Patterico's Pontifications

10/23/2006

Althouse on Ellers/Ellison/Ellensburg

Filed under: Buffoons,General — Patterico @ 11:11 pm



Ann Althouse wonders how people can bear to read Rick Ellensburg. She adds:

I get the impression that he is insinuating that I support right-wing efforts at gay-bashing. If so — and I’m not going to put up with reading his crap to find out — that is utterly despicable and false.

I am shocked at the suggestion that Ellison might write something despicable and false, or baselessly suggest that someone supports right-wing anti-gay measures. What does right-wing pundit Kirsten Powers think about all this?

P.S. I hope Ann is aware that by defending herself against dishonest attacks by Greenwald, even once, she is automatically labeled as being “obsessed” with him. Commenter Macswain makes that accusation in comments below — even though this is the only post Althouse has ever done about him. That’s how his commenters operate: in classic Catch-22 style. If you don’t respond, it’s because you can’t refute his excellent arguments. If you do respond and defend yourself (even once, like Althouse), you’re “obsessed.” Yossarian would have been impressed.

20 Responses to “Althouse on Ellers/Ellison/Ellensburg”

  1. Other than sharing your Greenwald obsession has Althouse ever written anything worth reading.

    Macswain (5b310d)

  2. Every conservative blogger and commentator always must tell everyone that he/she is pro gay. Like it’s perfectly normal for men to insert their erect penises into another man’s rectum; just another life choice to “fist f**k other men; and…well you get my drift. Tolerate the behavior, not under all circumstances (scout leaders, coaches of young boys and so on). Me? I’m a blogger who has a background in show biz for almost twenty years and have been associating with homosexuals during all that time. I won’t be so stupid as to say “some of my best friends were…” but I had some acquaintances who I liked very much. Tolerance under most circumstances only.

    Howard Veit (28df94)

  3. Other than sharing your Greenwald obsession has Althouse ever written anything worth reading.

    Shorter Slightly longer Macswain: anyone who defends themselves against an unfair smear by Greenwald has an “obsession” with Greenwald.

    (Althouse has done exactly one post about the guy.)

    The way my own “obsession” works is this: 1) I see from SiteMeter or Technorati that Greenwald has linked me; 2) Based on his history of dishonest links, I suspect that the link to me is a dishonest link, and go to check it out; 3) my suspicions are confirmed; 4) I post about it; 5) I check to see his reaction, and he does something else dishonest. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    Eventually I get bored.

    This cycle has happened about 3 times. I think I’m about at the end of this cycle.

    Each time, others recognize that he is being unfair. His former fan Henke recognized that Greenwald was wrong to lump me in with those who never criticize violent right-wing punditry like that from Coulter. John Cole recently recognized that Greenwald was wrong to lump me in with any homophobic part of the Republican party. And virtually everyone who was paying attention saw that he was wrong to call my guest blogger a “stalker” and to insinuate that Rush Limbaugh is a pedophile or sex tourist.

    But to Macswain, all of this unfair hackery by Greenwald apparently merits no criticism.

    Patterico (de0616)

  4. Howard Veit,

    I simply choose not to dwell on the sex lives of the homosexuals *or* the heterosexuals that I know.

    Patterico (de0616)

  5. Patterico–

    You’re just in denial about your obession. 😉

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  6. “Other than sharing your Greenwald obsession has Althouse ever written anything worth reading.”

    Actually, she writes lots of interesting things and doesn’t spend time lying to do so like Greenwald. But then again, I guess the fact that she writes interesting things would separate her from Greenwald in the first place.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  7. in classic Catch-22 style. …Yossarian would have been impressed.

    Who is this Yossarian you mentioned? I don’t like the sound of him. He sounds subversive. Just the name of him hints of subersion. Yossarisn. Listen to all of those “s” in there.

    Patterico, keep an eye out for him and let me know if he starts commenting here.

    EFG (33db69)

  8. That’s some catch…

    Yossarian (966b00)

  9. Make an appointment and we can discuss the issue.

    [I tried, but your secretary says that they don’t make appointments for people who have never made appointments before. — P]

    Major Major (539ee5)

  10. “Other than sharing your Greenwald obsession has Althouse ever written anything worth reading.

