thuggery?

You really owe it to yourself to go read the comments thoroughly.

There is a troll who keeps making arguments about what a jerk I am, and Ken is just beating the living crap out of him, in some of the most thorough and amusing fisking I have ever seen. The troll keeps coming back, claiming that he really does know much about me (I don’t believe him and neither does Ken) . . . and every time he comes back, he gets hit again.

And again. And again.

It is very amusing stuff, and you can read it here.

97 Responses to “The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves or the Troll Gives Up”

  1. Patterico, remember the toy? “Weebles wobble but they don’t fall down.”

    Still, I am glad that KAP keeps smacking away…

    Simon Jester (e73b95)

  2. I had a bad day and fell ill. I don’t have much energy to comment

    I did bother, for laughs, to see how many times NN was called scumbag or slut starting w the ” deep Breath” thread forward. Count = 0. Neal got called a scumbag, and his trolly pals.. Izzy got called a slut in the context of promiscuity in filiing lawsuits. One commenter considered hypotheticals about O keefes logic , or thought process, in which o keefe might think or try to prove Nn is a slut, but didn’t express it as an opinion .

    Sec 230 of the CDA does apply to comments on blogs, but the slut / scumbag charge was complete rubbish in every sense

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  3. Wow, when you are losing a blog argument that decisively the only possible way of salvaging your dignity is to write something like, “but it’s getting late and I’m off to bed” and then let it drop. This ain’t a Rocky movie, Judge N. Jury — you aren’t going to pick yourself up off the canvas after the fifteenth knockdown and throw that winning haymaker.

    JVW (6311cc)

  4. I’ve never seen anything quite like this. not just the troll, but the detailed and thoughtful reply. It’s awesome.

    Sarah, feel better.

    Dustin (330eed)

  5. Volokh can collect related posts on one page. This has some posts from June 2010 on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (by someone who seems to be somewhat against it) and also a very recent post about a rogue prosecutor who commented on blogs but was caught.

    http://volokh.com/category/anonymity/

    Interesting excerpts:

    Congress set out to regulate online indecency, but the majority of the Act was struck down on First Amendment grounds in 1997. Section 230 survived.

    You may seem anonymous when you pay cash to buy a pack of gum at a grocery store, but the transaction is anonymous only so long as it is inconsequential; if you passed a counterfeit $100 bill, you would quickly discover that you could be tracked by your fingerprints, your DNA, and by your image on store cameras.

    Actually it’s probably not so different online, (except for real professionals at this, like John Reid and Seattle545, at least when they are not being sued)

    The commenter took regular shots at Heebe and his family, seeming to know more about the case than an average reader of the site might….

    So Heebe hired a former FBI forensic linguist, James R. Fitzgerald, to analyze 598 comments made over the course of 6 months by a commenter using the handle “Henry L. Mencken1951″. Fitzgerald, who also worked on the arrest and prosecution of Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, compared the comments made by “Mencken1951″ to the language in a 9-page proceeding filed by three Assistant U.S. Attorneys, including Parricone, against the CEO of Heebe’s company, River Birch Landfill. The language was strikingly similar. Given that Parricone was born in 1951, Heebe singled him out in the court petition. On Thursday afternoon, U.S. Attorney Jim Letten confirmed Perricone had used the “Henry L. Mencken1951″ handle.

    UPDATE: Parricone has resigned. (Note that he’s eligible for retirement.)

    Of course, to even check, they must have already have suspected it, and it wasn’t mathematics and a computer program that actually detected this.

    Sammy Finkelman (5736b6)

  6. Hey, Mr. Finkelman, I posted a link to that story earlier (In the first thread about Ken at Popehat)and people didn’t think it was relevant. (They’re right: I was tired, my attention was divided, and I thought it was referenced by that Judge N. Jury person.) So now I get to ask you, how is that relevant?
    You’re probably trying to make a different point than I was, so you’re not automatically wrong, but please connect the dots.
    (I’m not saying right now, so if you want to go to sleep like a normal person, go ahead.)

