Patterico's Pontifications

9/5/2005

Riehl Dishonesty

Filed under: Blogging Matters,Scum — Patterico @ 2:55 pm



[More updates below]

In comments to my post yesterday on Dan Riehl, I told a commenter that I wasn’t pursuing matters any further than that post. Unfortunately, Riehl has done a new post dishonestly suggesting that I misrepresented the situation yesterday.

I’ve got better things to do than to write this. Still, I have a hard time just letting it go when someone makes a false claim that I am being dishonest. Maybe I should learn, but I haven’t yet, so here we are. The post is below. I’m hiding this behind the extended entry. Feel free to skip it, unless you’re really interested.

If you are interested, I have decided to describe things in a linear, chronological fashion, so you can see exactly what happened and when. Doing it this way makes it clear why Riehl tried to hide the post of his that I republished yesterday: he was trying to cover up its inconsistency with the story he had chosen to peddle to me and Michelle Malkin.

Here is what happened in chronological fashion:

  • Riehl sent Michelle an e-mail requesting that Michelle link to his (well, actually, NBC’s) video of Kanye West. Riehl’s e-mail contained two links: one to his post and one to the video.
  • Many bloggers linked Riehl’s post. However, in her post on West’s remarks, Michelle posted a direct link to the video, along with a hat tip to Riehl. Hotlinking the video itself would normally be considered a violation of blogger etiquette. In this case, it’s a debatable point, since the link Michelle used was a link that Riehl sent her.
  • Riehl noted Michelle’s hotlinking, and sent a follow-up e-mail to Michelle asking her to link to his post rather than directly to the video.
  • Michelle didn’t see Riehl’s e-mail. (She gets a lot of e-mails.)
  • Riehl decided that Michelle was deliberately ignoring him, and changed the file name so that people clicking the link on Michelle’s site got an error.
  • A Malkin reader named John Stringer sent Michelle an e-mail alerting her to the change in the file name.
  • Michelle changed the file name on her site so that her link would work correctly.
  • Riehl decided that Michelle was trying to steal his bandwidth, and did something very juvenile: he changed the file so that people clicking on the link on Michelle’s site got a video of a Saddam look-alike dancing around in skimpy clothing.
  • After receiving several e-mail complaints, Michelle dropped Riehl’s link altogether and replaced it with a link to a Crooks & Liars video.
  • Dan wrote a post titled “Michele Malkin Linked To Male Stripper” accusing Michelle of stealing his bandwidth, and boasting of his substitution of the video. Riehl cited Mike Krempasky as precedent; Krempasky has disavowed the comparison.
  • Michelle updated her post to note Riehl’s accusation, and to explain what had happened, noting that Riehl had sent her the direct link to the video. In her update, she inaccurately described the video Riehl had substituted as a pornographic video. (My guess: she based this on descriptions from her e-mailers, and hadn’t actually viewed it herself.)
  • Commenters (including myself) left comments criticizing Riehl for his behavior. I asked Riehl if it was indeed true that Malkin had only used a link he had sent her. I suggested that, if that is what had happened, he owed her a big apology.
  • Riehl deleted his post bragging about the video substitution. Unknown to him, several people (including me) had saved the post.
  • Riehl put up a new, cryptic post blaming the affair on an “Internet Hack Without A Life.” He did not apologize and did not explain further.
  • I left another comment on the new post, saying that I believed he owed Malkin an apology.
  • Riehl e-mailed me, copying Michelle, and blamed the incident on a “troll.” His e-mail contained two falsehoods:

    1) It opened: “Thanks for coming by and commenting. Apparently what happened was this: Michele linked the video correctly, I assume. I never saw it.” This was false; as he had said in his now-deleted boastful post, he had indeed noted the way she had linked the video, and had gotten mad because it was a hotlink.

    2) Riehl also said: “A very troublesome troll sent her [Malkin] email masked as me – see below from MM.” This was false; the e-mail Michelle had received, which was at the bottom of Riehl’s e-mail to me, was the e-mail to Malkin from John Stringer. It did not purport to be from Dan Riehl. Nor was it anonymous. Here it is:

    X-Originating-IP: [68.230.240.34]
    From: killrighty@gmail.com
    Sender: “John Stringer” john.stringer@pop.central.cox.net
    To: malkin@comcast.net
    Subject: Kanye West Link
    Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 00:24:30 -0500
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
    Thread-Index: AcWwR5FmCbnTyj6SSg2oA1UFOsk03A==

    Your link is broken to Kanye West… try this one:

    http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/files/wnbc_telethon.wmv

    John
    http://www.killrighty.net

  • I told Riehl that I had his post saved, that it wasn’t going to work to try to blame his behavior on a computer hacker/troll sending masked e-mails, and that I believed he still owed Malkin an apology. I told him I’d publish the post on my site if he didn’t come clean and issue her an apology. Riehl made it clear he was not going to, and I published my post.
  • Malkin updated her post today, acknowledging that the video was not pornographic. She also said:

    For the record, I want to reiterate that I used a link that Dan sent me; I credited Dan by name; and I sent him an e-mail thanking him. In retrospect, I now wish I had provided a link to Dan’s blog as well. Nevertheless, I do not think Dan’s subsequent behavior–changing the file to a raunchy video, publicly accusing me of stealing his bandwidth, blaming everything on a hacker, and pretending that someone e-mailed me in his name–reflects well on him.

    That sums things up pretty well.

Which brings us to today. Riehl put up a post this morning titled Malkin Issues Retraction. In it he accuses me of having distorted the facts:

In her retraction she claims that I suggested a hacker was at the root of the problem and that’s not at all accurate. She must read Patterico. That jargon was only being tossed around loosely in reference to someone who had sent her an email with the new file name of a re-named file I altered to break her directly linking a 2MB video file from my site without linking or mentioning my blog. See email from her to me down below.

