Patterico Requests to Hear the Maliki Tape
I’ve been a bit busy (work, intensifying Chuck Philips investigation, etc.) and found no immediate contact information at the Der Spiegel website. But a couple of helpful commenters found me a contact form in German, and one even walked me through the form, thus saving me the trouble of supplementing my horrible German with Internet searches.
So I have now officially requested to listen to the Maliki interview. I guess it’s the New York Times and me.
Thought I’d let you know.
Somebody on talk radio was making the point that Maliki has been calling for us to leave practically from the moment he took office. He’s paying lip service to those factions that, heedless of the consequences, want us to leave — probably so that they can carve out pieces of real estate for themselves.
Icy Truth (2d1519) — 7/25/2008 @ 9:05 pmGreat move. So are they going to send you a audio, or are they going to hold the phone next to a tape recorder?
Patricia (f56a97) — 7/25/2008 @ 9:08 pmPatterico: do you speak Arabic?
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 7/25/2008 @ 9:08 pmDer Spiegel could easily make an MP3 of the recording and put it on the Web.
Bradley J Fikes (0ea407) — 7/25/2008 @ 9:13 pmSo are they going to send you a audio, or are they going to hold the phone next to a tape recorder?
Did you mean “they” or “you”?
Patterico: do you speak Arabic?
See previous statement.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/25/2008 @ 9:20 pmI don’t know what language the Maliki interview was conducted in and there’s no assurance Der Spiegel will share it with you, but if it does then maybe one of these UCLA professors could be of assistance.
DRJ (070f3d) — 7/25/2008 @ 9:52 pmEnglish translated to Arabic.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/25/2008 @ 10:49 pmI kind of think the train has left the station on this one. The interview has been corrected, clarified, dissected, and overwhelmed by later statements by all parties involved. If you have an Arabic translator go for it, but events have pretty much outpaced that effort.
The thing that is confusing to me is that Maliki seemed to spontaneously endorse Obama’s withdrawal plan, and McCain is now agreeing with Maliki’s plan, but somehow Obama is a defeatocrat whose whole candidacy is based on failure in Iraq, while McCain is a steely-eyed realist who will settle for nothing less than unconditional victory in Iraq.
Obama proposes a schedule, the duly elected President of Iraq goes out of his way to agree that is the wisest course, and McCain belatedly agrees with this plan. How does McCain come out the visionary here?
Aplomb (b6fba6) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:45 amAplomb – I guess if you are not interested in the facts, I can see how this would not interest you. I guess if you are more interested in political rhetoric than a secure Iraq, I can see how this would not interest you. If your candidate had been consistently wrong since the outset, I can see how you would want to ignore this. The simple facts are that Baracky’s position, surrender in 16 months, ignore/listen to the Generals, are all subject to change depending on audience.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/26/2008 @ 5:44 amAplomb #8 —
The train may indeed have left the station, but I find myself quite unclear on some of the important details. And I’m in the top 5%? 1%? of people who have been paying attention. The MSM carnival moving on before key facts are widely known has happened before, e.g. with the Wafa Sultan affair in 2006.
* What language was the interview conducted in?
* Why, when the NYT presented their alternative translation of Maliki’s remarks, did they note that they weren’t clear on the language of the interview?
* How does Der Spiegel‘s sotto voce policy of extensively reworking interview quotes prior to publication figure into this?
* What US withdrawal program did Maliki endorse, in this instance and in other circumstances? It’s not as if this is the first or last time he’s thought to comment on this issue. The story is in the qualifiers more than in the number of months. “16” no matter what? as conditions warrant? assuming stand-up of Iraqi security forces goes as scheduled? in the case of continued lower levels of violence?
It seems rather unlikely that Maliki was endorsing Obama’s plan as Obama was expressing it last year on the campaign trail. That Maliki and Obama presently see eye-to-eye, at least somewhat, is a big deal. Maliki’s plan, and Obama’s current plan, and the interview that signalled their agreement: all are parts of this story.
