Now that I’ve stepped back and cleared my head a bit…
From a comment I left over at Stacy McCain’s:
Patterico writes:
Oh, and Serr8d: I reject your implication that I am unprincipled. To put it kindly: bugger off. I *think* Robert recognizes that I am not unprincipled, and I think that fair-minded people who actually take the time to read my words (and not how they are characterized elsewhere) will agree.Okay, let’s put an end to this convenient and self-serving fiction once and for all.
Patterico used a trumped up charge of a non-existent “death threat” to ban me from his site.
Once he’d established the pretext for disallowing me to defend myself — and for giving his commenters the freedom to attack me without my having recourse to respond directly to them (something I’ve never disallowed him to do on my site) — he then encouraged people to support his “honor” at the expense of mine. He set up a lynch mob and then pretended to wash his hands of the whole thing.
One of his commenters, after having already declared that I was guilty of acting in bad faith with respect to debating Patterico on the issues of language (another ridiculous charge, inasmuch as I’ve consistently and patiently answered his questions, even going so far as to write a primer for him on semiotics, sent via email; and as anyone knows who’s been following my posts on the topic or read my Hot Air essay, I am committed to the argument, and have always welcomed those who wish to debate it), decided he’d “look at the evidence” and adjudicate who was at fault. As if anyone asked him.
Unsurprisingly, he ignored all evidence, provided by way of links, that militated against the conclusion he’d already reached before hand. In the end, he declared me guilty of “bad faith,” as decided by him (and dependent on his own warped filter), and without the benefit of my being allowed to defend myself.
In short, a show trial. Because the truth is, I did reply to Patterico. Replying to his hypotheticals “the way they were written” doesn’t change that I replied, and in at least one case I replied at great length. Given that Patterico himself said his new hypothetical addressed the same questions as the excruciatingly-contrived six scenarios he wrote about the boy/dog/black man collision, why the need to repeat myself?
– Well, other than so I can “carefully” and “precisely” avoid being pulled from context, where the suggestion can be made that I hadn’t answered what I was under no obligation to answer — and that my failure to do so somehow weakened my argument, an implication made all the more disingenuous given that Patterico himself has admitted that the two are interested in different linguistic premises.
To recap, this “principled man” — and lord knows he’ll remind you of how principled he is at every fucking turn — 1) used a dishonest reading of a comment I’d made (and everyone has agreed on that point, with the exception of Patterico, for whom continued denial is key to his being able to establish his necessary pretext) to give himself leave to ban me from his site.
Which he could have done with no pretext at all. But then, he’d have looked cowardly and beaten. And Patterico can’t have that.
2) He then encouraged others to “defend his honor.” Because, you see, I wasn’t really out to argue about language. I was out for the bucks. And to “destroy his reputation.”
3) Patterico then stepped away and allowed his apparatchiks to take whatever potshots they wanted at me, including personal shots that redounded to my family — including vulgar suggestions that my wife was some sort of dupe who’d I’d managed to impregnate so I can keep up my unemployed life style. Hell, my son is just a prop I’ve reared in order to stay at home and “destroy the honor” of Patterico, tireless public servants whose goodness cannot be questioned!
They did this knowing I was unable to respond, and they have continued to do so.
Brave commenters that he has have now tiptoed forth to weigh in on problems with my “theory,” even as they continue to misunderstand it.
– Of course, having me around to correct them had not helped Patterico’s arguments, which makes the banning all the more convenient. In fact, it is that he’s been getting his ass handed to him on the merits of the argument — and by an “unemployed” and rather shiftless reprobate who only argues these things, as Patterico has now twice reminded us, “for the money” — that one might argue is behind this pretext to ban me and “protect his honor.”
Patterico lies. He dissembles. When called on errors — and I have called him on those, via links that cite his his own words and mine — he works tirelessly to gradually backtrack and reshape his argument so that it begins to fall more into line with what he gauges the winning argument likely to be. He then claims he’s really been making that correct argument all along — and that “attacks” on his arguments are really motivated by some desire to intentionally misunderstand him and destroy his reputation. The destruction of Patrick Frey’s reputation being a pressing concern of those of us who secretly wish we could be as fucking sanctimonious as he is.
Naturally, those dual motivations of mine — money and a desire to destroy his reputation — would come as a shock to my archives, wherein it is clear I’ve been making similar arguments about language and its abuses since I began my site at the very end of 2001, long before I knew of Patterico, long before I had ads on my site, and long before I supposedly was out solely to “destroy” Patrick Frey’s “reputation” and get rich doing so.
The faux humility he shows in Stacy’s thread (“I’m not important blah blah blah”) is belied by his constant efforts to turn debates on merit into battles over his HONOR!, and to cast his interlocutors as lesser persons out to bring him down out of malice or some other base motive he ascribes to them.
In this sorry affair, Patterico has argued precisely like a leftist.
He has trumped up a ludicrous charge against me, one that he knows didn’t match my intent; he used these charges to justify taking away both my meaning and my ability to defend myself; he then let his commenters lynch me publicly; and he yet he continues to pretend he is a principled guy.
Ironically, Patterico’s attacks perform some of the very things I argued that those committed to classical liberal principles can’t allow the left to do, in both method and execution. I argued for a taking back of language. Here, Patterico has used a set of trumped up charges, lies, and a chorus from his own sympathetic interpretive community in a transparent and clumsily calculated attempt to chill speech.He has become what I’ve been fighting against. So it’s no wonder that in the scheme of things, he continues to back a faulty view of language, and that he draws his support for such a view from “pragmatists” and a progressive literary theorist who presumes to hamstring my argument when I’m not around to point out his red herrings.
Principled? I don’t think that means what Patrick Frey thinks it means.
And I’m no longer going to pretend Patterico is anything other than he is: a self-righteous fraud who will do or say anything to protect a reputation he has shown himself not to deserve.
****
dicentra weighs in. Dogs involved.****
Patterico and Fritz want you to know that SEK has weighed in on the situation. As Patterico has no honor, and SEK — in addition to not being around during the conflagration that supposedly prompted my banning — is about as slippery as a porno queen’s dildo, I haven’t bothered to read it, nor do I intend to. But if I know SEK (and, come on — we all do), I imagine that at key moments he leaves out key pieces that would necessary alter his narrative.
Were I giving advice to students on how to read someone like SEK, I’d tell them to look for instances where he “summarizes,” truncates quotes, or glosses over specifics. Then go check out the specifics for yourselves. See if they don’t change the tenor of the narrative and the thrust of whatever bullshit argument he’s likely making.
****
And here’s Serr8d’s take. Why, I’ll bet these various interpretations are all so different! Doesn’t that mean Patrick’s view of language is vindicated?Yeah, I know. But it’s not like you can’t see it coming, right?
****
Maggie’s take. With cat!****
McGehee’s take. With dog!****
Darleen gives the snowbilly rehashin’.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 12:10 pm #
Good.
Comment by David McKinnis on 3/23 @ 12:12 pm #
Hmm.
Thought you were fishing?
Comment by McGehee on 3/23 @ 12:13 pm #
As I opined here:
Some people serve best as an object lesson, and sadly that’s the role Patterico seems to have embraced.
Comment by McGehee on 3/23 @ 12:14 pm #
Aw, crap. At least the link works.
Comment by Carin on 3/23 @ 12:14 pm #
I think he caught his fish, David.
Comment by David McKinnis on 3/23 @ 12:19 pm #
Good.
One should cook them with the head on. When the eyes turn white they’re done.
Comment by Andy on 3/23 @ 12:20 pm #
He has become what I was fighting against.
He started out that way. That’s why you were fighting in the first place.
Comment by Carin on 3/23 @ 12:22 pm #
You know, though, that timb is on Patt’s side really gives me pause…
Comment by louchette on 3/23 @ 12:25 pm #
good. thank g-d. and welcome back sir.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 12:25 pm #
It ought to give Pat pause, Carin, along with the support of SEK and others commenters he has on the left leaning wing of American politics but it doesn’t seem to register. And not solely in this dispute, but jumping to agree with his position vis a vis Limbaugh as well, among others. Funny that.
Comment by David R. Block on 3/23 @ 12:26 pm #
Sounds like Jeff found a land shark. This post is good to see.
And Patrick has just joined the 95 % of lawyers that give the other 5 % a bad name.
Sorry to pull out that old joke. I denounce myself.
Comment by cranky-d on 3/23 @ 12:27 pm #
Very nice.
Carin:
timb is on Patt’s side because he dislikes Jeff intensely, but cannot make any argument whatsoever against anything Jeff has written. Patt at least tried, at first, but ultimately failed. Whatevs.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around why anyone would call intentionalism a theory. If you think it’s a theory, you don’t get it.
Comment by LTC John on 3/23 @ 12:28 pm #
Sad, but this stuff has happened before – Balloon Juice, The Commissar, etc. Jeff has remained constant and open and honest – and I beleive, correct – all along.
It must be easier to become Andrew Sullivan-esque or Patterico-ish.
Comment by Carin on 3/23 @ 12:30 pm #
You’d think.
Of course, timb explained over there how the evil, horrible, and possibly-capable of homicide Jeff kicked him to the curb for NOTHING. You, you know, two sides and all.
@@
Comment by dicentra on 3/23 @ 12:31 pm #
Hey, don’t denounce yourself for telling a lawyer joke. I get my best lawyer jokes from my favorite uncle, who is a corporate lawyer. He doesn’t take himself very seriously and neither should Patt.
Comment by Carin on 3/23 @ 12:32 pm #
Oh, I understand why timb is on Patt’s side. I just wonder why they let him.
Comment by Cowboy on 3/23 @ 12:32 pm #
Glad you’re back, boss.
Comment by dicentra on 3/23 @ 12:33 pm #
Yes, we do keep hearing news reports about unhinged blogger Jeff Goldstein going on rampages through liberal neighborhoods, slapping them with his junk and screaming at them to guess what he intends by it.
Comment by davis,br on 3/23 @ 12:34 pm #
Ahhhhhhhhhhh. I was having a …disturbing …morning sans PW. (I even read that fricking thread over there, trying to discern what “goin’ fishin’” well and truly meant“; desparate indeed.)
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 12:34 pm #
On the academic matter of libel: is it libelous to not retract a trumped up charge of a death threat?
Patterico’s supposed victim has stated he didn’t think it was a death threat. The actual victim of the death threat, Jeff (hanging from the rope they gave him, to follow the logic of the comments), doesn’t consider it a death threat. Patterico has since said that he now doesn’t know whether it is a death threat or not.
Yet, being the principled guy that he is, he just leaves it out there without a clear retraction. One could assume he leaves it out there because it serves his purpose, to smear.
This is principle? This is good faith argumentation?
Of course it isn’t. It’s morally wrong. And readers realize it.
Comment by prairiemain on 3/23 @ 12:39 pm #
Patterico’s world is the powdered wig and pomp of the courtroom. The legal world today is more about show and sophistry (Plato’s bane) than about defending actual principle. Plea bargain defines the boundaries, not standing your ground on Bunker Hill. They have fed at the trough of liberty others championed but see no reason to get red in the face to defend those same principles. Tis sad when meaning has been bleached of its meat.
