The background is found in last night’s post in which I showed how Weigel misrepresented a post by Allahpundit concerning the Discovery Channel gunman.
Briefly, Allahpundit said: “I’m not going to blame the actions of a nut on all lefties and environmentalists.” Weigel turned that into “I am subtly hinting that the gunman was representative of the other team.”
I thought that was bullshit and said so. I linked my post on Twitter. Hilarity ensued. In essence, I pressed my argument with fact and logic, and Weigel responded by accusing me of grubbing for traffic.
The transcript is below. (I have removed the places where we use “@patterico” and “@daveweigel” or otherwise use an “@” symbol to refer to each other or another Twitter user such as allahpundit. That’s a Twitter convention that confuses the reader when the conversation is shown in this format. Otherwise, what you see below is exactly what transpired.)
It’s a classic internet debate: content on one side vs. ad hominems and evasions on the other. Enjoy.
PATTERICO: daveweigel smears allahpundit http://is.gd/eSymo
WEIGEL: Pathetic. My reference was to “I will, however, be sure to remind them of this the next time they pull that on the right.”
PATTERICO: allahpundit said: “I’m not going to blame the actions of a nut on all lefties and environmentalists”
WEIGEL: If you’re desperate for HotAir traffic, just ask for it. Don’t pretend you’re doing journalism by misreading me.
PATTERICO: I’ll ignore the juvenile insult and simply ask you to explain how I am misreading you.
PATTERICO: You took an explicit refusal to stereotype the left, and called it an implied attempt to stereotype the left.
WEIGEL: Yeah, sorry, not going to indulge you. Pick a fight over something interesting.
PATTERICO: You’re the fellow picking fights with grade-school insults. I’m the one engaged in criticism of an unfair post.
PATTERICO: I’m perfectly content to let others decide why you’re not offering a defense of your smear of allahpundit
WEIGEL: If you think this is worth discussing, just email me. The post has been up for a day and Allah hasn’t complained.
PATTERICO: Two points. First: your post unfairly criticizing him was public; what’s wrong with noting its flaws in public?
PATTERICO: Second, allahpundit may not choose to publicly dispute every unfair criticism of him, but that does not mean it’s not unfair.
PATTERICO: The fact is, he updated his post to respond to (and correct) a criticism that was essentially identical to yours.
PATTERICO: So, to imply that his silence as to your post is somehow acquiescence to your unfair interpretation is unwarranted.
WEIGEL: You’re trying to grub traffic by starting a Twitter spat. I get it. I just find it uninteresting.
PATTERICO: You’re trying to mask the flaws in your post by making silly personal accusations. I refuse to descend to your ad hominems.
PATTERICO: I have defended you before. I have seen you be honest. This evasion-through-insult tactic does not become you.
PATTERICO: I doubt very much that allahpundit was going to link my post anyway, but let me make it clear: I don’t want a link.
PATTERICO: What I want is for someone I have respected at times to reflect on how he has mistreated someone.
PATTERICO: Real journalists respond to criticism with facts. By that measure, you have little basis to claim the title of “journalist.”
Remind me again why I ever defended this guy?
P.S. You could enjoy such goings-on routinely if you were only to subscribe to my Twitter feed.
UPDATE: Weigel has apologized to Allahpundit and myself.