AMac (ab1e8f) — 7/26/2008 @ 6:06 amOT but I’m learning to link…49 illegal’s found inside a tanker
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080726-9999-1m26border.html
Hazy (d671ab) — 7/26/2008 @ 6:53 amYou wingnuts are really obsessed with this issue aren’t you? Like anyone gives a shit about Patterico’s “translation”. Keep on the good fight: There are plenty more windmills that need slaying.
master shake (27ee58) — 7/26/2008 @ 7:12 amI find the best way to link is to hand-code it. The link button at the top of the comment space doesn’t work that well.
This is how the format looks
(a href=”http://webaddress”)hyperlinked words appear here(/a)
Replace the ( with an to get the actual format. I have to do this to show what it looks like here.
Also, preview your link by right-clicking and following the link. If it doesn’t work, (it may go back to Patterico, for example), the code is mangled somehow. Fix it until the preview goes where you want the link to do.
Bradley J Fikes (0ea407) — 7/26/2008 @ 7:17 amObama proposes a schedule, the duly elected President of Iraq goes out of his way to agree that is the wisest course, and McCain belatedly agrees with this plan. How does McCain come out the visionary here?
Comment by Aplomb
I can understand how you are perplexed, given that you appear to have been born last week. Let’s try again. In late 2006 and early 2007, Obama was saying the war was lost and we should leave. He said the surge would make things worse.
Fortunately for Maliki, Bush ignored the Democrats and followed McCain’s advice to allow Petraeus to change the strategy of Casey and Sanchez to what Nagl and others had been advocating; counterinsurgency methods used by the British in Malaya. The strategy, called “clear and hold”, required more troops, something McCain had been advocating for two years or more. The strategy worked and Iraq is now settlng down after al Qeada was whipped and driven out.
The fact that the war is won allows Maliki the luxury of asking the US to leave although he doesn’t say exactly when and added a qualification ignored by Der Spiegel and the NY Times. Now, ignoramuses are saying that, in the changed circumstances, Obama’s suggestion of leaving whether or not genocide resulted, was right all along.
I know this war stuff is hard for you folks to understand, given as you are to hiding under the bed until the Republicans chase away the bad people, but you might try a bit harder.
Mike K (586583) — 7/26/2008 @ 7:31 amIt’s not enough that Iraq is secure, someone has to be made to look bad. Obama didn’t move towards McCain; McCain has moved towards Obama.
al Maliki, like Saddam before him, derives authority through patriotic defiance of outside meddling. He cannot survive for long as a puppet.
Showboating aside, we’ve morphed from an indefinite war, which ends in some undefined state of ‘victory” followed by an indefinite presence, to a suggested 16-month withdrawal subject to conditions on the ground. Would Obama stick to that “whether or not genocide resulted?”
Sell it, if think you can.
steve (a57404) — 7/26/2008 @ 8:25 amI meant, is Der S going to email an audio to you, or is Der S going to call you up and hold the phone to a tape playing, so you can hear it.
Patricia (f56a97) — 7/26/2008 @ 8:38 am@Amac
Not sure whether your question was rhetorical, but for the record:
DubiousD (3076dd) — 7/26/2008 @ 9:15 amDubiousD #17 —
Because of this Bloomberg article, my question wasn’t meant to be rhetorical.
Thanks for providing that link, it clears things up. Plenty of opportunities for alternate meanings and mistranslations.
AMac (c822c9) — 7/26/2008 @ 10:02 amThe fact that you want to hear and translate the tape for yourself tells me that you guys are lending credence to what Maliki has to say.
Please do dig, if you find that Maliki did not say what the media thinks he said, than by all means tell the world about it all you want.
But…….. if Maliki did agree with Obama, I don’t want to see the “Move On” “Next Order Of Business” attitude here.
I know you will continue with your stance on Iraq, but at least address why the leader of Iraq who at one point our President said we would respect his wishes, is calling for a withdrawal and we’re not…..cept Obama of course.