Dan, don’t pretend that I have distorted the facts on this. I’m not the guy who blamed this whole thing on an “Internet Hack Without A Life.” That would be you.

Dan falsely claimed on numerous occasions that the whole problem was caused by a troll who sent an e-mail to Malkin masked as him. (For example, see this comment left by Riehl at Wizbang, or comment #5 to this post, which I have saved if he tries to delete it.) Today he drops that claim, and claims instead (also falsely) that the e-mail was anonymous:

I had assumed she changed from a post link to a direct link, meaning people could then view my video without being introduced to, or even made aware of my web log, as she thought it was by my request. It turns out she had direct linked the video twice, once on her own and once with the help of an anon email supplying her with the new file name.

Hard to see how an anonymous e-mail could be an e-mail that was “masked” as Riehl. Indirectly, as Malkin notes in her update, Riehl is admitting that the “e-mail masked as me” claim is false. (Also, the e-mail wasn’t anonymous anyway — it was from someone named John Stringer.)

It was entirely predictable that someone like Stringer would have e-mailed Malkin to tell her the link was broken. However, blaming everything on a computer hacker with the ability to mask e-mails under false names helped Riehl pretend that blame rested with a troublesome third party, rather than with himself.

Malkin is too classy to say this flat-out, but I’m not. The masked e-mail bit was a flat-out lie that you never had any basis for, Dan. So don’t accuse me of misrepresenting the facts.

Note that Riehl’s quote above also gives a fictional account of when he discovered the hotlinking: “I had assumed she changed from a post link to a direct link.” This is similar to the claim he made to me and Malkin via e-mail: “Michele linked the video correctly, I assume. I never saw it.”

That’s not what you said in the post you deleted, Dan. In that post, you said you did notice the hotlinking the first time it happened, and e-mailed Malkin to complain:

Instead, Malkin gave a text only hat tip by name, not even mentioning the site where the video was breaking and hosted and proceeded to hot-link the 2MB video. Noticing the issue after Malkin sent a thank you saying she had “linked” the post, I immediately sent Malkin a polite email asking that she correct the likely mistake. The email drew no response.

Riehl’s description of events in the post he deleted is inconsistent not only with his current description of events, but also with the version he e-mailed to Michelle and myself.

Why Riehl persists in telling fictional versions of what happened, I have no idea. He knows that his deleted post is still out there. He knows it’s inconsistent with today’s post. He knows it’s inconsistent with the explanation he had given me and Malkin.

I think he’s just hoping that people won’t have the patience to slog through a long post like this. I think he’s hoping that he and his followers can deflect attention from his dishonesty by self-righteously talking about the important things that are going on in the world (“can’t we just move on”?). You know, important things like Natalee Holloway, the main topic of Riehl’s site and the principal source of his traffic.

It’s a good ploy. If I said something dishonest, I’d certainly want people to “move on” and not pay attention.

Well, I do plan to move on after this post. But I’m not going to apologize for helping to expose a dishonest blogger, especially one who accuses me of dishonesty. I’m done with this guy, and I’m guessing that anyone else who understands what has happened is done with him as well.

As a friend of mine recently e-mailed me regarding Riehl: “I’d never heard of him before. I wish I still hadn’t.” I feel the same.

UPDATE: Man, this guy is devious. One more thing I hadn’t noticed about his post today: he quotes an e-mail from Malkin saying she had been “duped” by the guy who e-mailed her. He responds in a comment below, and once again refers to that e-mail, saying: “Michelle sent an email saying she was ‘duped.’ That’s been publicized.”

Yes, you liar, and that e-mail was sent when she was still giving you credit and under the false impression that your site had been hacked, and the video changed, by the guy who sent her the e-mail. Once she realized that you changed the video, she made it clear that this e-mailer was simply an innocent reader who had notified her that the link no longer worked. Your continued citation of her earlier claim that she had been duped is simply another example of duplicity on your part.

I need to go wash my hands now.

UPDATE x2: John Stringer, the guy who wrote Michelle Malkin to tell her that her link was broken, writes a post titled I am not a hacker, thank you very much. He says:

He [Riehl] switched the file to the stripper file BEFORE I ever notified Michelle of the problem. I had the same link that Michelle did, and never noticed it being dead. It was good when I posted it, and a reader told me not 30 minutes later that it was now Saddam dancing in his underwear.

Also baffling is Riehl’s claim that “stealing bandwidth” was the reason for the switch. If he was really peeved about bandwidth, why did he substitute ANOTHER VIDEO for the hotlinked Kanye clip? It was still using his bandwidth, was it not? And no one had any less reason to click the link on Michelle’s blog.

I am convinced that Dan Riehl took advantage of Michelle’s direct link to his video to create some publicity for his weblog.

Interesting.

UPDATE x3: Note that John Stringer shoots even more holes in Riehl’s various accounts of what happened. Not only was the switch to the Saddam video not prompted by an e-mail masking as Riehl, it wasn’t prompted by Stringer’s e-mail either. Also, if you go back and look at the timeline, it appears Riehl didn’t give Malkin very long at all to respond to his e-mail asking her to change the hotlink (an e-mail that, to me, he privately denied sending, claiming that the only e-mail he ever sent her was a polite one thanking her for the link).

The lies keep piling up.

Riehl apologizes to Stringer here, in a typically self-righteous and self-congratulatory post that claims: “The fact is my web log has grown over 100 times since I stopped playing the link game and decided to simply write what I felt about issues people were interested in reading about beyond politics.”