    Alvin H. Belt (7e149d)

  7. please be not scornful
    when news of haiku’s luck hits
    MegaMillions Man!

    Colonel Haiku (62337d)

  8. Alvin and Sammy sitting in a tree …..

    JD (e5c06b)

  9. I wonder if the troll could be Levi.

    Gerald A (91f731)

  10. No, that troll is not Levi. It is one a few very specific dirtbags. It’s passive aggressive fainting couch bleating for civility and faux worrying about the use of taxpayer resources in their unfounded complaints that they file is breath-taking.

    JD (318f81)

  11. I saw that story and anyone who is taking anonymous potshots at someone while prosecuting them is asking for trouble.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  12. That was a definite must read; thanks for pointing out the beating Pat :)

    Lord Nazh (821ae1)

  13. I thought the comments were pretty funny. I’m a federal prosecutor, and I don’t like criminals. According to the troll, I’m supposed to recuse myself?

    509th Bob (96a8a6)

  14. 509th Bob – Cease and desist giving legal advice forthwith!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  15. I can’t believe I read the whole thing. It must have been schadenfreude.

    ropelight (d850a8)

  16. The bonehead missed the boat on sec 230, but then again, I think j&j knows better.

    Too sick to be very explicit….but this is an old troll play.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  17. I delayed getting my Friday beer to read the exchange at PopeHat.

    Awesome.

    Virtual Insanity (447cb5)

  18. Shameless OT: Keith Olbermann got fired . . . again.

    Icy (ef96c5)

  19. Classic – simply classic. JNJ is simply parroting the rants he’s seen on the progressive blogs littering the web. The bottom line of all the rants is the message:

    “Agree with me or I and my like-minded friends will find a way to shut you up or make your life miserable.”

    It is more than a bit scary that they seem to represent a sizable fraction of the people on the left.

    I have had one nut case publish my home address and phone number, my business name and address, and information about the members of my family. Followed by a challenge to his blog readers to use the information to “go have some fun”. Other entries over time included the tired taunts about fascism, imperialism, racism etc. He also bragged about his access to weapons and explosives and his training in their use as well.

    I had never met the guy, posted on his blog or otherwise interacted with him in any way. It seems that he read an article in the local paper and he just despised me for my volunteer work honoring fallen American troops in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. For that he felt justified in threatening actual physical harm to me and my family.

    in_awe (44fed5)

  20. Highly entertaining. Thanks for linking. Even my girlfriend was belly laughing and she absolutely HATES politics and political blogging.

    Jay H Curtis (804124)

  21. Maybe it’s the fever (actually it’s broken and I’m sitting up with a little cup of chicken and stars) but it just ocurred to me, based on J&J’s trying to imply that Bloggers are on the hook for any commentary they allow on their articles, that the disguise of Naffes BostonYPA was not simply to conceal her alias or her greasy reality show tryout or “to have some fun” with anyone remarking negatively on her story – but was done to a more sinister purpose.

    That is the new profile was created so that Nadia or the imaginary person could complain of criticism or “harrassment” by people in the comments getting things wrong.

    I which case that plan has been thwarted:
    Curses, foiled again

    SarahW (b0e533)

  22. And makes them all the stupider (see also, Sec 230 of the CDA.)

    SarahW (b0e533)

  23. It is interesting that in Rape Barn II Nadia capitalized Santa’s Sexual Harassment.

    That is also the title of a humorous comic about context.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  24. Who’s anti-free-speech now?

    Popehat Endorses Unprovoked Personal Attacks and Cowardly Censorship

    From punsliger612: “I surf constantly looking for interesting argument and discussion. This is the best I have seen in the last 12 months. Thank you Ken”

    From Jay H Curtis: “The whole Naffe story was something I just couldn’t bring myself to care about. Until I read this thread.”

    Popehat delighted readers by his repeated takedowns of a commenter who made several arguments about Naffe’s threat to report Patterico for doubling as a sitting DA and online “legal advisor” to James O’Keefe. I was that commenter (gasp now).