Oiram (983921) — 7/26/2008 @ 11:00 amOiram, you have little business dictating attitude here. Especially since you are making such brazen misrepresentations about “stances”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2008 @ 11:07 amMax Boot in the Washington Post does a great job of detailing how Maliki has been doing this all along, and why:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202550.html
And what our president said, O-i-ram, is that we would stand down as they stood up. Maliki was giving lip service to the factions that wanted us to leave unconditionally right after taking office. He’s boasting for the sake of appearing strong and in control. Lest I get in trouble, I’ll only quote one key paragraph from the article here:
But Maliki’s public utterances do not provide a reliable guide as to when it will be safe to pull out U.S. troops. Better to listen to the military professionals. The Post recently quoted Brig. Gen. Bilal al-Dayni, commander of Iraqi troops in Basra, as saying of the Americans, “We hope they will stay until 2020.” That is similar to the expectation of Iraq’s defense minister, Abdul Qadir, who says his forces cannot assume full responsibility for internal security until 2012 and for external security until 2018.
Maliki is acting like a politician, not as a commander-in-chief.
Icy Truth (10a986) — 7/26/2008 @ 11:26 amSo, Bush was lying when he said we would respect Malki’s wishes?
Or, maybe The Bush administration figured Maliki would go along with The U.S.A.’s idea of what should be done in another country.
I’m confused here.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 11:41 amYes, Oiram, you are confused. But it appears intentional on your part. The difference is not between withdrawal and no withdrawal as you falsely imply above. The difference is between withdrawal based on calendar dates and withdrawal based on the actual security situation and Iraqi capability.
But misrepresenting that is obviously part of your tactics.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2008 @ 11:44 amSee it your way SPQR.
I’m still confused…….. as to what the Bush Administration expects of Maliki and Iraq.
Oh wait, “Time Horizons”, which to me sounds exactly like a new word for “Time Tables”.
Great, so your right SPQR, excuse me I forgot.
Maliki, Bush and Obama are all on the same page.
When is McCain going to pick up the book?
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 11:50 amOiram, DJ Elliott does a detailed assessment of the Order of Battle of Iraqi Security Forces every month at The Long War Journal. It is helpful in getting a sense of where things stand.
Quite far along in the Army (Infantry, Mechanized, Quick Reaction Force), some National Police units.
Still a ways to go in Logistics (Army), Air Force, Navy (Shatt al Arab), Police in general, Border Security.
South Korean sentiment about US forces in their country 50 years after the Armistice may be instructive. Much of Korean society loathes the presence of round-eye foreign troops on their soil. Many older people are grateful for the American intervention, especially when they look North. Many young people take on faith that the Dearest Leader’s People’s Army never could or would lunge south, thus freeing them for fashionable (and fun) Anti-American street theater. Politicians rise to prominence by navigating their way through the nationalistic symbolism and the practical realities. One of those realities is that a US withdrawal (which we would do, if asked) would complicate South Korea’s security situation. Thus, a kabuki dance is played out in Seoul, e.g. the latest flap about “unsafe” US beef imports. The spectacle that is Korean politics is only possible because the Korean armed forces “stood up” decades ago, and provide the main deterrent to North Korean aggression.
Maliki and other Iraqi politicians may be in the early stages of an analogous situation. They live in a dangerous neighborhood. Nobody is going to want to accede to armed foreigners on their soil, but few Iraqi leaders want to see their country subverted by Iran, KSA, Syria, or AQIZ.
Going forward, we can expect a complex dance as Iraqis balance competing and often incompatible needs and desires, as regards the presence of US troops. As Iraq becomes a “regular” country, more and more of its leaders’ statements will be geared towards domestic public opinion.
AMac (c822c9) — 7/26/2008 @ 11:54 amOiram, that’s the best response you have to having your own misrepresentations pointed out?
Pathetic.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2008 @ 11:57 amFair-weather friends:
July 26, 2006 – Some Democrats, such as Reid, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, and House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, tried to make a big deal of Maliki’s refusal to condemn Hezbollah, going so far as to suggest that Maliki’s invitation to speak to Congress be repudiated.
November 29, 2006 – Democrats, displaying little confidence in Maliki, send a letter to President Bush requesting a special envoy to press Maliki (on standing up so that we can stand down):
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/world/middleeast/30capital.html
— Now, when he allegedly says what they want to hear, he is to be listened to unreservedly . . . no concerns over whether or not what he’s saying is the way to go.