Huh? He decided to stop playing the link game? When did that happen? He sent out e-mails to numerous bloggers when he got the Kanye West video. As Wizbang has noted, he then sent out numerous e-mails to bloggers pimping his post mocking Malkin, asking them to join in. And, this past weekend, he also sent out e-mails to his post announcing Rehnquist’s death — something I know because Jeff Goldstein hat-tipped him for the e-mail.

Seems like that’s about all this guy does, is send out e-mails. That’s fine; I send them out myself, but usually when I do it: 1) I don’t subsequently claim that I have “stopped playing the link game”; and 2) I hopefully have something original to say, rather than just being one of the first people to report some news item.

Sheesh.

Riehl’s new post only adds to the numerous contradictions in his various versions of what happened, but it’s too tiresome to investigate and list them all. I do find myself irritated by his continual harping on Malkin for supposedly violating some unwritten blogging law. Dude, one of the biggest laws of blogging is that you generally don’t delete an embarrassing post — and if you do, you give a comprehensive explanation of why you’re doing it, including a full and forthright acknowledgement of any misstatements you’ve made.

It’s the only way to maintain credibility — something you long since lost.

44 Responses to “Riehl Dishonesty”

  1. Patterico:

    Is there some place where “blogger etiquette” is written down, so I can be sure not to violate it myself? I never would have thought of this prohibition against “hotlinking” (a term I hadn’t even heard before), but in retrospect, it makes sense: I can’t seem to get SiteMeter to notice any page views except those on the blog (it uses a variable that is only defined in my blogging software)… so if someone linked directly to an article, say, on a non-blog page of my (forthcoming soon) website, and if a hundred thousand people went and read that article, I wouldn’t get any official site-traffic increase at all!

    But if that same 100,000 went to my blog, then from there linked to the article, I would reap the benefits (including eventual ad revenues) from that popularity.

    This tells me two things: first, if some link is brought to my attention (as a blogger) by another blog, I should link to the blog, not directly to the embedded link, even if it’s to another page on the same site. It makes sense, but I hadn’t thought of it before. And second, of course, is the opposite side of that: if I send e-mail to you or other bloggers about some link I have, I should include only the link to my blog where I link the article… not a link to the article itself!

    (I guess a more generalized version would be that I should link only to a page at the person’s website that has a SiteMeter element, or whatever other web counter he’s using. So if you linked on Wednesday to a post of yours from Monday on your blog, I could link directly to the Monday post, since you would still get the traffic… I wouldn’t have to link to Wednesday’s post that just linked to Monday’s post.)

    But I just know there are other elements of etiquette out there that would make sense if explained to me but which are not obvious enough (at least not to me) that I would think of them myself. Is there some place where these rules are writ down?

    Dafydd

    Dafydd (f8a7be)

  2. Dafydd,

    I don’t know of one place where it’s all written down. You pick this stuff up as you go along, mostly. Another one I hear about a lot: don’t send a trackback without a link. That really upsets people.

    Here, it’s quite simple that Riehl could have avoided all of this by simply sending a link only to his blog.

    And second, of course, is the opposite side of that: if I send e-mail to you or other bloggers about some link I have, I should include only the link to my blog where I link the article… not a link to the article itself!

    It depends on what your goal is: getting traffic, or getting the article read. That’s what you should do if you’re planning to get pissy if someone links only the article. But it does create an unnecessary intermediate step, just so you can get traffic. I wouldn’t always do that.

    For example, when I published my LA Times op-ed recently, I sent an e-mail to a few bloggers, with a link only to the article, not to my post where I announced the article. When I realized that link was poor, I sent a second e-mail with a better link, and including a link to my announcement — so that if anyone really wanted to throw traffic my way, they could. But most people did what I expected, and what I would have done myself: they linked only the article, not my post.

    Given the links the article got, I probably missed out on 20,000 – 30,000 visits that day as a result. But so what? The article got read, and that was the key.

    Patterico (756436)

  3. Riehl’s “lies” can be explained as misunderstandings, exaggerations, and mistakes up to the point where he started denying that he said what he said. For example, when he said that Michelle got the updated link through a hacker, that might have been just an exaggeration: someone did do a bit of trivial hacking to find the correct name. And when he said that the email purported to be from him, that was probably a misunderstanding. He didn’t have much reason to lie about that.

    But some people just can’t own up to mistakes and that’s when things start going downhill.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  4. He said many times that the person had masked the e-mail to pose as him. Yet the e-mail was included in one he sent me, and it was always from a real person with a real web site.

    He had a reason to make that up: it allowed him to blame everything on a mysterious third party, rather than himself.

    The “hacker” statement was not an offhand comment. He specifically blamed a particular troll who he claimed had bothered him in the past:

    Okay, not really – but it did turn out to be a misunderstanding facilitated by an IHWOAL – Internet Hack Without A Life … real fat individual, I hear. And I doubt they are done. They have been reported to authorities before for worse behavior – including gaining personal information from posters on my site and making threatening phone calls, etc. Most likely they are using Internet cloaking services to conceal their identity and location.

    He was lying from the get-go, and tried to cover it up by deleting his post with the inconsistencies.

    Patterico (756436)

  5. Geeze PAtterico – you are making something out of nothing – and if I have time I’ll address it in a post. But I’ll respond to some commenter issues here. As to why the email I sent out included a “link” to the video – it did because as I have been “told,” by including the entire post in a link request, you save the person from having to visit the site. They can decide right there if they want to link it. And if Michelle hadn’t – no big deal. Her call. So the link to the video was imbessded in the post, just as it is in the original post. That is an entirely different think than “sending a link to the video” and all blogers know it.