    Patterico had a long record of advocating for O’Keefe and took strong positions against Naffe, exclusively making public transcripts he had access to in his capacity as an attorney, which took a lot of the wrangling and posturing for upcoming litigation right on out into the blogosphere.

    The facets of this that interested me was the rarity of Frey’s situation, and whether Naffe could be at all right that prohibited ethical breeches were afoot as she threatened to notify to the CA bar. Though I myself couldn’t see such a concrete line crossed, it seems her right to make this case under the same First Amendment that allows Patterico to publicly persecute her or anyone else online.

    Naffe would need to show Frey has broken the rules, but I told Ken that even if Naffe fails to prove he has, it still costs us taxpayers something to determine either way if Frey’s supervisors get called in. How this happens or what it costs I don’t know, but it’s worth noting that it’s happened again and again, pointing back to the rare decision to be both a DA and a partisan blogger (aka “media?”).

    I’m not out to censor Frey, but I’m wondering why he would complicate a good day job like this? My boss would freak if I started getting complaints or any type of heat at work for any outside endeavors. Frey knew that exclusively publishing the transcripts with his O’Keefe-friendly ‘pontification’ would make his blog light up with folks on both sides arguing the case (most without any legal training) and inserting personal insults. As the sole publisher of this, Naffe may have suspected, perhaps wrongly, that he was coordinating with O’Keefe.

    But for what would would Frey put himself so far out into the spotlight?

    We see the political and philosophical passion, but then we also see the Paypal badge. I’m not accusing Frey right here of secretly raking in riches from the same anonymous multimillionaires who gave Breitbart $10 million in funding, but Patterico is making some amount between zero and infinity and he chooses not to voluntarily dispel the suspicions of his detractors. There’s nothing wrong with taking in tips to cover hosting, or make a few bucks on the side, but if the amounts were substantial and secret, it becomes subterfuge because it might approach speech-for-hire. (Update: Lo we see Frey put any such suspicions to rest, announcing that hosting fees weren’t even being met).

    Ken received accolades for putting me in my place, but he didn’t take my arguments on the merits, telling me I wasn’t proving things I never said.

    For example, Ken said show me any site that makes donations transparent, which I easily did and instead of conceding the point, he insulted the website who makes their funding transparent.

    I also said that Patterico’s “coverage” buried any consideration of whether Naffe had any valid points or concerns – allegations of x-rated taping, wiretaps, secret funding sources.

    Ken chastised me because a blog is not a legal proceeding — but I never said it was, I was talking about the malice, snark and gloating in a blog that I originally came across to be educated and informed because it had primary documents.

    Ken said that other blogs do it so it must be okay. I asked why Frey would be using his expertise to act as a surrogate specifically for one of the principals in this matter? This led back to his ongoing campaign of support for O’Keefe.

    I said O’Keefe’s propaganda was impinging on others rights, like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Ken challenged me to cite any applicable law, so I cited O’Keefe v. Vera in which CA’s privacy laws were not followed, among other things.

    Ken’s response was to ask what that had to do with a DA being a partisan blogger? Everything, but this was again moving the goal posts -in that passage, I was saying O’Keefe was not worthy of support, but Ken seemed to think I said it was illegal and I had documents to that effect. He was doing this to back out of a debate on the merits, also saying he didn’t remember whether the ACORN videos were deceptively edited or not.

    I also posted a substantive rebuttal to his insulting “last licks” comment to me. He altered my words to change them into a reference to wiener-dogs, perhaps symbolically representing his weenying out on addressing my “robust” questions just when his fans were so enjoying the repartee. I can post it here if there is any interest.

    My post addressed his article 230 cop-out. He said I was wrong, but didn’t say how or why. He believes Frey can’t be held responsible for comments, but as I read it, it said that it gives immunity to ISPs and entities who don’t curate the speech, but has denied immunity for cases where the content providers that do curate the speech. Maybe I’m wrong, tell me how if so.