If you actually care for the foundations of this great country, there is no way you can read Patterico’s words and not feel deep unease. They are the silent betrayal to those many graves filled with the bones of patriots.
Comment by Fritz on 3/23 @ 12:47 pm #
Here’s a comment. It’s not an argument. It probably won’t convince anyone to change their minds about anything.
This is boring.
Comment by JHoward on 3/23 @ 12:47 pm #
Kinda continuing blowhard’s #20, has anyone lied about Frey? Defamed him? Was he damaged? Really and substantially? Is Frey not also someone who has intentionally placed himself into controversial prominence, advocated an issue, allowed and even invited debate?
Well, then. Further, what #21 said, especially about the legal profession, which in my experience is as much a sham as can be found. These are the last days of the American experiment, led, ironically, by a shameless, habitual, epidemic, and now-unchecked assault on meaning and principle.
In the past I’ve advocated spending time in government to see just how impossibly, irrevocably bad it’s become — as in bewilderingly bad. By now I just suggest taking to the hills.
Comment by Rick on 3/23 @ 1:10 pm #
Praise be! While I shall denounce Patterico in a strongly worded condemnation, I’m glad order is restored in the blog firmament. Meaning the Pontifications is relegated to it’s sole point of value: critiquing the LAT.
Cordially…
Comment by Spiny Norman on 3/23 @ 1:12 pm #
No, Fritz, it’s just over your head.
Comment by Dana on 3/23 @ 1:14 pm #
prairiemain wrote:
In Compton? Hardly seems likely.
As for me, I just wish this feud would end.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 1:20 pm #
“As for me, I just wish this feud would end.”
Agreed. Now, if Patterico would chastise nk for his creepy and personal comments about Jeff, drop the convenient fiction that a death threat was made, and stop providing a forum for people to make personal assaults on Jeff and his family, we’d have a start.
There is a difference between a truce and a demand that the wronged party stops fighting back.
Comment by prairiemain on 3/23 @ 1:25 pm #
I believe good manners in conversation is the best approach at dinner parties. Few of us go around the world with a verbal chip on our shoulder. We could but it would be a constant fight and who needs a constant fight? Many, and I think most, are raised to have at least some social graces and overall think that is a good thing to have.
But there comes a time when niceties no longer apply. D-Day and Pearl Harbor were no longer about words but actions. It was simply a time when one had to throw in with this or that or get out of the way.
When you claim to be concerned how others will take your words, what it means is “some part of me is offended”; in other words, one has to be able to identify the insult at some visceral level for it to have any personal meaning. It seems to me that Patterico’s take on this could be taken to mean “I’m insulted and distressed that Rush Limbaugh would so passionately defend conservative principles.” Hell, most of us wouldn’t even call those “conservative” principles since free enterprise, restrained government, personal freedom AND responsibility are enshrined in our Constitution, one many thousands died to bring into being. Is that now called “conservatism”? What Obama proposes to do is dismantle all of that and replace it with big government socialism. And we are supposed to speak softly while we try to divert that train wreck?
Thus, one could conclude Patterico is not a conservative and most certainly can’t claim to be a libertarian. So the question is open … exactly what does Patterico believe in? Civilized discourse on the way to the gallows isn’t advancing anyone’s agenda but that of the hangman.
Comment by psycho... on 3/23 @ 1:32 pm #
I’ve said he’s not a good man a few times. That count?
Here’s more:
That’s his job. It can’t be done by someone who isn’t like that.
And, hey, look what happened. Stunner.
That didn’t suddenly happen this week.
You should have known. What you’ve written is his job description. No one with honor — or anything like it — would have it.
He’s what he is. It’s not good.
Even worse.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 1:34 pm #
hangman?
DEATH THREAT!
prairiemain is banned. TO PROTECT MY HONOR!
Comment by DarthRove on 3/23 @ 1:35 pm #
So the question is open … exactly what does Patterico believe in?
“Go along to get along” leaps to mind.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 1:38 pm #
That’s he’s let that public lynching of me stand — hell, that he encouraged it — is one thing. That he made sure I wasn’t able to respond, well, I think we know who won the language argument.
Comment by Serr8d on 3/23 @ 1:40 pm #
That’s a keeper.
If Patterico can be as doggedly determined in pursuing a conviction in a courtroom as he has been in this remorseless grind on Jeff G’s well-written presentations, then he gets kudos. As long as, of course, he’s working this sort of ruthless routine against a true criminal.
In this matter, Patterico lost the jury because he didn’t have a case. And, I think he’s embarrassed by the fact he’s slept with some curious bedfellows (hi, timb, nk). Then, he turned mean. Everything he did for the past few days was increasingly mean-spirited.
When this all blows over, I think he’ll be forever known as Patterico the Lesser.
Comment by Carin on 3/23 @ 1:40 pm #
Damn, Jeff, don’t go banning people. Timb just found his way to my blog because he can’t defend himself here. It’s bad enough Meya visits my blog.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 1:40 pm #
Hey, I think everyone knows where I stand on this, I intend no slight to anyone here.
But, I don’t think that being a prosecutor is inherently dishonorable, not at all. And, we probably don’t need to state or guess about his jurisdiction. Granted, this is less than 1% of the personalizing that Patterico allows on his site but let’s not take even a step in that direction.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 1:41 pm #
Oh. And I should take this opportunity to note that daleyrocks and a few others — including my new lawyer friend Nick (nk) — took special delight in running me down.
Which I haven’t forgotten.
Comment by dicentra on 3/23 @ 1:41 pm #
Yeah, prariemain, you aren’t supposed to mention anything that could cause death in a comment, or it means you’re making a death threat.
No, we DON’T care if the context of the comment makes it plain that you’re being metaphorical. The meaning of your comment is whatever Jeff says it is.
His blog, after all. Which means he gets to refashion your meaning to suit his twisted will and you have to sit there and like it.
Comment by Dan Collins on 3/23 @ 1:43 pm #
Look! Bunnies!
Comment by SmokeVanThorn on 3/23 @ 1:44 pm #
Although I don’t recall him taking it to this extreme before, this kind of behavior is nothing new for Mr. Frey, which is why I stopped reading him years ago.
Glad that you’re back, Mr. Goldstein.
Comment by Diecast Dude on 3/23 @ 1:45 pm #
I’m guessing Patterico never heard of the concept known as agreeing to disagree and not allowing it to cause a divide between two people who in many aspects stand together.
Don’t they cover this in law school?
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 1:46 pm #
The funny thing is, Patterico took special delight in tiptoeing around an “outing” of Tbogg he initiated.
I guess it’s okay if the person is running you down, and not okay if the person is supporting you.
Me, I have a simple rule. Bring my family into it, and I’ll expose you so that you can put your name to your comments, whether you wish to or not.
It’s my way of introducing the “civility” Pat and his commenters are always on about. You know, when they aren’t calling me an unemployed kept man with psychotic tendencies who is also probably teh gay (’cause of the submission grappling).
Fuck them.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 1:48 pm #
Even more humorous is that the same few folks — the uppercrust of conservatism, you see — continue to run me down on the same thread, knowing full well that I can’t respond, and having since read this reply.
Yes, I’m the problem with conservatism. Must remember to wear the pocket square and sniff a lot.
Comment by dicentra on 3/23 @ 1:49 pm #
Don’t they cover this in law school?
Agreeing to disagree doesn’t play well in court. You either win or lose a case, and either result redounds to your overall record.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 1:52 pm #
Wait a second, Nick was saying that you were gay with the catch wrestling comments?
I thought he was saying that he was gay and that you were attractive. That’s how I took it anyway.
Comment by louchette on 3/23 @ 1:52 pm #
i suggested he get the sand out of his mangina. but if that counts as defaming these days we’re in even worse trouble than i thought.
Comment by prairiemain on 3/23 @ 1:53 pm #
Glad I didn’t say “tar and feather” — Lord knows what dungeon that would’ve gotten me thrown into.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 1:55 pm #
Tar?
RACIST!
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 1:58 pm #
Oh. You see, I’m “feeling wronged.” Banning me under some bullshit pretext and then inviting people to take shots at me? Not really wronged. Just feeling that way.
All part of the game, chap! Tut tut, pip pip. Honor.
Comment by Diecast Dude on 3/23 @ 2:02 pm #
Ah, so that’s the problem.
He forgot he wasn’t in court and couldn’t ask the judge to require everyone answer his questions his way even after they had been thoroughly (and with far more patience than I could ever muster) answered.
Poor guy’s been working too hard.
/sarcasm off
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 2:05 pm #
To whoever invented the html link, three cheers to you, on top of whatever cash you may have gotten. It’s an astoundingly useful tool.
Comment by Spiny Norman on 3/23 @ 2:06 pm #
If you’re the “problem” with conservatism, Jeff, then conservatism is basically dead.
Comment by dicentra on 3/23 @ 2:06 pm #
People don’t actually hate lawyers, they hate the way lawyers think. And they hate it when lawyers can’t turn it off at will.
Comment by thegreatsatan on 3/23 @ 2:07 pm #
How long till he goes all Balloon Juice?
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 2:08 pm #
While I’m at it, I want to note that one of the “charges” being brought against me over at Patterico’s is that I unceremoniously kicked Karl to the curb.
This is untrue. Karl chose to leave. Hell, I don’t think I ever even reset his posting privileges.
But did Karl step in to quash that lie? No. Did he in any way try to defend me? No.
So there’s another guy I no longer have any use for.
Comment by Spiny Norman on 3/23 @ 2:09 pm #
dicentra,
Well put.
I’ve had issues with Patterico’s take on a number of things before, but I never expected him to be so Clintonesque.
Comment by phreshone on 3/23 @ 2:15 pm #
Patt from day 1 assumed, like in his professional life, the judge and jury get to hear the conservative argument. Unfortunately in the current political battlefield, should look to Chicago justice circa Al Capone and Elliot Ness and see that the voters are the jury in a 1920’s mob trial, which are not in the court room and receive their only context and information from a judge and court reporter which are on the payroll of the Mob… Expecting the words of Republicans and conservatives to be given a fair shake, no matter how “carefully” chosen, is insanity… Republicans must retake the linguistic battlefield with straight talk, no apologies and a determination to eliminate the corruption of linguistic roadblocks that the left have put into place.
Comment by Abe Froman on 3/23 @ 2:18 pm #
“People don’t actually hate lawyers, they hate the way lawyers think. And they hate it when lawyers can’t turn it off at will.”
Very true. Every last friend of mine who chose the legal profession has become increasingly difficult to argue with in spite of not being a hair smarter or logical than before they became attorneys. Just more obstinate and infuriating. “Stop fucking lawyering me” is frequently an adequate bitchslap but it don’t work so well on the interwebs.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector on 3/23 @ 2:20 pm #
Although I am grieved to see all this conflict and hope comity can be restored b/t Jeff & Patterico, I’m very glad to see that PW is still afloat.