    They also know you don’t do what Michelle did – but Patterico depends on her links for traffic, I don’t, so it’s possible he assumes there is something to gain from this obsession.

    The whole hacker thing was nothig more but a simple misudnerstanding. Michelle sent an email saying she was “duped.” That’s been publicized. As Patterico knows, the email addy of the gu that tipped Michelle to the new file name is almost identical to a guy that’s been trolling my site – he is said to be a computer hacker. I thought he had disguised the email address to make Michelle link the vid directly and fooled her into violating a clear blogger rule as regards linking. Every blogger behind the scenes knows that. I was giving Michelle the benefit of the doubt that she wouldn’t do something like that – I was wrong.

    It was a huge breaking video I was provided by a valuable resource amazingly quickly as he wanted to help me out in return for a favor. What Michelle did all but too my web log out of the equation for breaking the video in the blogging community.

    And , believe me, or not, if she didn’t have the ability to direct a lot of traffic around, a hell of a lot more bloggers would be saying it. End of story.

    Dan Riehl (7910a5)

  6. Michelle sent an email saying she was “duped.” That’s been publicized.

    Yes, and she has since taken it back, and your continued citation of that fact is simply more deception on your part. I have updated the post accordingly.

    As Patterico knows, the email addy of the gu that tipped Michelle to the new file name is almost identical to a guy that’s been trolling my site – he is said to be a computer hacker.

    Not true. The e-mail address of the guy who tipped Michelle is in the e-mail quoted above: killrighty@gmail.com. That in no way resembles the e-mail address of anyone I have any knowledge of regarding your site.

    I have no idea what you mean by the link being embedded, and that being different from sending the link. Here’s what you sent Malkin, from the bottom of an e-mail you sent me:

    http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2005/09/nbc_video.html


    NBC Video

    Just listen to this via NBC – went over every network, I’m told.

    George Bush doesn’t care about black people, they’ve been given permission to go down there and shoot us.

    If you click on that last link, it takes you here:

    http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/files/wnbc_katrina_telethon.wmv

    which is the original link direct to the video.

    Michelle has said that if she had it to do again she wouldn’t have linked the video directly, and I think that’s right. But the link was right there in your e-mail, something you should have taken into account in your juvenile response.

    Okay, so your explanation of the “hacker” thing is that it was a “misunderstanding” — i.e. you went around asserting something as a fact even though 1) it wasn’t true and 2) you had zero evidence to back it up. In other words, you made it up. Heckuva “misunderstanding.”

    But here’s what I don’t get: you haven’t addressed the discrepancies between the explanation you sent me (and Michelle) and the post that you deleted. I don’t get how you could possibly explain your claim to us that you had no idea whether she initially linked the video properly, until the non-existent hacker came along; in your deleted post you said the opposite: that you saw the hotlinking and sent her an e-mail complaining about it.

    Meanwhile, you sent me an e-mail to me claiming something different: that the *only* e-mail you had sent her was a note of thanks:

    This is the only email “I” sent to Michele after she linked my post.

    This was attached to an e-mail you supposedly sent her politely thanking her for the link.

    This is also inconsistent with your deleted post.

    The conclusion is irresistable that you went around telling people stuff that was inconsistent with what you posted — and later deleted. If you’re not claiming that a hacker took over your site and posted that post — and you’re not — then you’re just a liar. Period.

    Patterico (756436)

  7. there are a whole slew of people who believe you mr patterico, as we have all been there. we all have stories to tell you and he has alleged each one of us have been hacked or have been the hackers as well. to this day he alleges this one or that one of us are going on his site “harrassing” posters when in fact like you we are parents and spouses with lives and full time jobs. my spouse and i in fact have filed a federal suit against him.

    God bless you for having the guts to stand up to this cyber tyrant. someone had to do it. Believe me, I am speaking for a good 20 plus people when I say this!

    youarecorrectpaterico (f8ce3f)

  8. Once again, I don’t want to get in the middle of this. Hopefully the guy can stop lying about this incident, and I can go back to posting about other things.

    Patterico (756436)

  9. you will!! you just freed a lot of others mby doing what you have done, so thank you.

    and bear this in mind. you are dealing with a man who is almost 50 and has never been married. try and remember that. it will help you move on quicker.

    you may be hearing from others, as you have sort of become a hero for those of us who have been silenced by this tyrant.

    God bless and hope you move forward fast. Thanks for helping us out too

    youarecorrectpaterico (f8ce3f)

  10. Okay, I understand what you mean by an “embedded” link. It’s clear from your e-mail I quoted. I even understand why you included it.

    I understand everything except for the apparent lies.

    Patterico (756436)

  11. just remember, 50 and never married.

    you have new fans now. you have earned the respect of a whole new crowd so make way for us, we are here and will be checking your blog every day!! michelle’s too : )

    youwinMrP (f8ce3f)

  12. Fine by me. Nothing on Natalee Holloway on this blog, though; sorry.

    Patterico (756436)

  13. believe me that is not what we are all about.

    you have class and guts and by the way we were not all born when this story happened.

    besides there are enough places to go for that!

    thank you again Mr P–the new cyber hero to many

    have a good evening and take care of your family and be greatful to have one : )

    youwinMrP (f8ce3f)

  14. It’s a shame Riehl has taken things this far. So what is his payoff? Taking responsibility for his action instead of blaming it on some troll. Eureka!! Thats like him saying “death by orgasm”, now I get it. He could put an end to all of this.1A public acknowledgement of what he did was wrong. Public because he had posted this incident on several sites. 2 Public apology to Malken and Patterico. 3 Keep his urine thoughts to himself.