    To me it seems it depends on whether Frey “endorses” or “publishes” comments that he leaves up – I said Naffe would surely try to say yes, if he deleted some comments but not others.

    So I saw he left comments stand by Dave Surls who called Nadia Naffe a “slut” and a “scumbag” and “lowlife little skank”, “snitch”, etc. while he removed comments that he found personally insulting to himself.

    I was challenged by Frey who wrote:

    “In addition to Ken’s observations about section 230, I should note that the commenter here is lying about my selectively removing comments by liberals and banning the user. I do not remove comments because they are liberal, or ban commenters because they are liberal, and I challenge this commenter to prove what he is saying with respect to the Naffe threads. He won’t, of course, because his comments are filled with assertions that are not substantiated — because they cannot be.”

    The reason I thought Frey removed comments were because of a post attributed to “Patterico” on Bradblog which reads:

    “Who are the readers, plural? Ernest Canning has exactly two comments that were deleted for attacking my professional ethics. The last comment he tried to leave on my site was here and it was approved.”

    This appears to show that at least in this instance, he did delete comments for being disparaging – to him – but left up the comments by Surls and others disparaging Naffe – which are still there. Compounding this, he commented on the same page, below Surls’ comments, pro-actively asking commenters not to call Lila Rose a skank – does this maybe imply it’s okay to call Naffe all those names then? At least that’s what she’ll try to say. By the way, I admit I could be wrong about him all-out banning people (we’ll see after this comment, I suppose). This is currently being alleged on other sites but short of proof, give Frey the benefit of the doubt.

    I posted this on Popehat but he censored me (after calling me dishonest for innocuously truncating one of his statements earlier). He also asked me questions, but then would not let me answer, restricting my speech on his site after a “got you last” reply to me including personal insults.

    This was under an article in which he complained Naffe isn’t seeking to persuade, she is seeking to silence a critic and for this, she deserves our contempt.

    If anyone sees fit to blast my arguments to bits, go for it, but keep it civil. I am here to learn. Anyone can curse or insult someone, but it takes more to educate, inform or persuade someone else. In my opinion, having curses and personal insults in a blog hurts the chances of it being read (due to filters) and lowers the chances of being shared, or advertised on, (but it’s your free speech…)

    Judge N. Jury (8c377f)

  25. If anyone sees fit to blast my arguments to bits, go for it, but keep it civil. I am here to learn. Anyone can curse or insult someone, but it takes more to educate, inform or persuade someone else. In my opinion, having curses and personal insults in a blog hurts the chances of it being read (due to filters) and lowers the chances of being shared, or advertised on, (but it’s your free speech…)

    Comment by Judge N. Jury — 4/4/2012 @ 1:47 pm

    Liar. Effing liar. You are a vile cretin what hearts vile cretins.

    JD (af0807)

  26. “…If anyone sees fit to blast my arguments to bits, go for it, but keep it civil. I am here to learn. Anyone can curse or insult someone, but it takes more to educate, inform or persuade someone else…”

    Boldly striking out for the high, moral ground when the intellectual foundation of the argument has turned into a sinkhole.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  27. exclusively making public transcripts he had access to in his capacity as an attorney

    Lie

    How this happens or what it costs I don’t know, but it’s worth noting that it’s happened again and again,

    Your repeated asshattery does not go unnoticed.

    Your drivel is tiresome “judge” and fools nobody.

    JD (af0807)

  28. The “You can’t make this up” dept….

    A Chandelier with a lot of dim-bulbs:
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Olbermann-Letterman-chandelier-current/2012/04/04/id/434769

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  29. Judge shows an amazing familiarity with the comment section of Brad Friedman’s blog. Those who follow this closely know why that is.

    Also Judge is a liar.

    Patterico (4a817a)

  30. Pat, could you not sugar-coat that so much?

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  31. What did I say about unverified and unsourced allegations from anonymous sources?

    Once Judge tells me his real life name and full contact information I will answer his questions and respond to his lies. Until then, he is an anonymous liar with an extraordinary knowledge of Brad Friedman’s comment section, and I will respond only to the extent that it might amuse me to do so.