Comment by Stephen M on 3/23 @ 2:24 pm #
Pontificate – To express opinions or judgments in a dogmatic way.
Dogmatic – Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. See synonyms at dictatorial.
Yep.
Comment by JD on 3/23 @ 2:27 pm #
I echo what The Sanity Inspector said in #58.
Comment by daleyrocks on 3/23 @ 2:28 pm #
Why do you intuit delight behind my comments Jeff? It’s more disappointment as I have expressed here previously. You can be very strange at times.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 2:30 pm #
Here’s daleyrocks, attempting to “fisk” my post. Which doesn’t go well, because he believes himself much more intelligent than he actually is:
Oops! Skipped over the clarification, did you?
Because arguing while giving Patterico space to respond is exactly the same as banning me, then asking readers to defend his honor.
Of course, by defend myself I meant against my accusers directly. Not being able to defend myself in the thread gives the impression that I can’t or wouldn’t defend myself.
And the reason I can’t or wouldn’t is because I was banned. But that’s not important, to borrow what I’m beginning to suspect is a loaded phrase meant with biting irony!
Closing down my site overnight to take a step away? Doesn’t have anything to do with what I’ve written.
“Defies me”? In what sense?
Does this make sense to anyone? I get the sense here that we’re moving towards all arguments are equally valid, and those who disagree should be shunned and subjected to daleyrock’s rather puerile attempts at irony.
I’m the guy who was arguing against his position.
And the guy he banned.
Whereas you appear to be a sycophant of the worst sort.
All of which I’d say to you where you wrote it, were I allowed to, y’know, answer my accusers.
BUT THAT’S NOT IMPORTANT!!!1!
Comment by geoffb on 3/23 @ 2:31 pm #
Well said. Well argued. Welcome back from your fishing trip. Good lunch.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 2:32 pm #
I can just feel daleyrock’s “disappointment.”
Whatever. Go back where you can do some sucking up that might take.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 2:37 pm #
Oh, and by the way, daleyrocks. While you were answering me here, on my site, did it not begin to dawn on you that you’d entered into an ironic undercutting of your defense of Patterico?
Because it really should have.
Luckily, I’m willing to point it out though. In case you missed it.
Comment by Techie on 3/23 @ 2:38 pm #
Glad you’re back Jeff, hope the fish were biting.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 2:38 pm #
Socrates: Speak damn you, answer my questions!
dog: [tilts head to the side]
Socrates: You are a liar!
dog: –
Socrates: Damn you, you are but a lazy underemployed animal!
dog: [growls at nearby rabid squirrel]
Socrates: Death threat!
dog: –
black man: Old man, I’m going to have to ask you to leave this dog alone. Is there someone taking care of you I could call?
Comment by The Monster on 3/23 @ 2:44 pm #
If I didn’t know better, I’d think you and Patt were doing this as a form of performance art, just to demonstrate how a determined persecutor can put words in your mouth.
But if you were that good of an actor, you’d have have no room for the dillo, what with all the Oscars and Emmys filling the place up.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 2:46 pm #
No such luck, The Monster.
The performance is all Pat’s.
As I’ve said, it’s surreal.
Comment by geoffb on 3/23 @ 2:47 pm #
This is a smaller scale, more personalized version of the battle being waged between the “pragmatists” and the conservatives/classical liberals nationwide. A case study in this war.
Comment by daleyrocks on 3/23 @ 2:47 pm #
Jeff please point out the undercutting because as I’ve said before, it gives me tingles all over when you tell me I don’t understand you and that I don’t understand myself. Seriously.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 2:49 pm #
But hey, SEK, the lawyers, and Timb are on his side!
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 2:51 pm #
Okay, daleyrocks. But make sure you read it slowly so that it doesn’t escape you yet again.
YOU ARE ANSWERING ME HERE ON MY SITE. I AM NOT PERMITTED TO DO SO WHEN YOU MAKE COMMENTS ABOUT ME OVER AT PATTERICO’S.
You are enjoying a luxury to be heard in the context of the accusation that Pat has denied me, and that you have been taking advantage of.
Enjoy the tingle.
Comment by JD on 3/23 @ 2:52 pm #
If that creepy stalker fuck timmah is on your side, you know you are in trouble.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/23 @ 2:53 pm #
timb will suck up to anyone he thinks might have a bad thing to say about Jeff, on the off-chance that person will be his friend and lend him a little credibility.
The guy needs a spine transplant. Possibly a brain transplant, too.
Comment by Patrick, mayor of Scotumwa Iowa on 3/23 @ 2:54 pm #
Is daleyrocks tingle the same as Chris Matthew’s thrill? I just want to know what I’m missing
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 2:55 pm #
And we trace from this?
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 2:57 pm #
Okay, Nick the middle-aged Greek has weighed in.
Read closely, because this goes to how Pat and his clan don’t get the intentionalist argument:
This contains a fundamental misunderstanding, one I’ve tried to explain, but one that these folks continue to ignore — presumably so they can make rather daft jokes about intentionalism that don’t work precisely because they don’t understand it.
Nick the Greek certainly likes to run his mouth. I wonder what he’s doing posting during the day. Does he have a job?
Comment by daleyrocks on 3/23 @ 2:58 pm #
“YOU ARE ANSWERING ME HERE ON MY SITE. I AM NOT PERMITTED TO DO SO WHEN YOU MAKE COMMENTS ABOUT ME OVER AT PATTERICO’S.”
It’s almost too much nuance for me to grasp! So the irony (of course I’m not using the right word) you publicly lynching Patterico on your own site rather than doing him the courtesy of visiting his site early on in this discussion matters not a whit, since he could venture over here amongst the hostile commentariat, apparatchiks or whatever you deign to call us. Got it.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 2:59 pm #
well goddamn. You’re back. I’ve been being appropriately wistful all morning. I’d retired too, cause I don’t like the rest of the bloggy parts of the Internet all that much. I could read some but there’s not one site that’s not this site that’s worth the effort of this commenting thing I don’t think. But you’re back. Crap. Did you see my nebulous yet classy goodbye comment at Patterico’s? Waste of a nebulous yet classy goodbye comment I think. Damn.
Comment by DanH on 3/23 @ 3:00 pm #
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. Patterico is a perfect example of a blue state conservative. He is as left wing as a red state liberal.
On the other hand, I think the combination of the election of Obama and the argument about intent has had one good result. Jeff has posted more in the last few months than I think he did in the previous 6 or 8 months ;p
Comment by Tim Mcnabb on 3/23 @ 3:00 pm #
I imagine this has been said many times – this seems to be so much of a circular firing squad. However, it must-needs come. A brother has to be able to say what he means and mean what he says. All this balderdash from the “conservatives” who are allowed to sit at the popular kid’s table at lunchtime needs to stop. There is a long list of people to dump on before I get to Rush Limbaugh, much less Jeff.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 3:03 pm #
Yes. I never visited Patrick’s site. And my posts? Again, how thoughtless of me not to just post them in Patterico’s comment section rather than making my arguments here on my own site.
It’s almost as if I’ve forgotten how blogs work.
As for my public lynching of Patterico, I can only assume you mean my dismantling of his arguments.
And of course, he has never been banned here, so he’s always been free to reply, and when he has, I answered him.
Tried that on his site, too. Before I was banned.
My, but you are a daft little bugger.
You and Pat deserve each other. If you keep after me, maybe he’ll even send you some flair on facebook!
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 3:05 pm #
Has Nick stated if he was still thinking about showing up at the catch wrestling seminar?
I’m attempting to attend and I’d feel less nervous about it if he’d state clearly that he had no plans on showing up.
Comment by Stephen Macklin on 3/23 @ 3:05 pm #
My list of RSS feeds was starting to get too long. Now it’s one shorter.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/23 @ 3:06 pm #
I think I was rather civil to Patterico when he was wrong in comments, here. Others, possibly less so. But the guy’s a lawyer; a few sharp elbows he ought to be able to handle before the first cup of coffee in the morning.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 3:14 pm #
I took the time to write the guy a primer on how signs work because he couldn’t be bothered to go back through my intentionalism posts in order to understand the argument.
I asked him to, but he didn’t. He instead demanded things be re-explained just for him. Later, he demanded I answer his hypotheticals. Which I did.
Not good enough. One of them I didn’t answer in the way he wanted me to, namely, take each of his six hypotheticals and explain how one would interpret them.
Which had nothing to do with my argument, as I kept explaining. And explaining. And explaining.
For this, I was accused of “dodging” and “ducking” him — by him — when the fact is, I was bored with trying to teach someone who it was obvious to me was simply trying to find a way to rehabilitate his Limbaugh argument.
Plain and simple.
Comment by Robert Stacy McCain on 3/23 @ 3:16 pm #
Glad to see my attempts to promote peace in the blogosphere have had the usual, ironic effect.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 3:17 pm #
Peace?
I’m more interested in promoting principled discussion.
I think I’ve done that.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/23 @ 3:18 pm #
I’m wondering if RSM is really glad, or if he’s just being ironic.
Wonder how I’d tell which one was more likely?
Comment by N. O'Brain on 3/23 @ 3:19 pm #
What seemed to start out as an argument over the pronuciation of tomato [ta-MAH-to to-MATE-to] has evolved into the Thirty Years War.
Pray for Germany.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 3:21 pm #
RSM, that would be like Aristophanes and Socrates being all friendly-like at the Symposium, but then Ari doesn’t bother to show up at the trial to say, “Hey! Wait a minute here! What the fuck are you idiots doing?”
Comment by B Moe on 3/23 @ 3:21 pm #
People over here only got hostile when Pat got all weird and kept demanding we answer his questions the way he wanted. I tried what I thought were some humorous jabs to get him to loosen up. When I realized what a humorless ponce he really was I just mostly ignored him.
Comment by Robert Stacy McCain on 3/23 @ 3:21 pm #
OK, Slart: Ya busted me. I’m a mixer, like Paul’s “clean old man” in A Hard Day’s Night. And that’s The Final Word!
Comment by daleyrocks on 3/23 @ 3:22 pm #
“Yes. I never visited Patrick’s site. And my posts? Again, how thoughtless of me not to just post them in Patterico’s comment section rather than making my arguments here on my own site.
It’s almost as if I’ve forgotten how blogs work.”
Jeff – Now you’re pretending not to be able to read? I said EARLY in the discussion, when no, you were not visiting Patterico to my recollection, you were merely posting Patterico slams here, which banning over there would not have prevented and did not prevent (see your post from yesterday) Mendoucheousness prevails.
Clearly, though, you are the only aggrieved party in this matter, if I understand your position. I am almost certain that you will inform me that I do not.
Comment by Joe on 3/23 @ 3:24 pm #
You know what is fun when you are fishing? Bringing a big one in and wacking it on the head with the billy club. Then into the box!
Comment by N. O'Brain on 3/23 @ 3:24 pm #
“I took the time to write the guy a primer on how signs work because he couldn’t be bothered to go back through my intentionalism posts in order to understand the argument.”
Care to share?
To educate the ignoratii?
Or not.