    Clearly the object is to create controversy either for hits or public humiliation of others but something went wrong, yes Death by orgasm.

    To continue this sophomoric charade is in keeping with his past behavior, trolling for dollars.

    Yanno, I am kind of liking it though. When Riehl slithers into Fallacy.

    seedyrum (99e4f3)

  15. Back to Dafydd’s original comment. I am as unsure as you about blogger etiquette, but I think if bloggers were a bit more specific on what we expected when we forward a link, we would avoid several problems and hurt feelings.

    For example, specify either a hat tip or a blog link. Depending on the importance of the link/story, a hat tip may be all we are looking for.

    Pigilito (6cc896)

  16. Patterico – It’s 3:30 AM here and I’m exhausted. My posts on Bogalusa have led to an email group through which three familes have now found loved ones. Another from the group just came in minutes ago – a Vietnamese family. I started on a “Patterico Pontificates” post hours ago – saved it as a draft – then let it go. I know we both want to move on. I can tell from the commentr names above – the new ones – my ex whatever – you don’t want any part of them. And I see you have figure that out.

    You and I had a run in once before almost a year ago – it was a misunderstanding in some comments somewhere, or something. I made a post, etc. Perhaps you recall. We discussed it and realized it was a misunderstanding and you even acknowledged me at the time for being a reasonable man. I am.

    This was mostly misunderstanding after the direct link to the video issue. I have no more fight with you, even have some stuff you’d benefit from seeing behind the scenes as regards what the LA Times is doing right now.

    The traffic and contacts I’ve gotten through my NH reporting – which was what it always was – the story was compelling to me – but also presented a geat opportunity to actually report, as media and sources in Aruba were much more receptive to working with American alternative media than even Americans are.

    That video file was a pay back from a big media guy for some favors I did as regards information and some other things having to do with legitimate journalism. It was given expressly for crediting as he wanted to help me out from a brekaing news perspective and I had it up before the ink was dry on Drudges red text banner – which was ALL he had at the time. So, was I sentitive to the issue – you bet. I’m human.

    Now let’s stop all this and get back to what we care about and do best – web logging in the manner we both appreciate. This isn’t worth it. I’m done.

    Have a good night. Email me if you have something intresting going on. I still have very good traffic and am generous with links. The NH story has given me the opportunity to bring an entirely different readership into the blogging community. And I haven’t been the least bit shy about introducing them to the widest varirety of bloggers that I can. WHatever you may think I am, all I can tell you is that you’re wrong. Do what you wish.

    Good night, sorry for the typos, I’m beat.

    Dan

    Dan Riehl (7910a5)

  17. Mr. Patterico,

    How right you are, quote: “I think he’s hoping that he and his followers can deflect attention from his dishonesty by self-righteously talking about the important things that are going on in the world (“can’t we just move on”?). You know, important things like Natalee Holloway, the main topic of Riehl’s site and the principal source of his traffic.” and “Man, this guy is devious.”

    I have been an outspoken critic, and opponent, of the inordinate amount of media coverage lavished by the networks on the Natalee Holloway case and the ensuing soap opera melodrama, at the expense of other more impacting news and developments taking place here, and around the world, for no higher “altruistic” motives than ratings!

    I have posted my strong opinions against this “fracas” in several comments I have made throughout the last two months, which I have posted on different web sites discussing Natalee Holloway, to the horror, and chagrin of those who have become so obsessed and polarized about the story, that they have almost made it a “cult” Beatifying Beth Holloway Twitty ( Natalee’s mom to those who may impossibly not know), and Natalee to the point that they will not accept dissent with their views, nor allow any objective observation that may impinge on the “sanctity” of the objects of their devotion!

    Dan Riehl’s site was one of those I visited for observations on the latest “absurdities” been brandied about by these Beth supporters, as well as to post some pertinent observations refuting some of their more outrageous claims, and positions.

    As was to be expected, the more ardent “believers” immediately accused me of being a “troll”, and launched on a campaign, of rants and vulgarities, but though my presence was “tenuous” Dan suffered me to post.

    However, after the advent of Hurricane Katrina, and the ensuing catastrophe which has devastated our Gulf Coast, and New Orleans in particular; and the release of Joran, and the Kalpoe brothers in Aruba, with Beth resigning herself to return to Alabama virtually in defeat, unable by obvious reasons, to once again monopolize the media’s attention; many of those who used to frequent Riehl’s Natalee site have left.

    This has reduced the traffic on the site to mainly that of those die-hard Beth supporters, as post “racist” remarks about Arubans as well as the victims of the Hurricane, or “thinly veiled” calls for the assassination or lynching of Joran and the Kalpoe brothers, who obviously abhor my presence at the blog, and my “heretical” remarks.

    As a result, Dan has banned me from the site, alleging that I had been “trolling” using aliases, something I emphatically deny since I have always used my screen name: “Althor” on all of my posts everywhere, with the exception of once having used “Visigoth” on one site since because of some technical glitch the site did not allow me to use the previous.

    After having contacted him about it and explained myself, he has engaged in a plethora of evasions, with the final unwavering result of upholding his ban to the delight and approbation of his band of Beth cronies.

    Now, being that, at least for the present, we seem to have gone back to focusing on the “real” issues on our news broadcasts (O’Reilly not withstanding), I feel that my “mission” if you want to call it such, has been accomplished, and therefore I do not need, nor really desire to keep frequenting this Riehl Natalee site, devoted now to the “unraveling” of some demented “Babalao’s” (Priest of the “Santeria” – vodoo religion) predictions concerning the Natalee Holloway case, made while he allegedly was under the “possession” of “Shango” (or most commonly known as “Chango”) a West African war god associated with thunder, which the African slaves identified in the syncretization of their native beliefs with Christianity, as Saint Barbara; which is a good example of the kind of “learned,” “intelligent,” and “informed” discourse taking place at the site!