    Patterico (4a817a)

  32. pro-actively asking commenters not to call Lila Rose a skank – does this maybe imply it’s okay to call Naffe all those names then?

    That’s an amusing distortion.

    He only criticized the calling of skank with regard to one person, Lila, which obviously implies it’s practically encouraged for people to call everyone else a skank.

    keep it civil

    Your graphic description of Ken and that blowjob was not civil. You really do take it for granted that everyone is a sucker. All we learn from this is that you are dishonest. Except we already saw that repeatedly.

    And what do you say about this, Judge and Jury?

    Dustin (330eed)

  33. This “judgey” person seems remarkably similar in style to someone affiliated with Freidman, Hooten, breitbartunmasked, etc …

    JD (af0807)

  34. Milky nostril squirts.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  35. Judge probably thinks Ace is a bearded woman named Michele.

    Patterico (4a817a)

  36. “all those names” — note the lack of links and context. A commenter wrote to say they had analyzed the Naffe posts and Judge had lied about what had been said.

    But we all know not to trust assertions by anonymous Internet entities.

    Patterico (4a817a)

  37. Is #rapebarn3 The Electric Boogaloo up yet?

    JD (af0807)

  38. Glinda the magic comment fairy writes:

    Begone, before someone turns you into a collie.

    Which is a step up from a dachshund I guess although that was highly amusing at P-hat

    SarahW (b0e533)

  39. I get really frustrated with these folks. What do they get out of this dissembling and smearing, day after day after day after day after day after day? Just let the dude blog. You do not have to read it.

    Dustin (330eed)

  40. Michele-lia Michele-lia
    Ocome meet Michele-lia
    Michele the Tatooine ewok
    She has muscles men adore so
    On Endor-so even moreso….

    SarahW (b0e533)

  41. I never really followed this Judge/Popehat thing.

    I guess I should start. I didn’t realize it was them.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  42. I’ll give the devil his due, he’s an accomplished dissembler and I’ve seen plenty of two-faced bastards.

    ropelight (265977)

  43. I get really frustrated with these folks. What do they get out of this dissembling and smearing, day after day after day after day after day after day? Just let the dude blog. You do not have to read it.

    Yeah, but he knows what they did; he knows they will be exposed; and he knows it’s going to be Very Bad for him and his crew. And he knows the truth is on my side. Hence the thuggery: it’s all about personal destruction.

    I think they believe they accomplished something today. I will laugh long and hard when they realize they didn’t.

    Meanwhile I am getting ready to enjoy the best pizza in the world — a treat I enjoy only every year or so.

    Life is good.

    Patterico (a3820d)

  44. You are at Pizzology?!?!?! You should have called.

    I so look forward to these thugs getting unmasked and held accountable for their vile actions.

    JD (8cc832)

  45. I’ll give the devil his due, he’s an accomplished dissembler and I’ve seen plenty of two-faced bastards.

    Comment by ropelight — 4/4/2012 @ 4:27 pm

    The appellation is more apt than you might realize. I doubt you have processed the magnitude of the evil we face here.

    Luckily nobody here gives credence to unsourced and unverified assertions by anonymous people on the Internet.

    Patterico (a3820d)

  46. Ronbrin and Kneel Rowhowser and Brtt Klmberlyn are disgusting pieces of shlt.

    JD (8cc832)

  47. There sure doesn’t seem to be enough websites about one of them.

    You know the kind. You watch a movie about some serial killer, or bomber, and you want to learn more facts about the real person or see how far the movie strayed etc.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  48. All the facts you could ever want to learn are on their way.

    On. Their. Way.

    Patterico (a3820d)

  49. Since it is no longer April Fools Day, I eagerly await.

    JD (8cc832)

  50. Luckily nobody here gives credence to unsourced and unverified assertions by anonymous people on the Internet.

    Hmmm…. I have to wonder if this is being said with a wry grin…

    Dana (4eca6e)

  51. Judge went home with his tail between his legs.

    Awwwwww.