Comment by alppuccino on 3/23 @ 3:25 pm #
Obama is failing. He’s delivering on my hope. That’s weird.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/23 @ 3:25 pm #
Sorry, I was making kind of an ironic meta-commentary. What you actually meant is kind of beside the point, while being exactly the point.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/23 @ 3:28 pm #
…not that I have even the faintest idea what I’m talking about. One day, though, mark my words: I’ll trip and fall into a patch of clever. Just you wait.
Comment by Live Free or Die on 3/23 @ 3:28 pm #
I think all that we classical’s want, is a structured debate, not a courtroom prosecution. If this were not on the blog’s, and instead, a televised debated, we would see the greatest OUTLAW smash ever. The Get Alongs don’t have an argument, just distortions of Jeff’s views and points.
Comment by daleyrocks on 3/23 @ 3:29 pm #
Cocktail hour nears. Time to don the smoking jacket, ready the meerschaum and resume that delighted sycophantic lynching.
Comment by Joe on 3/23 @ 3:36 pm #
With a big bottom fish, like halibut, I like to cook the filets skin down on medium heat, just enough so the fat is starting to bubble off the top of the filet. Then it is cooked white (as opposed to translucent), yet is still moist and delicious.
Although halibut also makes excellent cerveche, cut it raw into small cubes with hot pepper, good black pepper, (as an optional twist add a few saffron threads), and lemon juice. One day and the acid in the juice will cook the fish perfectly.
Smaller bottom fish, like flounder and sole, are better breaded and fried.
Of course, some of the fish are already turned. They rot from the head down. Throw those away or leave them out for the raccoons (or armadillos).
Sounds like Jeff has a box full of them.
Comment by Joe on 3/23 @ 3:38 pm #
Ditto. daleyrocks is even worse.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 3/23 @ 3:40 pm #
“Smaller bottom fish, like flounder and sole, are better breaded and fried.”
I have a great recipe for poached flounder.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/23 @ 3:47 pm #
To whoever invented the html link, three cheers to you, on top of whatever cash you may have gotten. It’s an astoundingly useful tool.
Tim Berners-Lee (fully Sir Timothy John Berners-Lee, OM, KBE, FRS, FREng, FRSA) following on earlier ideas from Ted Nelson.
He didn’t get rich, although he’s certainly not hurting. He did get a knighthood out of it, though.
He’s arguably right up there with the guys who invented fire, the wheel, and writing itself.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/23 @ 3:51 pm #
Oh, and Patterico: bite me.
You’re incapable of arguing in any venue where you aren’t allowed to browbeat your opponent and threaten to throw him in jail.
Comment by Travis on 3/23 @ 3:51 pm #
I think Jeff G is an angry guy, but mostly about the right things. Not always, but mostly. It is nice though, that we have Jeff G agreeing with Obama on something. “Words matterâ€.
Patterico’s argument in this whole drama has revealed that to him, words are just verbal tools with no assigned meaning beyond what the interpreter chooses. Post-modernism is an assault on the very concept that we can ‘Know’ anything. “Words and language were redefined to mean whatever one wanted; history was deconstructed – ostensibly to expose it’s lies, but really to render it meaningless…â€
Conservatism cannot survive in such an environment, which is not an unintended consequence of the theory. Conservatism is largely, but not entirely based on logic, while Liberal/Progressivism is largely based on emotion. This leaves the leftists as the arbiters of moral behaviour. They ‘feel’ insulted and therefore are! A theory that destroys language and meaning leaves no place for Conservative thought, or indeed any thought.
Patterico is by instinct liberal (small L). He has been co-opted (To neutralize or win over through assimilation into an established group or culture) by the left.
John McCain, Chris Buckley, David Gergen, Colin Powell, Scott McClellan, David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, Sally Quinn, and David Frum are others who operate under the same sort of assumptions and emotion based logic of the left.
Conservatives who live with an leftist controlled automatic shut down switch (just threaten to call them a mean name), cannot win in a battle against the left!
Comment by Dave E. on 3/23 @ 3:54 pm #
“As I’ve said, it’s surreal.”
Well, then it fits in with pretty much everything else related to politics today. The goal is not to win arguments with reason, but to win at any cost, regardless of right and wrong or any consequences. Catching up on this supposed death threat stuff this afternoon, it seems pretty obvious to me that Patterico misread you, Jeff. Why he won’t make that right is incomprehensible to me, except perhaps as he too has gone “just win, baby”. Too bad.
Comment by dicentra on 3/23 @ 3:55 pm #
Wot? I thought the US DoD invented the Internet and the protocols that go with it: TCP/IP, gopher, FTP, etc.
I guess I need to refine my knowledge of Internet history.
[And Ada Lovelace was the first programmer!]
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 3:56 pm #
“I think Jeff G is an angry guy”
Sorry, I agree with much of what you write, but I want to clearly disagree with that.
Comment by Joe on 3/23 @ 3:56 pm #
My Patterico post to his new Andrew Sullivan thread:
Comment by dicentra on 3/23 @ 3:57 pm #
Liberal/Progressivism is largely based on
emotionthe will to power.FTFY
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 3:59 pm #
And by “Patterico slams,” you mean my posts arguing why his position is wrong and dangerous, then explaining why I think so.
Whereas the cordial thing to do would have been to argue the points in his comments section. Rather than deal with a topic I’ve been dealing with since before Patrick arrived on the scene in a way that it might be illuminating to the largest possible audience.
Because, like, civility demands such.
Like it demands being told what one must answer and how, else risk being accused of “ducking” and “dodging.”
You’re like a child that refuses to learn, daleyrocks. Which is why you keep getting left back.
Well, here, that is. Over at Pat’s, one does not mention such things. Too gouche.
Comment by dicentra on 3/23 @ 4:01 pm #
Olberman might have discussed old Ithaca with Maher backstage over a drink or some of that good dope Bill gets. Of course Maher went to the real Cornell. Olberman went to the community college. But I digress.
The ag school at Cornell has benefited the world more than the Ivy half, I’ll tell you what. But not because of Olbermann. Maybe if he were engineering rot-resistant potatoes that grow in poor soil…
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/23 @ 4:02 pm #
Wot? I thought the US DoD invented the Internet and the protocols that go with it: TCP/IP, gopher, FTP, etc.
The Internet (fundamentally, TCP/IP and UDP) and the services running on it (HTTP, FTP, NNTP, SMTP, many others) are not the same thing.
People are inventing new protocols all the time. HTTP and HTML were invented by Sir Tim in 1990. The Internet itself has been around since the early 1980s.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 4:04 pm #
the part that was most… I do not know the word. Let me think. Saddening. The most saddening part was the part where Mr. Patterico said I have gotten many emails about Jeff saying stuff everyone is scared to say to his face. That is mean to say cause it’s just innuendo and there’s no way to defend against that one. All I know is me I’ve never written Mr. Patterico any emails like that. And Jeff isn’t scary. Timmy the tax cheat is scary. Our dipshit hungarian president is scary. Captain Morgan is scary. Also I think Mr. Patterico scared buttons away.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 4:07 pm #
Nah. More like frequently frustrated by certain online behaviors and the willingness of many of those who claim to champion classical liberal principles to sell them out for a song.
Some people here have actually met me or talked to me on the phone. Blowhard being one such.
I don’t think they think me an angry guy. In fact, I tend to be much like you hear me on radio interviews, only I use “fuck” more often.
Comment by Joe on 3/23 @ 4:07 pm #
I do not want to make fun of the Ag school at Cornell. You are right. It is not that school’s fault Olbermann whet there. He just seems so into CORNELL that it is fun to tease him about it. That is my intent.
Comment by cranky-d on 3/23 @ 4:07 pm #
dicentra, I think SPB is referring to the idea of having a named link that refers to an IP address, though he may mean just the idea of a hyperlink, which does not need the internet or even a network at all to function. I think that was “hypercard” in the olden days.
Comment by cranky-d on 3/23 @ 4:08 pm #
Refresh, cranky-d, refresh. Sigh.
Comment by serr8d on 3/23 @ 4:09 pm #
That’s just a ploy, I think, hf. Another one of those hurtful legal tricks, to try to stir up some discomposure. A feint within a feint within a feint.
A Harkonnen trick, if you ask me.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 4:10 pm #
I’ve been re-reading the I hope Patterico fails thread and still can’t get over how steadfastly Pat refuses to engage the argument Jeff makes, choosing instead to reissue some poll like challenge he’d made at HotAir, then bantering back and forth with now one ancillary question after another. That was one weird night that was.
Comment by cranky-d on 3/23 @ 4:12 pm #
Many can mean a number greater than 3, if you want it to. “A few” or “some” is probably closer to reality.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 4:14 pm #
damn Harkonnen scum I think
Comment by casel21 on 3/23 @ 4:18 pm #
I’ve written this comment many times but have never posted it. I used to visit that Patterico site in my daily tours of right sites.
I saw a post there last summer about Obama-is-a-good-man. From what I subsequently gathered, Patterico was performing some kind of half-assed social experiment, the purpose of which appeared to be to instruct us all on how we are mistaken. This Patterico person seems to have a penchant for carrying on interminable arguments as though he is some latter day Socrates.
I did what reasonable people are supposed to do — I stopped visiting his site. I don’t know why anyone would want to voluntarily submit to being the subject of this person’s experiments when it is clear that he is not offering an honest opinion or insight. Now I find this self-important, pedantic blowhard infecting other sites I frequent.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 4:18 pm #
I’ve been around for awhile and I can guess about the emails in question (classy, Patterico, stay classy!). It’s easy to guess who the two or three bloggers are.
Of course, like I said, I’ve been around for awhile. I also have a few blogger friends. Names you’d recognize. Should I hint at the type of emails I’ve received about Patterico?
Ooops, did I just do that very thing?
Comment by cranky-d on 3/23 @ 4:21 pm #
Bad blowhard! Bad Outlaw! Bad!!
Comment by dicentra on 3/23 @ 4:24 pm #
I think that was “hypercard†in the olden days.
Wasn’t that an old Mac application that was kinda like PowerPoint?
I forgot that HTML was not part of the original TCP/IP suite. I should know better. Internet protocols only go up to Layer 4. HTML is Layer 7.
Dur.
Comment by cranky-d on 3/23 @ 4:25 pm #
I’ve been reading PW since about 2001. I remember when a lot of the bloggers people here would have heard of would drop by to comment, and the disagreements were usually quite reasonable and well-taken, or at least not rancorous. The atmosphere was much less toxic.
As far as I can tell, Jeff hasn’t changed since then. That means something, I think.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/23 @ 4:25 pm #
dicentra, I think SPB is referring to the idea of having a named link that refers to an IP address, though he may mean just the idea of a hyperlink
[geek on]
We’ve got several concepts going on here at once.
Internet: The underlying protocols that gets arbitrary data from point A to point B. Way down at the bottom there’s the Internet Protocol (IP). This is the so-called “Internet layer” (there’s actually a link layer underneath this, but we won’t go into that here).