    However, I feel deeply offended by the (“Man, this guy is devious.”) “underhanded” way in which my dissenting views have been “silenced” by Mr. Riehl, to appease the howling of his remaining Natalee / Beth acolytes!

    Therefore I say Kudos to you, for standing up to his deviousness, and exposing his apparent lack of integrity as a blogger. I concur!

    Boy! If I was “banned” before from his site, now it will be for eternity!

    Oh well,

    Althor

    Althor (ee3eb6)

  18. Mr. Riehl if what you are saying is all true why don’t you just explain to us why you deleted your original post?

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  19. I think both parties have flailed this horse to death. Looks like Riehl has decided to stop defending himself on this, and I think he got by far the worst of it. This will cost him traffic (not from me, I never heard of the guy) and credibility.

    From what I have seen, his explanation just doesn’t ring true. Maybe it is, but I guess the skeptic in me just won’t buy it. I was embarassed for the guy after his most recent comment above. Sheesh, if you are gonna stick to your guns but stop arguing, just say that. Don’t dangle “goodies” out there as a peace offering as if all Paterico were interested in were dirt on the LA Times. For God’s sake, the LAT publishes their dirty laundry for the whole world to see. That’s why Paterico has so much to write about.

    Glenn (abfa4e)

  20. Thank you, Patterico, for setting the record straight.

    Michelle Malkin (9f1d1d)

  21. Dwilkers:
    Mr. Riehl if what you are saying is all true why don’t you just explain to us why you deleted your original post?

    Yhe first email I read from Malkin after it was up said she was duped, though I misinterpreted what she meant by that – meaning, I thought she was saying she hadn’t linked the video directly until after getting an email – so, I immediately took it down – left her a phone message as her email suggested calling her – and sent her an email. From there, since I didn’t hear back, I can only assume she decided on another approach as to discussing what happened so things were quietly resolved. What she did do from there made her appear liked the wronged party and me the bad guy – which simply isn’t true.

    And I would hope that isn’t “Glenn,” as he’s linked me multiple times and sent a few emails. I say that as it is impossible to confirm who is actually commenting and given that I’m aware of who one or two are – anything is possible with them. I had to ban one under proably 20 different names and IP’s. Same goes for the Michelle Malkin comment – but who knows.

    Hell – this might not even be ME comment for all I know. : )

    Dan Riehl (7910a5)

  22. Sure Dan Riehl, place the blame somewhere else!

    As you say “…anything is possible with them. I had to ban one under probably 20 different names and IPs.”

    I’m sure that by tomorrow you’ll say the number is 40. Who knows if you keep it up it will grow exponentially, until you wind up with more “different names and IPs” from “this” person than the number of Beth “cronies” left visiting your site!

    Why don’t you own up for once to your mistakes for a change, instead of perpetuating them, and falsely accusing other people?

    Althor

    P.S. Perhaps you should ask “Shango” for advice.

    Althor (ee3eb6)

  23. Don’t worry, Dan, that wasn’t Glenn Reynolds. There’s another Glenn who comments here from time to time. Glenn Reynolds would not be interested in this.

    But it was Michelle leaving that comment.

    I don’t see the need for another post describing your actions. You already wrote one, remember?

    Patterico (756436)

  24. I have been a long-time poster on Dan’s forums and am very disappointed he changed the link to a raunchy video to get back at Michelle for not sending him lots of traffic. Now he is so busy and beleaguered he does not have time to deal with what he did.

    I have to wonder why he did not afford the same courtesy to Michelle he now demands for himself, namely being too busy trying to match lost kids with parents than to be concerned with his blog traffic.

    Moral of this story: If you are going to do somebody dirt for not sending you the traffic you expected from sending them a link, don’t write an article bragging about it. Not everybody is going to think this a fine thing to do. I don’t. Be big enough to apologize to Michelle and her readers who were really the ones you duped with the fake link.

    And fix the security on your blog and you won’t have these trolls and hacker problems, real or imagined. Or invented. After so long and so many “problems” with trolls and hackers, I can only conclude they serve some purpose. Otherwise, why not just use some of the regular software used by others that totally reduce the number of incidents. Might even prevent some of the viruses planted on your posters’ computers, too. Just seems the logical and mature thing to do rather than encourage the continuance of trolls unless they serve a purpose.

    Anna (d5ea50)

  25. Let’s assume for a moment that I had a blog and I sent Patterico an e-mail with a link to some video I thought he’d like to link. Then Patterico posts the link per my request, but I realize he was linking directly to the video, rather than to my post, which is what I’d prefer because I’d like folks to visit my blog and well…that’s why I sent Patterico the link in the first place.

    First, I’d send Patterico an e-mail telling him I’d made an error and asking him to please link to my blog post rather than directly to the video I was hosting. Second, absent some reply from Patterico, I’d simply kill the link, redirect it on my blog to keep the original post valid and come over here and post in his thread why I had done so – politely.

    I would not change the video to some offensive content, I would not call Patterico out as a bandwidth thief, and I would not then delete the post where I called him out and start a bunch of hooey about hackers.

    However I must say I also find it a stretch that Malkin didn’t watch the video before she posted about it being ‘porn’. The first thing I’d do in such a situation, being notified by readers that something was wrong, is hit the link to see what they were talking about.