Icy Truth (10a986) — 7/26/2008 @ 11:57 amOiram, I didn’t see your #24 —
I think this view is simplistic, and wrong.
If Maliki was showing his absolute determination to rid Iraq of Americans immediately (or within 16 months), come what may, this would pose a problem to Bush. What if Bonn had made that demand of the Occupiers in 1950?
It’s true that such a demand wouldn’t seem to bother Obama, who started running on an out-now platform.
Also true that this would greatly bother McCain, who’s running on a Victory platform.
But watch what the Iraqi leadership does, as well as what they say in selected interviews. Is it entirely clear what Maliki and others really want?
Given Obama’s discovery of Afghanistan as the Central Front of the War on Terror, here’s an interesting parallel hypothetical. As President, what would he do if Karzai announced a reconcilation with the Taliban, and demanded the immediate pullout of all US and NATO forces from his country?
AMac (c822c9) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:05 pm#22 – Oiram
So, Bush was lying when he said we would respect Malki’s wishes?
— No. You are lying when you say that that is what President Bush said. What he actually said was (quote taken from Nancy Pelosi’s Speaker-of-the-House site):
“We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.”
— You, Mario-in-a-mirror, will of course be the first to inform all of us when the Iraqi government issues a formal request for all coalition forces to depart. Until they actually do that, however, you can consider the words of Iraq’s Prime Minister (whatever they really were) said to a German magazine to be just what they are: a response to a question, an opinion, a general philosophy. Does it count as a formal request — written, notarized, embossed with a seal, authorized by the legislature and valid under the constitution of the country’s government? Like I said, you let us know when that comes about.
Icy Truth (10a986) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:19 pmThen why all the quibbling over what Maliki said or didn’t say???
You guys seem to have it all figured out right?
Who cares what he said?
Apparently you all do.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:26 pmIllogical…………..
Pathetic as some would say?
Nah, just typical here.
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:26 pmOiram, if I understand you correctly, you’re commenting on this post at Patterico.com because you don’t care about the subject under discussion. (pathetic, quibble, etc.)
I’m glad to have
(a) helped you gain a more nuanced understanding of this topic, or
(b) kept you indoors in your pajamas on a beautiful sunny day, doing battle against the enemies of Hope and Change with your keyboard.
Whichever the case may be.
AMac (c822c9) — 7/26/2008 @ 12:51 pmI do care AMac. I just don’t understand why you guys care about it.
Hey…… how did you know I was in my Pajams???
I’ve got to remember to shut this web cam off!!
You guys are too funny. 🙂
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 1:00 pmTroll feeding is as useful today as it usually is. This person isn’t interested in facts or discussion or in being taught about strategy. It’s all about getting attention.
Mike K (586583) — 7/26/2008 @ 1:03 pmThen why all the quibbling over what Maliki said or didn’t say???
— Because, if your side is going to hold it up (like Chamberlain waving around his agreement with Hitler when he emerged from the plane back in England) as proof of what the Iraqi government wants us to do, then we’re going to insist first on an accurate translation. Because maybe we follow the ideal of radio host Dennis Prager who says, “First tell the truth, then give your opinion”.
Icy Truth (10a986) — 7/26/2008 @ 1:19 pmOiram,
Heh.
More seriously, glad that you care about the issue.
AMac (c822c9) — 7/26/2008 @ 1:23 pmPerfect ICY TRUTH.
Then I hope you and Patterico, and hey why not throw in Dennis Prager, to continue to follow this story if it goes contrary to how you “expected” Maliki to act.
Dilemma for the Republicans……. where do we fit McCain in all this??
Oiram (447eed) — 7/26/2008 @ 1:51 pmDilemma for the Republicans……. where do we fit McCain in all this??
— Since the Iraqi government will not issue an official call for us to leave until victory is achieved, it leaves McCain in the same position he has been in all along; that of being right.
Icy Truth (10a986) — 7/26/2008 @ 2:35 pmSince the Iraqi government will not issue an official call for us to leave until victory is achieved, it leaves McCain in the same position he has been in all along; that of being right.