On top of IP are TCP and UDP, which are used to route packets of data over the network (TCP is “reliable”, UDP is not, meaning that there’s no guarantee that a UDP packet will arrive. It’s faster, though, so it’s often used in situations where speed is more important than 100% data integrity). This is the so-called “transport layer”. It’s concerned with moving a chunk of data from one computer to the other. The content of the data doesn’t matter at all (which is a very powerful thing).
All of the above protocols date from the early 80s.
On top of TCP and UDP are services. There are many of these (email, Usenet news, streaming media, the Web, Instant Messenger services… hundreds if not thousands of them, with new ones being invented all the time). This is the application layer. This level is the first one where the semantic content of the data comes into play. Anything below this doesn’t know (or care) if the data is a web page, or a picture, or an audio file, or… it’s all just bits.
The Web: uses HTTP, which is an application layer protocol. Invented by Tim Berners-Lee in 1990. This specifies a set of commands to manipulate remote documents (both retrieving and saving) over a TCP/IP network.
Hypertext: on a basic level, a document which contains links that can be used to retrieve other documents. Invented by Ted Nelson in the 1960s. There have been many hypertext systems (Hypercard, which cranky-d mentioned, was an early one).
HTML: a text language designed for creating hypertext documents, which are often (but not always) served over HTTP. Designed by Berners-Lee in 1990.
Sdferr asked who invented the HTML link, so that would be Berners-Lee, either in the strict sense (since he designed HTML) or the slightly looser sense of retrieving a document over the Web (since he also designed that).
[geek off]
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 4:26 pm #
My coach just came across this comment from nk:
He doesn’t think of himself or his instructors or those in his instructor program as particularly delicate, I don’t think.
This attack on him and his gym is not very pleasing.
Comment by cranky-d on 3/23 @ 4:27 pm #
dicentra, you could be right (and probably are) about hypercard. I remember reading about it in an Amiga magazine, and my failing memory thinks it was about a way to link pages of text.
I think you know more about this network poop than I do, as well, so I should’ve just stuck to what I actually know, programming and beer.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/23 @ 4:29 pm #
Hypercard was definitely hypertext.
Comment by cranky-d on 3/23 @ 4:30 pm #
See? SBP did it again. I am humbled.
I’m going to my happy place, now. In a little while I will head off to the bar for my monday night meetup. If the last few weeks are any indication, my mission is to discourage people from considering a career in the service industry (college bar, so servers are all students).
Comment by cranky-d on 3/23 @ 4:33 pm #
Yeah, nk is a class act. Didn’t he say he thought about signing up for the seminar? Sounds like a plan.
Comment by dicentra on 3/23 @ 4:33 pm #
This is the so-called “Internet layer†(there’s actually a link layer underneath this, but we won’t go into that here).
And two more layers below (PHY and MAC). Those two are easy. Layer 3 is easy too.
And I’m doubly ashamed for not distinguishing between HTTP (Layer 7 protocol) and HTML (text mark-up method).
I’ve been tangling with 802.1X authentication. It burned out everything else I thought I knew.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 4:34 pm #
Keep them away from law school, too, cranky-d.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 4:36 pm #
By the way, I wonder what these folks over at Pat’s thought about Buckley threatening to sock Gore Vidal if he kept making false accusations.
Grounds for lawsuit? DEATH THREAT! HE’S HURTING CONSERVATISM WITH HIS BRAZEN USE OF CHARGED RHETORIC? — WE MUST CONVINCE HIM TO BE MORE CAREFUL!
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 4:38 pm #
Hey, while we’re cheering for the good guys, how about a big cheer and round of applause for Claude Shannon, shall we?
Comment by Carin on 3/23 @ 4:44 pm #
You’re back. I’ve been being appropriately wistful all morning. I’d retired too, cause I don’t like the rest of the bloggy parts of the Internet all that much. I could read some but there’s not one site that’s not this site that’s worth the effort of this commenting thing I don’t think. But you’re back. Crap. Did you se
Happy, I missed that, since I’m going back to not reading Patterico like normal, but you are to NEVER EVER retire from commenting. EVER.
Ever.
Comment by Carin on 3/23 @ 4:48 pm #
And, if you read a threat into that … well, so be it. I’ll hunt ya down Happy. Make you comment. It won’t be pretty.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 4:49 pm #
Thanks for having my back, those of you who commented over at John Patrick Frey’s House of Enforced Civility when I was prevented from doing so.
To think, happy, that Pat pretended to use you as the deciding factor in my “death threat.”
nk: Just keep giving jeff more rope
me: What, knowing your name is now a hanging offense? Fine. You bring the rope, I’ll bring the tree.
Patterico: He’s going to kill the tree! Wait, this is a metaphor. And the tree is…uh…Paul? The Walrus? Fuck it: DEATH THREAT!
Comment by Mikey NTH on 3/23 @ 4:52 pm #
At the start of this I thought that there might be a disconnect between Jeff and Pat based on how a linguist (Jeff) views language and how a lawyer (Pat) views language. There are distinct differences due to the training. As a lawyer, we see language as more settled, there are certain rules of interpretation that are applied to statutes, for example. There are different evidentiary standards through which testimony is to be viewed at the trial court level, and different standards that an appeals court uses to determine whether a decision should be overturned.
That training does lead to a different way of seeing language and arguments out in world, at least it does for me. It doesn’t mean, necessarily, that it is a wrong way of seeing things, it means that a different lens is being applied to the view. At times I have to think to get away from doing that.
Now, after all this time with this much dialogue in evidence, I am starting to wonder if I was correct before, and I am thinking that Jeff was more correct from the beginning. Actions are evidence of intent, and criticising someone’s argument without giving an opportunity for rebuttal is evidence of intent to not want a dialogue, but to impose a viewpoint. It says to me that the argument that needs to cut off criticism is wrong because it doesn’t have an argument.*
*N.B.: This does not apply to those who have been cut off after the question raised has been asked and answered multiple times – you may not like the witness’ answer, counselor, but that is his answer to the question. Please move on.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/23 @ 4:55 pm #
If I didn’t already say so: Welcome back, Jeff.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 4:56 pm #
Also I think there’s not much of the academic in Mr. Patterico. If that sounds like I’m saying that like it’s a bad thing then I said it wrong.
He’s different, but he’s honorable. I just think he was sort of not a good fit for a literary theory sort of discussion and it went badly in a way he’s not used to having happen. Really badly. And he has mean commenters what are mean. The Eric one is a penis.
I had other stuff here but I deleted it. Not about Mr. Patterico. About that weird post about some movie that came up… oh. Road House. I really have no words.
Jeff is very important. (That followed from the stuff what I deleted. It’s still a solid conclusion though.)
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 4:56 pm #
oh. Nor the Eric Blair one. He’s nice. The Johnson one.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 4:57 pm #
*Not* I mean.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/23 @ 4:59 pm #
big cheer and round of applause for Claude Shannon, shall we?
Hear, hear!
I’m not sure what his reaction would be to this “receiver can invent the information content of the message” idea.
Projectile vomiting, most likely.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 5:01 pm #
I thought this an interesting sequence, from the Better That Patterico Fails thread:
Comment by SDN on 3/23 @ 5:02 pm #
Jeff, all I’m going to say is that I read you every day. Patterico, once or twice a week (up until now). And I prefer to pay for the things I value. I’m a Platinum Subscriber at Jerry Pournelle’s, for ex. I hit your tipjar every so often. If Patterico has seen one thin dime from me in the last three years, my e-mail folder where I keep track of such things doesn’t show it.
Patterico is a lawyer. Lawyers are far more interested in winning than in truth or justice, in my experience. Which is one of the reasons we’re headed for a tyranny. Only a bunch of lawyers could argue that the bonus bill isn’t a bill of attainder, when the clear intent is to punish an unpopular group.
Until we regain a sense of clarity in the language used to govern us, we will never be free of uncertainty. Jeff is pointing the way.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 5:04 pm #
I’m sorry for forgetting to re-format the quotes, but for the most part they’re pretty obvious. Projectile vomiting had me laughing for a while there SBP.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 5:04 pm #
Banning me based on bullshit, misrepresenting my position, lying about my willingness to debate him, then directing his readers to defend his honor after making sure I couldn’t face the accusers — this “honorable,” happy?
I beg to differ. I find it the opposite. Which I guess is “dishonorable.”
Or phony.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 5:07 pm #
And I can say that because I sat on my ass all day thinking it up.
It’s my master plan to destroy his reputation, you see.
Comment by router on 3/23 @ 5:09 pm #
fishing is a useful activity. arguing with a slimy lawyer not so much
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 5:10 pm #
Oh. And Scott Jacobs, who I don’t know and have never spoken to, that I know of, has called me a “bitch of a man”.
I don’t like Scott Jacobs, who I don’t know and whom I’ve never spoken to.
I’ll let him know from time to time from now on. Unless he hides at Patterico’s, where I’m not allowed to comment. Then he’ll have to get the message through the grapevine.
Or maybe Twitter. It’s all the rage, I hear!
Comment by Carin on 3/23 @ 5:10 pm #
Yea, honorable isn’t really the word I would use.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 5:10 pm #
To think, happy, that Pat pretended to use you as the deciding factor in my “death threat.â€
I felt bad kind of until I reread it and… He was up to something that was ironic and maybe could have been clever and then it kind of veered off from Irony to Mean I thought. How to say. Lawyers with any kind of self-awareness just *don’t* go down the slagging other people’s jobs road. Or maybe they do but I don’t live in that world where they do that.
For real true story. I was going to be a lawyer but then in grad school I did a gratuitous legal research class where you learn about citation and shepardizing and whatever other stuff I learned that I never much used. Anyway I was in the law library a lot and I had a job at a law firm and I realized I didn’t want to ever have these ones be my peers. Also law firms are spooky quiet. At least this one was. Not a selling point.
But many lawyers are nice and good and quite tolerable. Individually. Even the nice ones when they’re among their peers and in their lawyer milieu, they’re sort of not a lot of fun to be around. Pretty much same as doctors really.
Oh. I’m behind. The thing about honorable.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 3/23 @ 5:13 pm #
Ah! SBP, thank you! That is something I forgot to put in my original comment. The law has rules for determinning intent, especially in criminal law, which Pat does. With statutes defining intent, and various cases providing examples, determining intent in law is much, much more fixed than it seems to be in academia as Jeff has described it.
These are two different fora, and for an linguistic academic to argue intent in a criminal case based upon what the receiver wants it to be would be laughable, and even if the trial court judge wouldn’t throw it out, an appeals court definitely would. Precedent is one powerful force in the courtroom, and more cases are won on precedent than are won on arguing the overthrow of precedent, though the cases that overthrow precedent get far more press – and that because they are unusual.
I know more about that because it is my trade, my profession. And while politics and law are closely related, political argument is more akin to academic arguments with their fluidity than they do with legal arguments. So it seems to me.