    I saw the video Mr. Rhiel pasted in to ‘get’ Malkin and it wasn’t porn but it was the sort of thing that might be offensive to some folks. I have no idea why he did it, maybe he was having a bad day or had too much to drink that night. The whole thing is childish.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  26. “First, I’d send Patterico an e-mail telling him I’d made an error and asking him to please link to my blog post rather than directly to the video I was hosting. Second, absent some reply from Patterico, I’d simply kill the link, redirect it on my blog to keep the original post valid and come over here and post in his thread why I had done so – politely.”

    But that’s precisely what I did Dwilkers. Sent a polite email which Michele states went into her spam filter by mistake – unfortunately after I did the second item – ie killed the link – an email from some other individual giving her the new name to the file so she could reinstitute the direct link somehow missed her spam filter and the link was promptly active again by Michele.

    Consequently all I could conclude from what I knew was that steps were being taken to ensure a hotlink to the video stayed active and my request for it to stop was ignored. Was I suppose to keep changing the name of the file forever to prevent someone else from, in the opinion of some, taking credit for hosting the video?

    As I said, if it were someone else – several bloggers would be all over it … I simply don’t chose my principles based on someone’s sitemeter.

    Malkin claiming Patterico is “setting the record straight” is simply proof that either she’s intent on playing the victim, instead of owning up to a deliberate ethical transgression. Or she’s too self-righteous to admit a simple mistake in blogging etiquette.

    Shouldn’t be such a surprise from anyone looking for a MSM career, I suppose. But then, she’s always been overly preachy and socially conservative for me, anyway. Eh! So it goes. As for my previous post – heck if it’ll make Patterico happy I’ll put it back up – I save it too, intact. I only took it down thinking it would be better to understand more of what happened without making it worse.

    Now that I understand, I really shouldn’t have taken it down. Either way, it isn’t that important. And I doubt she’ll do it to someone again, on purpose, or by mistake. You make the call, Patterico – if it’ll make you happy, I’ll gladly throw it back up tonight. I really don’t care.

    Dan (0249a2)

  27. Dan, give it a rest already. There is no “ethical breach” in actually using a link the blogger sent to you. If you didn’t want her hotlinking to your video, you shouldn’t have sent her that link. The end.

    Xrlq (ffb240)

  28. Quote: “… I simply don’t chose my principles based on someone’s sitemeter.”

    Comment by Dan — 9/6/2005 @ 10:10 am

    I’m sorry to have to disagree with that Dan, but from my own experience in dealing with you, you may not choose your principles based on “someone’sitemeter”…but you certainly seem to choose them based on your “own.”

    That is my opinion on the matter. Also the end of the story as far as I’m concerned. Rebut to your heart’s delight.

    Althor

    Althor (ee3eb6)

  29. I am not a hacker, thank you very much

    Somehow, I have been dragged into the middle of a blogosphere soap-opera spat, been called an “internet hack without a life”, “probably fat”, “troublesome troll”, been accused of hacking someone’s weblog and …

    killrighty.net (0c6a63)

  30. […] I read Michelle’s blog on September 2, saw the Kanye West video and had to post it immediately. I grabbed the link from her site, and credited Michelle for it. Not long after posting it, I received an email from a reader letting me know that my link to Kanye West being an idiot now pointed to a male stripper with Saddam Hussein’s face. I went back to Michelle Malkin’s website and checked her link, and it pointed to the stripper video as well. I checked Dan Riehl’s blog for the correct link, and sure enough, he had changed the filename, and replaced it with the stripper video. His blog on the video now linked to the correct file, with a brand-new filename. I knew linking to the stripper video would be embarrassing for Michelle, so I fired off the email now preserved for posterity on Patterico’s blog, so that Michelle could correct her link or save the video file on her own server as I did after noticing the prank. […]

    killrighty.net » I am not a hacker, thank you very much (0c6a63)

  31. Yeah, not sure what happened with the multiple trackback/pingback combo there. Sorry about the duplicates.

    the infamous John Stringer (6aeeee)

  32. John Stringer:

    A multiple trackback/pingback combo? THAT IS A BLATANT VIOLATION OF INTERNET ETIQUETTE! Your punishment will be determined later; it will certainly involve some sort of humiliation of you and your readers.

    Just kidding.

    By the way, deleting an embarrassing post and pretending like you never posted it, like Riehl did — isn’t that some kind of violation of Internet etiquette too? Just askin’.

    Patterico (517d2b)

  33. I see that your website is hotlinking the html page on my website.
    THAT IS STEALING BANDWIDTH AND YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!

    troublesome troll (6aeeee)

  34. Did you notice Dan Riehl has stopped playing the link game? See my updates.

    Patterico (756436)

  35. hey there again MrP. I have a dear friend who is a columnisst for the LA Times, Argus Hamilton : )

    Michelle thank you for legitimizing what i went through as well. I think we need to talk. We also know quite a few of the same people. I have just been quiet here about it. TILL NOW.

    I am related to Rupert Murdoch’s attorney. Yes, Dan knows this and perhaps this is why he wanted to be my best buddy for a while too. I am also good friends with Claudia Cowan. We are friends and neighbors. Our kids go to school together.

    As I said in subtler words before and in an email we have a lot in common here.

    Have a nice evening and let this rodent fall on his own sword

    THANK YOU MRP AND MICHELLE (b67eed)

  36. Did you notice Dan Riehl has stopped playing the link game? See my updates.

    Comment by Patterico — 9/7/2005 @ 6:51 pm

    HE IS DEFEATED

    THANK YOU MRP AND MICHELLE (b67eed)

  37. here is something else very funny. now that i read through here Mr P it is obvious you are in california as well. Pac Bell WAS the major phone carrier out here (no more) as you know. Anyone who has DSL through their local/long distance phone service out here, when their IP shows regardless of what it is called now, it shows up as pacbell.net. That is a lot of people in California. Still Mr Riehl belives for some bizzare reason that every poster in California that posts at his site with DSL through their local/long distance (hence pacbell.net) is either myself or my spouse posing as a troll and their posts get deleted. That is paranoid!!