    And all I had to do was point out he is a liar.

    Frankly I think Ken’s talents were overkill and wasted.

    Patterico (a3820d)

  52. Na na naaaaa na.

    Na na naaaaa na.

    Hey hey.

    Goodbye.

    Patterico (a3820d)

  53. “judge” is a f@cking cowardly liar

    JD (8cc832)

  54. The funny thing about Charles getting involved is people love piling on him. Pretty much the whole conservative blogosphere.

    So when everything comes out even more people will cover it.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  55. I said: “I admit I could be wrong about him all-out banning people (we’ll see after this comment, I suppose)”

    Now I’m banned! Almost all of his commenters are anonymous, but I was singled out on the merits of my arguments – Frey says I’m banished. This is confirmation of censorship, limited free speech, shying from open debate on the merits.

    After his followers even admitted: “I’ll give the devil his due, he’s an accomplished dissembler…”

    Jury N. Judge (52da7e)

  56. The slut/scumbag comments are all still online here:

    http://patterico.com/2012/03/22/questions-about-nadia-naffes-story/

    Did not Frey get the full depositions through expensive online subscriptions that law offices pay for? Set me straight. But I may not be able to answer, my civil free speech is curtailed at this site, apparently because Frey doesn’t like anonymity – for some.

    Jury N. Judge (52da7e)

  57. Did not Frey get the full depositions through expensive online subscriptions that law offices pay for?

    No

    You were not singled out based on the merits of your arguments. It was likely based on your lies, dissembling, thuggish vile behavior, and disgusting past actions.

    There is no civil right to leave comments on somebody else’s blog. You have several blogs. Write to your dark little heart’s content.

    If you have been banned, how are your comments showing up?

    JD (af0807)

  58. Awww does someone need a hug? Judge, you posted downright lies about Pat and his occupation. Give me one reason why that shouldn’t get you banned here. Don’t worry, I’ll wait.

    Ghost (6f9de7)

  59. Almost all of his commenters are anonymous

    I’m sure you’d like to know who every commenter is. I suppose to enhance free speech somehow?

    This is confirmation of censorship, limited free speech, shying from open debate on the merits.

    lol It’s all about projection with these people.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  60. Patterico had a long record of advocating for O’Keefe and took strong positions against Naffe, exclusively making public transcripts he had access to in his capacity as an attorney, which took a lot of the wrangling and posturing for upcoming litigation right on out into the blogosphere.

    Anyone, including bloggers can purchase a Pacer account in any capacity

    Also the “exclusivity” that you speak of is hogwash – I “found” those “missing” Ramos and Compean transcripts and Pat gave me the hattip for it. Also releasing sealed trnscripts is what Judges do, not attorneys, last I checked…

    EricPWJohnson (4380b4)

  61. Where’s the collie fairy? I want to see J&J say arf

    SarahW (b0e533)

  62. Noodles – they take people to court to reveal identities. AW

    JD (23d22f)

  63. I always shy away from engaging dishonest people, except maybe to say what I think they are.

    Also they could turn into a collie at any moment and nip you.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  64. Turn into a collie? I don’t understand. Google was not of any help. Is there something on Patterico that could explain this?

    If it means (improbably) become something better (because many people like collies) then why would it be something to bite you?

    Sammy Finkelman (fd0eb9)

  65. Sammy – It’s only a reference to edits of an unwelcome or tiresome troll’s remarks.

    At the Popehat site, when Ken tired of his relentlessly dishonest troll, (who happens to be the same one posting here – or purporting to be), Ken gave fair warning he would edit future comments so that they voiced Ken’s views on some obscure topic on his mind.

    He meant it: http://www.popehat.com/2012/03/26/nadia-naffe-wont-shut-up-but-shell-threaten-you-to-make-you-shut-up/#comment-823423

    In that case J&J was not turned into an actual dacshund, just someone very interested in discussing them.

    However, I think transmogrification into a collie could also happen.