Comment by Carin on 3/23 @ 5:13 pm #
I dunno, my uncle was a prosecuter, and he was rather … authoritarian and rather convinced of his own superiority. He’d ACT nice, but you know, I was just a bartender SAHM and he was a big important man.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 5:14 pm #
Me, I think it’s stupid to denigrate the intellectual standing, even if only by inference, of someone who is eating your lunch.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 5:15 pm #
There’s a reason they put this clause in those oathy things.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 5:16 pm #
The thing about honorable is this isn’t definitive of Mr. Patterico I don’t think. Over even at his place a lot of his peeps are all whaa? This is uncharacteristic of him a lot of them are saying. I don’t get it, and that’s why I say he’s different. I have absolutely no insight into how this happened to where it went like this. My *guess* – when I read the threads as a text – is there was a sort of pivot suggested with respect to emails and what also pops is some tension centering around publishing someone’s name.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 3/23 @ 5:16 pm #
SDN:
Lawyers are far more interested in winning than in truth or justice, in my experience.
You wound me, sir!
(just kidding)
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 5:17 pm #
crap. I hit the wrong button and I wasn’t done. I must have hit tab and enter. Damn. Ok I fix. brb.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 5:21 pm #
For instance, this Scott Jacobs person whom I don’t know says stuff like this —
— without once acknowledging that my having been banned prevents me from answering people like him who hide on a site that doesn’t allow me to speak.
You think he understands? Or is it that he’s just obtuse?
– And, like, a giant douchebag brief sniffer.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 5:22 pm #
The thing about honorable is this isn’t definitive of Mr. Patterico I don’t think. Over even at his place a lot of his peeps are all whaa? This is uncharacteristic of him a lot of them are saying. I don’t get it, and that’s why I say he’s different. I have absolutely no insight into how this happened to where it went like this. My *guess* – when I read the threads as a text – is there was a sort of pivot suggested with respect to emails he got that were slagging you and what also pops is some tension centering around publishing someone’s name.
My guess is he sort of overreacted to what he was anticipating in his head about where the Jeff/nk conflict was going based on whatever he had been thinking about. Does that make sense?
Anyway, he does many good things. I’m not dazzled by the prosecuteryness. I think it’s healthy to not impute too much nobility to them ones. People what want to become prosecutors are just inherently suspect. Sorry but they are. But his bloggings what I have read show him to be good of heart, mostly. And genuinely smart. A bit fastidious is my sense but it’s good practice for me to tone it down over there anyway. Also JD thinks highly of him. That carries a lot of weight.
Comment by Joe on 3/23 @ 5:27 pm #
Buckley vs. Gore
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 5:27 pm #
But before that, he had gone from site to site saying I was misrepresenting him and out to destroy his reputation — which, when you think of it, was really him performing the very thing he was accusing me of. Projection, they call it.
He then kept insisting I was dodging and ducking him where I clearly wasn’t, and his “final word” misrepresented my position, brought his closer in line to my actual position, and then didn’t allow comments.
Nothing honorable in any of that — not to mention his countenancing nk’s comments that went to my family situation, about which the guy knows nothing.
All this happened before I offered to bring the tree to my hanging.
No. Not honorable. Boorish. Phony. Opportunistic. Sneaky.
Comment by router on 3/23 @ 5:29 pm #
i still have a copy of Trout Fishing in America
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 5:30 pm #
Great book, router.
Comment by Joe on 3/23 @ 5:32 pm #
router, I read Trout Fishing in America a few times when it got to hot midafternoon for the fish to bite. It helped to drink a lot of beer.
Comment by Joe on 3/23 @ 5:33 pm #
And that is no slight to TFIA, it was really hot and I needed to stay hydrated.
Comment by McGehee on 3/23 @ 5:35 pm #
Patterico’s reputation isn’t in great shape right now, but it wasn’t Jeff who destroyed it.
Anymore than it was Ken Starr who destroyed Bill Clinton’s.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 5:37 pm #
I can’t argue with that. But for real I think he just twisted off there. Benefit of doubt. You never know what might be going on. Also I think I’m in a place where there are so many blogger people what are moving beyond where I kind of politely disdain them to where they disgust me and I think they’re entirely full of shit and they discredit this whole medium, and Mr. Patterico isn’t among them ones.
Comment by louchette on 3/23 @ 5:38 pm #
the thing that really bugged me about the SAHP thing was the way he weaseled out of it. on a technicality, one might say. and yes i think it was dishonest. if he meant he didn’t have access to a computer most of the day he could have said so directly, in a way that couldn’t be misinterpreted. *ahem* there was no reason to bring in the unlike you i have an important demanding job thing. that pissed me off a lot.
and i didn’t comment there. since i’m new to commenting here even. and cause i think they wouldn’t ‘get’ me over there unless i pretended to be like something i’m not. not that i couldn’t be all mannerly, and even use the shift key. i went to charm school. for real. but i’m not changing my internet persona way of writing just in hopes i could maybe score points with some pompous defensive lawyer.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 5:38 pm #
That Ann Althouse seems to have a good sensibility I think. I don’t know why I never read her hardly.
Comment by alppuccino on 3/23 @ 5:39 pm #
Bill Clinton’s reputation has been destroyed? I would think landing a hot babe like Hillary would put a titanium suit of armor on his rep.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 5:40 pm #
louchette –
Especially when he noted upthread how I have time to sit on my ass all day dreaming up ways to destroy his reputation. As if this is what I do with my days while he’s off doing the lord’s work.
Comment by alppuccino on 3/23 @ 5:41 pm #
Do they still balance books on their heads at charm school?
Comment by McGehee on 3/23 @ 5:41 pm #
Orderly! We’ve got a psychotic episode underway over here!
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 5:42 pm #
She’s another one without much use for me, happyfeet. But I’ve gotten past it. The list being so long and everything.
Comment by McGehee on 3/23 @ 5:44 pm #
I don’t generally bother with disgust. If a blogger drifts into that territory in my judgment I either ignore them altogether, or just point and laugh.
Patterico is on my point-and-laugh list, and deservedly so. If the bloggers I read start ignoring him I’ll go along with that.
Comment by dicentra on 3/23 @ 5:45 pm #
Me, I think it’s stupid to denigrate the intellectual standing, even if only by inference, of someone who is eating your lunch.
What if he’s drinking your milkshake? Does that change the equation?
Comment by maggie katzen on 3/23 @ 5:46 pm #
what flavor, dicentra?
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 5:47 pm #
There is an interesting analogy there though.
Remember the parade snuff film liveblog incident that she used as a hammer to hit Pajamas Media with?
I thought that was an equally twisted reading of a statement of yours.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 3/23 @ 5:47 pm #
Router: I recommend The Compleat Angler by Walton. If it is about fish, he said it.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 5:48 pm #
Yeah. That’s where things went south.
I think she banned me, too. Don’t remember threatening to hang myself there, though.
Comment by alppuccino on 3/23 @ 5:48 pm #
Now balancing a drink on your head – that could charm the pants off of anyone.
Meds time.
Comment by dicentra on 3/23 @ 5:48 pm #
it was really hot and I needed to stay hydrated.
Isn’t beer a diuretic, like caffeine? Doesn’t that kind of mean you’re wasting the beer, IYKWIMAIKYD?
Comment by alppuccino on 3/23 @ 5:49 pm #
I thought you threatened to uproot a tree. Years of root development gone in one uprooting. Such a waste. So violent.
Comment by dicentra on 3/23 @ 5:49 pm #
what flavor, dicentra?
How should I know? I didn’t see the movie I’m referencing. So I’m all tapped out as far as that goes.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 5:49 pm #
I know – I remember. Thanksgiving, it was, and I didn’t click a lot no matter how many links Mr. Reynolds gave her but then I started to. I never comment over there cause she has a kooky comment form to where I … I don’t get it and it’s too much trouble.
Comment by louchette on 3/23 @ 5:50 pm #
alppuccino –
they did still when i went. but that was back in the mid-1970s. we also learned diction, how to walk, sit, stand, get in and out of a car, take off a coat or jacket gracefully, how to set a table, and where to seat various dignitaries and how to address them. a whole crapload of stuff. but i don’t know what they do now. i might even look it up.
Comment by qwfwq on 3/23 @ 5:51 pm #
I agree with you, Jeff, but don’t waste your bullets on what is, in essence, an internal problem.
Yeah, defending yourself against a stupid, harmful, argument is important, but its side-effect is to divert your energies from a greater cause. I’d like to see you use your mental energies to demolish the avalanche of mendacious political bullshit pouring down on us from the Left. Our freedom is at stake; I don’t know how to express it any more clearly. Our future hangs in the balance. No one in the small “r” republican camp has the stones or the intellect to combat this thing. Your abilities are needed. No one else can explain this problem as well as you can. Screw Pat, to hell with him. He’s small fish.
Comment by alppuccino on 3/23 @ 5:51 pm #
It’s a heavy book what balances on a bouffant.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 5:52 pm #
By the way, what do you all think of (“Oh, and Patrick Frey has no honor”) as a subhead to every new post ever?
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 5:53 pm #
This Stacy McCain shows promise. Ok I say that mostly cause Dan likes him. Good old Dan.
Pensive now.
Comment by maggie katzen on 3/23 @ 5:53 pm #
Comment by Mikey NTH on 3/23 @ 5:53 pm #
Haps:Ann Althouse posts what she wants to when she wants to. I don’t comment there, but I enjoy reading her site. She’s even got into her own little blog fight with Ezra Klein. It seems the free spirits are under attack everywhere, which is just evil.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 5:56 pm #
Funny thing is, qwfwq, I thought by showing how easy it is for the right to accept the left’s paradigm, I was doing just that — and at the same time opening up a necessary discussion about how we should proceed in the service of individual rights.
Instead, I was merely out for money and, if I could manage the twofer, to DESTROY PATRICK FREY’S REPUTATION!
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 5:57 pm #
Maguire said Althouse is marrying some guy named Meade. Which, I don’t know, seemed odd to learn at the JOM for some reason.
Comment by router on 3/23 @ 5:57 pm #
what is a patrick frey?
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 5:58 pm #
Also she’s pretty, Mikey.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 5:59 pm #
“Oh, and Patrick Frey has no honor”
I’d say go with an acronym until he publically and clearly retracts the “death threat” canard and let people ask what it means if they’re curious.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 5:59 pm #
Great smile.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 5:59 pm #
publicly
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 5:59 pm #
I think Patrick Frey and Mr. Patterico aren’t necessarily the same person.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 6:00 pm #
I think “publically” means “as a publican would”.
Comment by router on 3/23 @ 6:00 pm #
maybe on topic or not:
?
Comment by Ella on 3/23 @ 6:00 pm #
Here’s the thing about the commenters claiming lawyers are all literal and stuff — isn’t that the opposite of Patterico’s argument? Jeff (the linguistic one) was arguing for intentionalism; in a sense, absoluteness. If he said X and intended to say X, then the statement means X. Patterico was the one saying meaning is all over the place, anywhere but with the one doing the saying.
Unless I misunderstood something.
Did I mention I gave up caffeine for Lent? And I’m not Catholic. It just seemed like a good, holy thing to do.
Bad timing, is all I’m saying.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 6:01 pm #
Personally, I think it is much funnier that he should continue to maintain it, if you know what I mean blowhard.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 6:06 pm #
Yeah, Sdferr, I hear you.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 6:08 pm #
Not that I mean to make fun of, well, them, y’know. Just that they can be funny all on their own.