You must mean the position McSame took when he said we’d be there another 100 years. Since there’s no official enemy in Iraq anymore, you have to wonder how gramps will define “victory”. It’s all academic though. I give him a few months before his senile dementia finishes off whatever’s left of his mind. At that point, not soiling his depends will keep him occupied full time.
master shake (27ee58) — 7/26/2008 @ 7:30 pmYou wouldn’t even be able to describe the color of the sky without lying, would you?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 8:05 pmmaster shake shows the Democrats’ main strategy for November. Bigotry.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2008 @ 8:07 pmmaster shake shows the Democrats’ main strategy for November. Bigotry.
I’m sorry. Did I hurt your feelings? I assure you that I don’t have anything against demented old men who want to play president. McSame deserves the best gerontological care his health care plan can provide. I don’t think depends are covered, though.
You wouldn’t even be able to describe the color of the sky without lying, would you?
It looks black to me now. You know… the shade your kinda folk don’t take kindly to.
master shake (27ee58) — 7/26/2008 @ 8:23 pmYou didn’t have to prove my statement so emphatically.
*poke, poke*
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 8:29 pmAs I said, master shake demonstrates the bigotry of Democrats pretty well.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2008 @ 8:30 pmIt is a real circle-jerk once Oilam and Masturbation get all fired up.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/26/2008 @ 8:43 pmYou didn’t have to prove my statement so emphatically.
Okay, please prove to me that the sky isn’t black from my vantage point. To give you a frame of reference “black” is the shade your kinda folk don’t take kindly to.
s I said, master shake demonstrates the bigotry of Democrats pretty well.
What did I say that was bigoted?
It is a real circle-jerk once Oilam and Masturbation get all fired up.
Take it to another site, will ya? Just watch out for Chris Hansen.
master shake (27ee58) — 7/26/2008 @ 8:51 pmTake it to another site? You rudely come into someone else’s community and tell them to leave when you drop a deuce on the floor?
You are a bigot. You accuse people of being racists based on false images in your head, or because it gives you some kind of thrill. Regardless of motivation, it is pure projection on your part.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/26/2008 @ 8:59 pmLike I said.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 9:05 pmTake it to another site? You rudely come into someone else’s community and tell them to leave when you drop a deuce on the floor?
Hey, I’m not the one who started with the sexual innuendo. I simply pointed out that he should take his talk of “circle jerks” and “masturbation” to a site more appropriate to indulge in his perversions. I find this line of discussion disgusting. How is that rude?
You are a bigot.
Nothing that I said was bigoted. It is pure projection on your part.
master shake (27ee58) — 7/26/2008 @ 9:26 pmNothing that we said was racist. It is pure projection on your part.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 9:31 pmAlright, then defend your assertions. You said we were all afraid of black people. You said we were all rednecks. Support your assertions. Or, prove that you are a run-of-the-mill troll.
We all know what will happen.
Racists.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/26/2008 @ 9:37 pmAlright, then defend your assertions. You said we were all afraid of black people. You said we were all rednecks.
I never once said you were all afraid of black people and I never said you were all rednecks. Why so defensive?
master shake (27ee58) — 7/26/2008 @ 9:46 pm#48 redux.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 9:48 pmWhat was the topic again? Oh yeah, Patterico and his Quixotic obsession with Maliki’s speech in which he endorses Obama.
master shake (27ee58) — 7/26/2008 @ 10:26 pmIbid 53
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/26/2008 @ 10:33 pmFor once, could you guys please ignore the trolls?
(Heck, forever could you please ignore the trolls?)
DubiousD (fa3e11) — 7/26/2008 @ 10:59 pmAs time goes on I get less patient.
master shake, you don’t seem to contribute anything here. I’ll make you the same offer I’ve made others: one more insult or profane word and you go into moderation. The only comments that will emerge from that moderation will lack profanity and insults.
My guess: you’ll violate this stricture with your next comment.
And I’ll deal with it tomorrow.
Patterico (8b0ab2) — 7/27/2008 @ 2:18 am#39 – lemon squeezer
Since there’s no official enemy in Iraq anymore, you have to wonder how gramps will define “victory”.