    Again, goodnight

    youarecorrectMRP (b67eed)

  38. Now that I understand, I really shouldn’t have taken
    it down. Either way, it isn’t that important. And I
    doubt she’ll do it to someone again, on purpose, or by
    mistake. You make the call, Patterico – if it’ll make
    you happy, I’ll gladly throw it back up tonight. I
    really don’t care.

    Comment by Dan — 9/6/2005 @ 10:10 am

    Hey Dan?
    Why not put back all the posts you have selectively deleted these past several months?
    Why not “unedit” user’s posts that you changed?
    Why not stand in front of a mirror and actually stare at your own weasely face for a while?

    realwackedvalues (bb3742)

  39. For a while, I was an avid reader of Dan Riehl’s blog. Admittedly, I was transfixed by the Natalee Holloway story and Riehl had some good coverage of it. So what if the media spent a lot of time on it? A huge demographic wanted to know what happened down in Aruba. Moreover, I believe those that have bashed Natalee’s mom for doing everything she possibly could to find out what happened to her daugher need to have a serious MORALITY check. That all said, if everything you have claimed about Riehl’s recent behavior is true, Riehl clearly needs to take a serious MORALITY check. Since his credibility is now down the toilet, I know that for the future I will be reluctant to go back to his blog.

    pkt (b033c3)

  40. Patterico

    I just read your comments on this at wizbang! you are a real firecracker you know that?

    God bless you for always standing by your truth!

    For those who want truth in that story Mr Riehl has prostituted himself on go to scaredmonkeys.com and .net. those guys (also people dan has had problems with) really do a stand up job.

    I read the posts here and often read this blog. I have a feeling I know who some of the posters are and I agree with all of the ACCEPT DAN.

    I have tried to remain objective, but you know what? You really cannot with this man. He has repeatedly turned on people. it seems on a daily basis someone is seriously hurt on his blog and he always blames it on specific or a specific troll and it just doesn’t fly. How one person can come on as twenty different people at once is impossible, only the owner of a blog can do all that from behind the scenes.

    Dan someday you are going to hurt someone bad enough and the cops will search your computers and find out it was you all along. Then what will you do when you are sitting in a jail cell with Bubba? Will you say sorry then?

    Thanks Patterico, you ARE a hero as others have said here, for those who have no recourse.

    Mommy (c50e62)

  41. QUOTE: “…Still Mr Riehl belives for some bizzare reason that every poster in California that posts at his site with DSL through their local/long distance (hence pacbell.net) is either myself or my spouse posing as a troll and their posts get deleted. That is paranoid!!”

    Comment by youarecorrectMRP — 9/8/2005 @ 9:44 pm

    Same thing happened to me because of my IP address, I was banned, and my posts were deleted! However, it only seems to happen to those with whose views his “cronies” happen to disagree!!!

    Anyone who opposes with an articulate, intelligent argument the paranoia, the absurdities, and the misinformation rampant in his blog, especially on his “Natalee Holloway” thread, is automatically called by his “regulars” a “Troll”, and subsequently banned by Dan! No dissension allowed!

    He has reduced himself to catering to the whim of a bunch of crackpot Beth fanatics, who make up most of his traffic, who lately have been discussing, of all things, some purported prognostications given by a “Babalao” oracle of “Shango” (a West African Warrior Spirit brought over by the slaves) about Natalee Holloway’s disappearance, as if they were discussing solid hard pieces of evidence! Now, how much more delusional, and absurd than that can you get?!?!

    These same people will soon be reporting “alleged” sightings of Natalee in some “brothel” or other in South America, or her presence in some “remote” Andean town (Paulus Van Der Sloot sold her into “white slavery” you know), the same way that “Elvis” is seen somewhere by hundreds of people every year, though his death is “officially” well documented, and his mortal remains are buried next to his mother’s in Graceland!

    Some of the most ardent of these Beth followers most likely will also start seeing in the near future Natalee’s image in a “piece of toasted bread” (which will be auctioned off on E-Bay to help Beth fund her future stays at her Palatial Suite at the Wyndham Hotel in Aruba), or miraculously sculpted on the face of some “cow’s dropping” (where hundreds of “Beth” pilgrims will gather to see the miraculous manifestation), or in the shades of the soil of some polluted cliff overlooking the landfill in Aruba (where a shrine to Natalee’s memory will be erected), as devotees of Our Lady of Guadalupe have repeatedly seen them in the past; but we must realize that this is what those people “wish to see,” and not a reflection of “objective” reality! However it seems Dan has chosen to remain oblivious to that fact!

    It is a shame he has stooped so low!

    Althor

    Althor (ee3eb6)

  42. […] What’s to condemn? Riehl’s post was in response to the same indviduals having done the same to Karl Rove and other Washington operatives who, unlike NYT staff, might actually pose some interest to terrorists. Goose, gander, etc. Besides, it’s not as though the bloggers Greenwald called out are afraid to attack Riehl when they feel it is warranted. For better or for owrse, it’s been known to happen before. (unsurprisingly, Riehl himself, along with Misha, was among the right-wing bloggers sermonizing this weekend about the terrible comments made to Goldstein). […]

    damnum absque injuria » Weekend Doucheblogging (38c04c)

  43. Free Granny Porn Milf Camps Friend’s Hot Mom…

    I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…

    Free Granny Porn Milf Camps Friend's Hot Mom (08fc82)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1119 secs.