Comment by Stephen M on 3/23 @ 6:10 pm #
Patterico remains unhanged.
Comment by McGehee on 3/23 @ 6:14 pm #
But not unhinged. What a difference a vowel makes.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 6:15 pm #
I think the real question is, “Why were they offering to give Jeff enough rope to hang himself?”
Patterico, he’s the new Dr. Kevorkian.
Assisted suicide threat!
Comment by alppuccino on 3/23 @ 6:19 pm #
What a difference a vowel makes.
Yes. Yes. A good vowel movement can turn a so-so day into a great day!
Comment by alppuccino on 3/23 @ 6:20 pm #
I could have done that better. I’m consonapated.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 6:20 pm #
Or that noble twenty-seventh English letter, the space!
Comment by Mikey NTH on 3/23 @ 6:22 pm #
Ella: I am not sure. Because I am a lawyer, and professionally speaking, you should never say (or – God Forbid! – write) what you do not mean. Everything you say or write can be used against you or your client, hence the fetish for ambiguity. The law is pretty set on what certain words mean. Ask a lawyer who deals with criminal law, or a police officer, what the word ‘interrogation’ means. Interrogation means the full Miranda applies. A conversation does not bring Miranda into play. Interrogation means that the person being asked is not free to leave, is in custody, and the full application of Fifth Amendment protections apply.
In the law, certain words do have fixed meanings. Whereas in academia they do not, which is what Jeff has been arguing against, the utter malability of meaning. It does seem odd to me that Pat would argue against Jeff on this point, but I do admit that I have not been following this argument very closely.
Perhaps I should have, but I have (excuse here) very busy lately. Too busy for an actual dialogue sitelike this.
Comment by McGehee on 3/23 @ 6:26 pm #
Patterico is unhanged, but not unhoisted. He is like a beer mug at a frat party. The centerpiece of a major petard-festoonage.
(I bought a case of lyric wax at Costco today, and I didn’t look at the “Sell by” date until I got it home.)
Comment by Fritz on 3/23 @ 6:52 pm #
SEK at Acephalous sums it all up nicely.
[those interested in what SEK has to say can get their on your own. - ed]
Comment by Mikey NTH on 3/23 @ 6:54 pm #
There is a large volume of case law determining exactly when interrogation begins (and Miranda protections apply). As an example of precision in meaning of words, I do not think I could find a better one for my profession, my trade.
Comment by blankminde on 3/23 @ 6:56 pm #
Whatever happened to people slugging it out over disagreements? I’m all for a good conversation and reasonable dialogue, but sometimes it feels a lot nicer to roll someone up into a little ball and start squeezing the air out of them. Bonus: even if you lose, you still enjoy the headiness of regaining consciousness.
Comment by geoffb on 3/23 @ 6:57 pm #
I don’t see him as arguing against malleability of meaning as much as that the malleability stops when the author fixes the meaning to the text when creating it.
Put another way the author by choosing what to write/utter collapses the ever expanding “wave function” of the meaning of his marks by turning them into signs. The author peeks into Schrodinger’s box and in doing so sees whether the cat is dead or alive. Once done it is fixed, alive or dead, and can’t be changed. He could lie about what he saw but that doesn’t change that the cat is what it is and the function has collapsed.
Somebody in some thread said to use Schrodinger’s cat into this.
Comment by geoffb on 3/23 @ 6:58 pm #
bring not use
Comment by B Moe on 3/23 @ 6:58 pm #
Shorter SEK:
BECAUSE TO THE HYPOCRISY!
Duplicate posts on two blogs, no less.
Comment by Joe on 3/23 @ 7:06 pm #
You Magnificent Bastard Outlaws! Keep up the good work.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 7:11 pm #
Fritz, and SEK for that matter:
Odd how the initial nk comment, paraphrasing, “I know where Jeff will be on a certain date, it’s near me and I’m tempted to show up”, wasn’t included in that summary.
http://patterico.com/2009/03/19/points-of-agreement-on-interpretation/#comment-475494
Puts a different spin on things, as it came before the other comments.
Be honest or stop pretending to be honest.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 7:13 pm #
I’ll note by the way that even his defenders have stepped away from the “death threat” phrasing.
Comment by lee on 3/23 @ 7:15 pm #
Wow, relief is dripping from my brow at the conclusion of the fishing trip.
Patterico is merely an unscrupulous lawyer(see#210, thanks router). There is no way an honorable(or honest) man could take what Jeff said as a physical threat. The lying crap weasel just couldn’t take the heat, and refused to concede the kitchen. And to defend what nk said multiplied the scumyness. Then, to project his own effort at dissing Jeffs reputation onto Jeff compounded his depravity.
I can see why the asshole thinks Obama a good man. He’s just like him.
Oh, and daleyrocks has his nose so far up Patterico ass it’s no wonder bile is dripping down his leg, giving that tingly feeling.
There otta be a season.
Comment by SDN on 3/23 @ 7:15 pm #
MikeyNTH, I’m speaking of lawyers as a class. Speaking as a Java guy, I suppose it’s possible to instantiate an object of class lawyer with the honest attribute set true, if only because of the Black Swan fallacy… ;-)
But seriously, you tell us how in the law words mean what they mean… yet we see the use of terms like person of interest whose sole purpose is to let the cops and DA treat you like a suspect… but avoid the use of the word suspect. To quote Mr. Spock, “A difference which makes no difference is not a difference.” If you are going to investigate someone, then they are entitled to the protections our law gives a suspect… and if they aren’t a suspect, WTF are the cops doing spending time investigating them like one?
Comment by LTC John on 3/23 @ 7:17 pm #
“A Harkonnen trick, if you ask me.”
It is always a tirck with those #$%& Harkonnens.
Oh, Jeff angry? Very frustrated, one can see. But when I was home on leave this past June – I had lunch with him and Tony (and Karl too!). I’d have said Jeff was relaxed. I think I am a fairly good judge of angry, having been on the receiving end so much (from being called an a$$hole by a defense attorney, in open court – when I was an Assistant States Attorney to some pretty colorful, actual death threats in Qarabaghi Robat).
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 7:21 pm #
I rather doubt it.
Comment by Fritz on 3/23 @ 7:22 pm #
blowhard @230,
Please answer this question, Are you saying that it’s a threat for nk to take JeffG up on JeffG’s general and public invitation (JeffG also wrote, “Those of you who will be in Chicago and want to skip the seminar but meetup with me, let me know.”) to attend a wrestling seminar or to intimate that he would?
Comment by Fritz on 3/23 @ 7:22 pm #
JeffG,
You could read it and find out.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 7:26 pm #
Fritz, yes, it certainly colored his later comments once he made it clear how much he disliked Jeff.
Guess what? I’ve commented on many blogs and I’ve never once said that I might meet someone I really disliked at a specific time and place.
Have you ever told someone you really dislike that you might see them at a specific time and place?
Comment by jefferson101 on 3/23 @ 7:27 pm #
I’ve always been suspicious of the “Prosecutor” mentality that Patterico exhibits. And now I know why.
“They are guilty if I say they are.”
I really try to give LE folks the benefit of the doubt, but there’s seldom any doubt, and he’s dispelled any that I may have had about him.
OUTLAW?
Heh. Patterico says to hang them all.
I’ve got one for the horse he rode in on, too.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 7:29 pm #
What did you leave out Fritz? This maybe “just to snap some photos of some power-glutes using their submissive scissor holds. I could probably recoup the money by selling them to Andrew Sullivan.“
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 7:29 pm #
I could use my Visa card and order up some midget hookers to come and give me bollocks a shine. Doesn’t mean I’m going to.
In fact, I think I’ll preemptively starve both he and Pat of any traffic coming from this site.
Those who want to read SEK’s take on me, visit Pat’s site and click over. Those who don’t need not bother.
Comment by router on 3/23 @ 7:32 pm #
is olivia david axelrod on 24
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 7:32 pm #
Fritz. I answered your question, please answer mine.
Have you ever told someone you really dislike that you might meet them at a specific time and place? I haven’t. Jeff never did in that thread.
nk did! And Patterico said nothing.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 7:35 pm #
Hey, idea! Any of you guys have a blog? Quick. Go and write up your take on things and I’ll link it as a show of support.
And I’ll have the benefit of the support not coming from a tricky little progressive crapweasel like SEK.
Go ahead. Send me the links. I’ll make up a new dog post to link it — only I promise to make mine funny.
Comment by Fritz on 3/23 @ 7:39 pm #
JeffG,
What do you find so offensive about SEK’s post that you have to censor my comment? Did it hit too close to home for you? Man up and let people see what other have to say about you and this situation. The truth will win out in the end, won’t it?
sdferr,
Do you think Andrew Sullivan would be interested?
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 7:39 pm #
SEK certainly knows who a progressive should be supporting in all this. Kinda like timb does!
Coincidence?
Or is that what the Germans want you to think…?
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 7:40 pm #
You might ask nk what he thinks of that Fritz, you dishonest putz.
Comment by easyliving1 on 3/23 @ 7:40 pm #
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcK2t6-vwKk
Ain’t the first time
Comment by Fritz on 3/23 @ 7:42 pm #
blowhard,
When you’re in a public place people can see you. And take pictures if the lighting is right.
Comment by Fritz on 3/23 @ 7:51 pm #
Try it again. I don’t think it worked.
Comment by Rusty on 3/23 @ 7:52 pm #
#172
Comment by Joe on 3/23 @ 5:32 pm #
router, I read Trout Fishing in America a few times when it got to hot midafternoon for the fish to bite. It helped to drink a lot of beer.
I like to bring along a book of poetry. Very handy in starting fires.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 7:57 pm #
I find him to be disingenuous nearly to a fault.
I haven’t read it.
Others can see it. By going to SEK’s site or Patterico’s. I’m just not giving either of those two the traffic.
And I’m also tired of being told what to answer, what to read, who I need to respond to, etc. Patterico and his supporters seem to share in that leftwing desire to control how I speak, to whom, when, and how. Sorry, Fritz buddy, but I’m not interested — and I certainly won’t be taking orders from dishonorable liars like Patterico.
Besides. Being told to man up and let the truth out is rather giggle-worthy when it comes from someone speaking on behalf of a site that banned me, then made all its arguments in the vacuum of my being allowed to respond.
Comment by router on 3/23 @ 8:03 pm #
i like the wendy’s fried fish. but i think they are going after the catholic market at this time.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 8:05 pm #
Fritz, do you often tell people on the internet that you really dislike that you are going to show up at a specific time and place for any reason?
Dodge this all you want. People don’t do say things like this (specific person, specific place, specific time) because it is creepy!
If you can’t acknowledge that, you are extending your own credibility to cover nk’s statement.
Comment by Fritz on 3/23 @ 8:06 pm #
Complaining about the unfairness of being banned, and not being able to defend yourself, is odd when in fact you banned someone and then taunted them about it. Some might say giggle-worthy.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 3/23 @ 8:07 pm #
“Comment by router on 3/23 @ 8:03 pm #
i like the wendy’s fried fish. but i think they are going after the catholic market at this time.”