— So, the car bombers and suicide bombers and the insurgent groups that claim responsibility for same are “unofficial”? You’re either claiming that the war has already been won, or you’re not saying anything at all. Oh, and feel free to drop the ‘McCain is old’ crap; that is, unless you’re prepared to balance it out — every time that you mention it — with an equally virulent attack on Jimmy Carter. There’s your fairness doctrine.
Icy Truth (242ec7) — 7/27/2008 @ 2:26 am[Comment deleted for numerous violations of commenting protocol, following several warnings. — P]
master shake (27ee58) — 7/27/2008 @ 10:38 amMaster Shake,
Why do you think people around here have a problem with the color black? I’m dressed in black right now. If you mean black as in skin color, I don’t see any dislike of that here. Obama has policies, like speedy withdrawal from Iraq and increased taxation. If I disagree with those policies, why shouldn’t I support McCain over Obama?
Also, McCain has made about the same number of gaffes as Obama. I don’t really see how it makes him senile. There are plenty of people who are old who do not develop Alzheimer’s disease – that’s why it is viewed as a disease, as opposed to an inevitable part of being old.
OmegaPaladin (a400e4) — 7/27/2008 @ 11:31 amBecause, OmegaPaladin, accusing people of racism is the easy kind of insult that allows master shake to pretend to some sort of moral superiority without having to go to the actual work of thinking.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 11:40 am[Comment deleted for numerous violations of commenting protocol, following several warnings. — P]
Master Shaker (6c59b4) — 7/27/2008 @ 12:05 pm[Comment deleted for numerous violations of commenting protocol, following several warnings. — P]
Shake Master (2ed38c) — 7/27/2008 @ 12:26 pmAnd you’ll be called a bigot more often as you repeat the Democrats’ bigoted attacks on McCain. Amusing to see the party that pretends to have changed its historic discrimination now use bigotry against age as the foundation of its presidential campaign.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 12:31 pmOh, and your claim not to have called people racist is a rather brazen lie. You were caught doing so above and in other threads.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2008 @ 12:32 pmIt looks black to me now. You know… the shade your kinda folk don’t take kindly to.
Comment by master shake — 7/26/2008 @ 8:23 pm
I never called anyone here “racist”…
Comment by Shake Master — 7/27/2008 @ 12:26 pm
Shake Master, or master shake,
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 7/27/2008 @ 12:33 pmJust curious, would you please explain your comment at 8:23 pm yesterday? Not really clear on to what it refers. Thanks.
you arent even a good troll! that post has to be the worst strawman ever!!
chas (82ec6c) — 7/27/2008 @ 1:05 pmHere’s the history:
My comment:
Master shake’s subsequent comment on a different thread:
Insults? Check! Profanity? Check! Subsequent to my warning? Check!
And into moderation goes master shake.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/27/2008 @ 1:23 pmGood. Plus master shake admits he’s a troll. Who needs that?
DRJ (de3993) — 7/27/2008 @ 1:30 pmmaster shake is just another lib going to extremes to get banned so he can post on dkos and du about how he spoke truth to power and the rethuglicans had to ban him cause they couldnt take it.
chas (82ec6c) — 7/27/2008 @ 1:40 pmThat has to be one of the stupidest rationalizations I’ve seen in a while. A profanity doesn’t have to be an insult. Also, just because you try to parse a different definition, it doesn’t matter how you define it. What matters is how Patterico defines it.
Now, it looks like you got around moderation by changing screen names, possibly IP spoofing, or some other way. However you did it, you clearly have no respect for Patterico’s rules and I hope he takes that into consideration for his next step. The troll-infestation here has gotten really bad lately with Peter, Oiram, Levi, you, and others. Maybe if aphrael, Leviticus, and few of the other rational liberals here would weigh in, there might be a clear course of action.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:06 pmHeh. Gone now?
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 7/27/2008 @ 5:07 pmHeh. Gone now?
I’m still around. Thanks for your concern.
Mister Sheikh (8a983a) — 7/28/2008 @ 6:34 amBut Patterico keeps deleting my posts, for some unknown reason. Anyway, I’ll have use another screen name and tone down the rhetoric a little.