    Comment by Macswain”

    Patrick, have you checked Macswain’s IP address ? Sounds fishy. Maybe he needs to read her blog. Nah. Why confuse yourself ?

    Mike K (416363)

  11. Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?

    Yossarian (044292)

  12. These little worms like to think of themselves as Kaiser Sozie, but are really more akin to David Gest. Althouse should bitch slap them.

    Paddling to Sweden (7a9f58)

  13. I’ve come across Macswain in the past. Don’t have high hopes he’s misunderstanding something: he’s really that stupid.

    RW (8f8726)

  14. Look at the time stamps on the Macswain reply. It’s just 4 minutes after the original post. Who lurks on a blog they disagree with JUST IN CASE they might need to jump in and defend Greenwald?

    Macswain is probably immune to being called an idiot. I think I’ll mock him for not having a life.

    David (d432ae)

  15. I hope Ann is aware that by defending herself against dishonest attacks by Greenwald, even once, she is automatically labeled as being “obsessed” with him.

    One of Pat’s favorite tricks is to distract from the issue at hand by engaging in hair splitting semantics.

    Of course, anyone who actually reads Althouse’s piece on Greenwald will see that she not only defends herself from “dishonest attacks” that she has to go to great lengths to construct but starts the piece with a number of paragraphs challenging Greenwald’s grammar and even pointing out a typo. She then frets over the popularity of Greenwald’s blog.

    So yes … someone who spends so much time and effort posting about the grammar of a blog piece, fretting about that blog’s popularity and who is contorting herself into a pretzel to find a “dishonest attack” is acting a bit obsessively in my opinion. Pat believes being “obsessed” only applies based on the number of posts one writes on a subject. A bit of a narrow definition, but so be it.

    Nonetheless, Pat’s wild-eyed response to my one sentence retort says something about Pat and the subject of Greenwald. How about we just use the word “bizarre.”

    Macswain (76d8da)

  16. Man… Catch-22 jokes. I hate that book. It’s funny, but it’s hard for me to read books where I hate all the characters (A “Confederacy of Dunces” is a good example)

    Leviticus (3c2c59)

  17. obsessed adj 1: having or showing excessive or compulsive concern with something; “became more and more haunted by the stupid riddle”; “was absolutely obsessed with the girl”; “got no help from his wife who was preoccupied with the children”; “he was taken up in worry for the old woman” [syn: {haunted}, {preoccupied}, {taken up(p)}] 2: influenced or controlled by a powerful force such as a strong emotion; “by love possessed” [syn: {possessed(p)}]

    Posting about Greenwald once doesn’t demonstrate obsession. And “so much time and effort”…not sure what to say about that. Althouse thought the piece was written poorly. She demonstrated that by quoting sections of it. Frankly, I thought she was correct based on the passages she quoted, with the “waste of time” repeated in one sentence, etcetera.

    Had she not documented what her problem was with the post she’d have been dissed for that. Having documented it she’s now “obsessed”, even though she’s only written one post about Sir Douche and clearly hasn’t demonstrated any excessive or compulsive concern, only the normal concern of a person who has been slandered by Sir Douche.

    That Greeny is obsessed with Althouse could be made asserted based on the same thing – IE length of post and one link – and since Greeny can’t write a post of less than 7,000 words wherein he repeats himself within a single sentence it would be far stronger in his case.

    So bullshit. Obviously she should have kept her fookin mouth shut. No matter what she did she’d be wrong if she disagreed with Greeny boy.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  18. Put dwilkers down as voting for Blog Grammar Trolls.

    Macswain (76d8da)

  19. Could someone give me a link to Greenwald’s blog so I can see if all this fuss is legitimate?

    Thanks

    Leviticus (3c2c59)

  20. “Other than sharing your Greenwald obsession has Althouse ever written anything worth reading.”

    Worth enough for you to comment on, it seems.

    Chris (926a19)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0793 secs.