    I am very fond of collies. I’d like to see more of them everywhere.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  66. I am very fond of collies. I’d like to see more of them everywhere.

    Comment by SarahW

    Herding dogs are one of the greatest things mankind has ever developed. I like any dog of collie ancestry (such as blue heelers), but rough collies are the iconic breed IMO.

    Ken gave Judge N Jury far, far more attention than JNJ earned, and though it was very entertaining I’m glad he said ‘enough’ at some point.

    Ken attracts the ire of a lot of scumbags. This Crystal Cox one is quite bad.

    Dustin (330eed)

  67. JD – Do you think Ken would be interested in autism service dogs?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  68. Sorry, make that autism service HORSES.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  69. Dustin – more attention than they earned?! Really. I think that the level of attention these malicious cowards have received is grossly inadequate, considering the nasty real life consequences of their actions. Hopefully, this is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

    JD (23d22f)

  70. Really. I think that the level of attention these malicious cowards have received is grossly inadequate,

    I stand corrected. In fact, the most frustrating thing about this mess is waiting for this story to finally be told to everybody. Not just readers of this blog, but on major television and radio programs. It’s a huge story and it needs to be told.

    I was actually only referring to JNJ’s ramblings on Ken’s site. I was impressed with how much time Ken put into explaining how dishonest and absurd they were.

    But the larger story? It needs to be told. Soon.

    Dustin (330eed)

  71. Daleyrocks – ken should meet MKDP and David Petranos Esp, yes. I miss them. And frogmen snipers. And horses in courtrooms. And beef slicers

    JD (23d22f)

  72. Teh moar crazee teh better.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  73. Mary Katherine Day-Petranos and David Petranos Esq are my all-time favorite bugf@cknutz crazies.

    JD (23d22f)

  74. Self-immolating mom. Winning!!!!!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  75. To JD, my comments disappered into thin air this morning, so I reversed my name and it seems to work. I assume I was banned – could there be an another explanation?

    I checked it out and I was wrong about one of those transcripts, the PACER system is open to anyone and I should not have assumed it was professionals only. But what about the ‘exclusive’ transcript? How it was obtained is for some reason being kept secret.

    Why does it matter? If he got it from O’Keefe, Naffe would say aha! Coordinating with a convicted misdemeanor-er.

    “You were not singled out based on the merits of your arguments. It was likely based on your lies, dissembling, thuggish vile behavior, and disgusting past actions.”

    So what were the lies? If I was dishonest, exactly how? Little ole me? What did I say or do? I will take responsibility if I was wrong, I am here to learn. What were my thuggish actions? Are you blaming me for something some crew did? I am alone.

    Notice I’m not gloating now that everyone sees the slut/scumbag comments were there all along. I don’t say Sarah “lied” by twice saying they weren’t there, she just hadn’t found them yet, she was temporarily underinformed.

    As for Frey saying I was lying about him removing comments that disparaged him, he demanded proof so I furnished it – in his own words. Without coming clean, he moves the goalposts and says I must be in cahoots with the website it was on? Unfounded. I had Googled something like “Patterico deleted comments Acorn” and there it was. Try it. I’ve never even heard of Hooten and my ‘style’ is nothing like breitbartunmasked, they are rabid.

    Frey also said above I made arguments about what a jerk he was, which I never did, I was always civil…

    …except where I used a purely figurative ‘adult’ expression for Ken’s brown-nosing, but if that excruciatingly strict standard impeaches me, then why not those of you who have called me the most insensitive and unsettling of names? Two standards.

    I’m still curious about 230, was I right or Ken? No one is talking substance. Is the immunity designed for ISPs? Have not bloggers been denied the protection before?

    Of course it’s Frey’s right to ban me or anyone else, but Frey insisted he did not and that no such proof existed. Many blogs censor and ban, but they don’t try pretending they don’t.

    I’d think commenters making arguments that you don’t agree with would be the most valuable opportunity to present a convincing case on the merits instead of preaching to the converted 24/7. It’s good to have an outside perspective and consider all the facets of a complicated dispute like this so no side gets too complacent. But jumping ugly on anyone for just showing up here is…not advancing the discussion.