Mister Sheikh (8a983a) — 7/28/2008 @ 6:37 amYou appeared to be continuing to try to get around the spam filter. I told you I would delete all your posts if you did that.
I’ll approve these last two comments and keep approving non-profane and non-insulting comments from moderation if you stop trying to get around the filter and use a consistent screen name.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/28/2008 @ 7:06 amHe hardly seems to be much of a “mic ruler” or “old schooler”…
Someone call Frylock…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 7/28/2008 @ 7:13 amALL ABOARD! The Stop Obama Express. Hurry seats are filling up fast.<a href=”http://www.stopobamaexpress.com/” target=”_blank”>www.StopObamaExpress.com
jeff (ef36fb) — 7/28/2008 @ 5:54 pmALL ABOARD! The Stop Obama Express. Hurry seats are filling up fast.< http://www.StopObamaExpress.comStop Obama Express
jeff (ef36fb) — 7/28/2008 @ 5:55 pmALL ABOARD! The Stop Obama Express. Hurry seats are filling up fast. http://www.StopObamaExpress.com
jeff (ef36fb) — 7/28/2008 @ 5:56 pmAnother spamming troll.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2008 @ 6:00 pm#59 – master shake
I promise to be good and tow the party line
— Where are you going to “tow” it to?
Why does it seem that it’s those people on one particular side of the political fence that consistently mangle basic phrases? Next thing you know he’s going to say ‘nip it in the butt’.
Icy Truth (f0c2e6) — 7/28/2008 @ 6:18 pmStashiu3 :
I take issue with that. I’ve tried repeatedly to have civil discussions. Only to have abuse after abuse hurled at me. I rise above it as much as I can. Something many here are unable to do, yet they’re never penalized for it. The record is here for all to see and I expect Patterico and WLS to back me up on that. I am not a troll, and neither is Oiram from what I’ve seen, unless a troll is someone who has an opinion that goes against the majority view or the echo chamber effect.
Stashiu3 anytime you’re ready to issue that apology, you go on right ahead.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/28/2008 @ 9:51 pmI haven’t read the comments that closely, but I just spent a few minutes reading Peter’s last several comments and it looks to me like he’s trying to debate in good faith. So I suggest that people ease off and don’t jump down his throat simply because he’s expressing a point of view different from yours.
If you have positive evidence of his being a troll, lay it on me. But his tone in the last several comments suggests he’s not.
You want a troll? Master Shake/Milkshake/Master Debator or whatever is a perfect example of a loser who adds nothing and detracts plenty. But he’s gone. BUH-BYE!!!
Peter, from what I’ve seen, should stay.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/28/2008 @ 10:05 pmThanks Patterico.
That speaks volumes about the quality of discourse you’re trying to encourage here, and I’ll do my best to continue debating in good faith.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/28/2008 @ 10:09 pmI’ll say the same about Oiram. Again, I no longer have the time to read all comments here, but a quick perusal of some recent Oiram comments seems to indicate a good heart and respectful attitude.
That’s all I can ask. We can’t all agree.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/28/2008 @ 10:21 pmThen please accept my apologies… both Peter and Oiram.
I was going by my own sense of how honest your points were, not your civility. If remaining civil for the vast majority of comments made keeps someone from being a troll, then neither of you are trolls. Patterico’s definition is what counts here, not mine.
So again, to be entirely clear, I apologize for calling Peter and Oiram trolls. I should not have included them along with Levi, shakemaster/Master Shake/whoever and will not do so in the future.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 7/28/2008 @ 11:20 pmIt’s very easy to conclude that those with different viewpoints from you are not honest. But it’s not always the case. Sometimes they just have different opinions — and sometimes they’re just misguided. But either way, I’d like to see genuine and civil contrary opinions expressed here.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/28/2008 @ 11:37 pmFair enough sir. You and I will sometimes disagree on whether a contrary opinion is dishonest, misguided, or just different… and that’s ok. If that apology appeared insincere or qualified in some manner, that was not my intention and so I will revise it.
I should not have called Peter or Oiram trolls. Period. My apologies to both of them.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 7/28/2008 @ 11:51 pmThx.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/29/2008 @ 11:15 am