    Good day then.

    Jury N. Judge (871239)

  76. frogmen snipers? YEAH BABY!

    SarahW (b0e533)

  77. It just seems so presumptuous to have Jury N. Judge as one’s handle. From the get-go, I could never take this commenter seriously.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  78. You would take him more seriously if you looked at his YT channels, Dana.

    Or not. lulz

    Noodles (3681c4)

  79. Noodles, I was being droll…I don’t mean he is not attempting to manipulate and twist the proverbial dagger to seriously damage P, because that’s rather apparent. It’s never been a question for me about JNJ’s intent. In spite of desperately attempting to appear as a concerned commentator, it’s been painfully obvious all along that he is anything but… thus not taking him seriously as such.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  80. I get that Dana. I was just making fun of his videos without making fun of them.

    Of course a guy like that wants to stick to the substance of whatever he is blabbing on about.

    He surely doesn’t want to discuss his motives or character.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  81. But what about the ‘exclusive’ transcript?

    Do you ever watch the nightly news? Channel 6 exclusive coverage of blah blah blah. You are a tiresome loathsome asshat. The rest of your blather and drivel fools no one. We know who you are, and what you and your buddies have done.

    I cannot wait for the story to be told.

    JD (23d22f)

  82. This vile disgusting troll’s passive aggressive mendoucheity is just soooooooooooo cute.

    JD (23d22f)

  83. I luv how they pull that same thing on titter and elsewhere, offhand denunciation of how evil each other is, then they go right on with their little charade.

    JD (318f81)

  84. “I’ve never even heard of Hooten”

    Where was Hooten mentioned?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  85. I mentioned hootie, Daley. This whole band of taint snifters pisses me off.

    JD (23d22f)

  86. Sniffer?! Damn spell check

    JNJ and his merry band of taint snorters, if they had a conscience, or a soul, would be embarrassed and ashamed.

    JD (318f81)

  87. “I mentioned hootie, Daley. This whole band of taint snifters pisses me off.”

    JD – He sounded like Hootie to me.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  88. I think the super spooky one really hates his past being pointed out to people.

    Does Time Life still do book series on people like that?

    Noodles (3681c4)

  89. They are all spooky, noodles, though I believe only one of them is a convicted bomber, drug smuggler, perjurer, etc…

    JD (318f81)

  90. To JD, my comments disappered into thin air this morning, so I reversed my name and it seems to work. I assume I was banned – could there be an another explanation?

    You’re lying?

    I took no action to ban you and see no comment of yours in the filter.

    I conclude that you love you some convicted bomber and perjurer and are also lying which seems to go hand in hand, oddly.

    Patterico (214396)

  91. You didn’t think JNJ was going to be honest, did you, Patterico?

    JD (318f81)

  92. By all rights you deserve to be banned. But I didn’t ban you. I noted you seemingly had run away.

    Patterico (214396)

  93. OccupyRebelliin is quite the hate filled misogynist. And it hearts convicted bombers, domestic terrorists, and drug smugglers, hates the 1st amendment, and really hates honesty.

    JD (318f81)

  94. He’s probably lying, but could Askimet have eaten his comment, Patterico? Showing good judgment, of course.

    Random (6c802e)

  95. I think it’s considerably more likely that the person supportive of smears and hysterics was attempting a little bitty smear just to make the point of censorship.

    After all, Nadia’s attempt to silence Patterico is what started this, and according to the playbook that means they are required to accuse Patterico of silencing them.

    Dustin (330eed)

  96. what started this episode, anyway.

    I don’t even know what actually started this longer engagement. It wasn’t Weiner’s tweet. Friedman’s blog probably.

    Dustin (330eed)

  97. I don’t even know what actually started this longer engagement

    Comment by Dustin — 4/5/2012 @ 10:10 pm

    I’d be interested to know that diagnosis. Strange pathologies at work.

    SarahW (b0e533)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3579 secs.