I gave up my relatives for Lent.
Comment by ThomasD on 3/23 @ 8:08 pm #
I seem to recall Frey calling out an anonymous troll here not too long ago. Something about him needing to man up and posting under his real name.
And all he did was call Frey a nancy-boy.
I suspect there will be much stepping away at Patterico’s over time. His argument remains weak and disjointed with much that he will come to regret as it is tossed back in his face time and again.
Comment by Fritz on 3/23 @ 8:08 pm #
blowhard,
JeffG wrote:
When is it a threat and when is it a RSVP?
If you’re in a public place, and you advertise that you’re in a public place, people can see you.
Comment by assclown returns on 3/23 @ 8:10 pm #
I thank Jewsus that nobody gives a flying fuck about you, your pointless scribbling, or your mindless sycophants. Or your bullshit blogwars. Seriously, who gives two shits about Patterico and how he made you feel sad. Go fuck yourselves, asswipes.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 8:12 pm #
So, you’ll extend your own credibility to nk’s statement. Fine.
This fig leaf of public place is just that, a fig leaf.
It is clear exactly how much nk dislikes Jeff. That takes away the RSVP issue. Or, to your mind, should every invitation require the caveat, please don’t come if you seem to really, really hate me?
Face it. People are throwing around accusations of threats and death threats like it’s going out of style. Only one person has met the criteria of specificity. And that is nk.
Comment by router on 3/23 @ 8:13 pm #
“Go fuck yourselves, asswipes.”
please don’t talk about the us congress led by ms. pelosi in such a manner.
Comment by assclown returns on 3/23 @ 8:14 pm #
I have a secret to tell you – nobody is telling you how to act, think, speak, or whatever your paranoid mind imagines. The left, and truly most people who are not fringe lunatics, laugh their asses off at the navel gazing, self righteous, faux-manly internet bully BULLSHIT on display here. Sad, sad, sad.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 8:17 pm #
“Go fuck yourselves”…..followed by…..”nobody is telling you how to act”.
Comment by router on 3/23 @ 8:22 pm #
“The left, and truly most people who are not fringe lunatics,”
the “left”: cindy sheehan your grrl and media benjamin and kat vandaloser, and the nyt, newyorker, nation, newrepublic, time, newsweak, npr, cbs, abc, cbs, and the “educated” ivy league losers in america
Comment by Mike K on 3/23 @ 8:22 pm #
Patterico is far from left wing although I disagree with him about Limbaugh. I think this exchange of paranoid fantasies is counterproductive and should end now. I supported you when the nutcase adjunct professor at U of A was really threatening your family. I wrote a letter to the department chair and got an apology from him. Now, I think it is time to put this thing behind both of you and concentrate on the common enemy, Obama and his brownshirts.
Comment by cynn on 3/23 @ 8:23 pm #
My, what a lovely war.
Comment by lee on 3/23 @ 8:24 pm #
If it’s sad, why are they laughing?
And why should anyone care what an assclown has to say?
And why would an assclown care what a fringe lunatic has to say?
Never mind, it’s a secret.
Comment by guinsPen on 3/23 @ 8:25 pm #
people who are not fringe lunatics, laugh their asses off
Assfrown it is, then.
Comment by router on 3/23 @ 8:26 pm #
you get a better deal at wendy’s.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/23 @ 8:27 pm #
You could read it and find out.
Given all the valuable texts there are that I’ll never have time to read, and given how many times I’ve seen SEK get his rhetorical lunch money taken away from him on this site, I think I’ll pass.
Comment by router on 3/23 @ 8:27 pm #
we will destroy your ilk
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 8:28 pm #
By the way, I don’t know if nk’s statement was a threat, to take pictures, or to be there period. As he later said he thought that neither of them mean the other flesh and blood harm, I’m going to take that into account.
I can only say this. I read a comment giving time and place. Then I later read extremely insulting familial comments that let me know nk disliked Jeff intensely. I found it worrisome, I thought it gave off a bad vibe.
Whether he truly meant anything by the earlier comment, and I’d be happy to accept his later statement that neither wished the other actual harm, it still showed a lack of social understanding.
Maybe he’s just socially awkward enough to not understand these things. You don’t tell people you dislike intensely that you might show up where they will be in the future!
Comment by lee on 3/23 @ 8:30 pm #
Perhaps you should read the post. Patterico has made himself the enemy personified.
Comment by B Moe on 3/23 @ 8:30 pm #
I thank Jewsus that nobody gives a flying fuck about you, your pointless scribbling, or your mindless sycophants.
So how much time do you spend annoying folks you do give a fuck about, assclown? Before the restraining orders, I mean.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 8:31 pm #
Oh, I don’t think banning a frequent troll is the same as banning someone whom you pretend to be debating.
But then, you and he are probably one and the same. Else, why reference that particular thread?
You should form a guild or something with SEK: PROGRESSIVES FOR PATTERICO! The guy is so hung up on his honor he’d probably welcome the support.
Comment by B Moe on 3/23 @ 8:33 pm #
Now, I think it is time to put this thing behind both of you and concentrate on the common enemy, Obama and his brownshirts.
But Obama isn’t the enemy, he is a good man!
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 8:34 pm #
What paranoid fantasies are you referring to Mike K? I mean, you say exchange, so you’re seeing paranoid fantasies on both sides traded back and forth? Care to point them out specifically or would you rather restate the points of dispute to better accommodate what is actually going on?
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 8:34 pm #
I don’t like the it’s time to concentrate on the REAL ENEMY meme. I think our fractiousness is beautiful and precious juxtaposed with the fascist anti-American locksteppers what are in charge. Baracky and his insipid and shallow dirty socialist little cult have a lot sensitized me to that… here, it’s almost like America never left.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 8:36 pm #
Mike K –
You might talk to Bradley J. Fikes about good faith. Then come back and talk to me.
Links provided in the post.
Comment by assclown returns on 3/23 @ 8:37 pm #
Oh my god, the self destruction is a sight to behold. “The common enemy”! Oh schadenfreude shouldn’t feel so good.
On a similar note, I have a theory that several of the recurring characters here, both pro and anti-jeff, are actually jeff himself. Who else would expend so much energy on such a failing cause?
Comment by Fritz on 3/23 @ 8:38 pm #
Banning someone because they never do anything but show up to drop bombs (which I take to mean, because they disagree with you) is much, much worse. It makes you no better than a loser like The Liberal Avenger. Maybe worse because you should know better.
You, on the other hand, were way over the line, were warned about it, and continued to do it with escalating ferocity instead of going to get a sandwich or something. That’s entirely justified, IMHO.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 8:40 pm #
Or a hot pocket maybe. Also I think you are defining escalating ferocity a lot down.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 8:41 pm #
glasnost, Fritz, you’re here to defend glasnost?
Why is that not surprising?
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 8:41 pm #
Hey, Fritz, do me a favor, as nk’s comments were so reasonable to you, please give me instances where you’ve done the same or significantly similar.
Thanks.
If you can’t, don’t feel bad. I haven’t either.
Comment by router on 3/23 @ 8:43 pm #
the statists in america
Comment by Fritz on 3/23 @ 8:45 pm #
blowhard,
Do you mean publicly say I was going to go to a publicly advertised event where people were going to be in public and then say I was going to take pictures of them while they were in public?
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 8:47 pm #
Did you get that from the blogging etiquette book?
And I don’t care what you “take to mean.” There isn’t a regular commenter or reader on this site who thinks I ban people simply for disagreeing with me.
Uh, I was there. So I know that everything you just said is bullshit.
But go ahead and protect nk. Or Nick, I should say. The gay stuff was PRICELESS, and the stuff about me and my family totally warranted! Because, like, I had a debate with Patterico.
This might come as a shock to you, Fritz, but I don’t much care what your take on this is. Nor Patterico’s. Nor SEK’s. Nor the gaggle of faux-earnest commenters that hang out over at Patterico’s pretending to be prim and erudite until they know they’ve been insulated. At which point they’ll take whatever low shots they can.
Did I mention you can fuck yourself?
Good. And tell your friends!
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 8:48 pm #
Fritz, I have no idea why you cling to “publicly” like it means something. It doesn’t.
And, you forgot that this person is someone you’ve expressed your intense dislike for, repeatedly.
But, yeah, any instances of that in your online history?
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 8:49 pm #
You can admit that you’ve never done anything like that, Fritz. It’s okay. I haven’t either.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 8:50 pm #
Patterico told someone (maybe happyfeet?) that nk had emailed him an explanation of his crack at Jeff’s homelife that “satisfied” [scare quotes] Pat that nk meant no harm. Maybe Fritz could get the two of them to agree to publish the email, so everyone could see just what nk had in mind when nk (ex-post) explained his intent.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/23 @ 8:50 pm #
Bye, Fritz.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 8:50 pm #
I think he means going to a private event that requires registration and taking pictures to sell to Andrew Sullivan of “delicate guys slathered in Jasmine-scented sesame-seed oil.”
Funny. Patterico the neo-intentionalist (according to him) seems to spawn a whole lot of pretend formalists.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 8:54 pm #
Hey, Fritz. This you? Frederick “Fritz” Hemker , Los Angeles, California, married [redacted] at the base of Yosemite Falls in Yosemite National Forest on [redacted]. Six years after entering the program, Fritz has begun work on his Ph.D. dissertation in political science at [redacted]?
I like to know who I’m talking to when they begin ordering me around.
Comment by Fritz on 3/23 @ 8:58 pm #
Which is why you’re taking the time to reply. Wait, are you going to take your ball and go home now?
JeffG, I care about you. That’s why I want to help.
First, it’s clear that your nose is seriously out of joint. Your pride is getting to you. Second, I think that once you calm down, look at it calmly, you’ll realize that you’re being something of a cunt. I’m sure if your apology is heartfelt enough Patterico will rescind his ban. Then, no hard feelings, eh?
In any case, you’ve already censored links because you disagree with them. Or, euphemistically, you don’t want to drive traffic their way. Next step, Liberal Avenger land!
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 9:01 pm #
Did I miss the part where Fritz gave some instances where he’s acted like nk?
Duly noted. In pen. In his permanent record.
Comment by ThomasD on 3/23 @ 9:03 pm #
Fritz doesn’t speak for himself much, but he sure seems to speak for Frey.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 9:03 pm #
Fritz wants to help blowhard, by bringing Jeff to the knowledge that he’s “something” of a cunt. Which something, he doesn’t say. But he wants to help, ’cause he cares.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 9:05 pm #
I’ve already slept on this, Fritz, and after a lot of soul searching I decided that it wasn’t me being the cunt.
As you seem to be here as an emissary of Patterico’s honor, I would say that makes you a qweef, yes?
Let me worry about the way I run my site. You go back to pristine, honorable site of one Patrick Frey, fighter for good and right, and leave the rabble here to take their chances by making their own decisions on what to do.
That’s how we roll here, Fritz.
Outlaw style.
Comment by lee on 3/23 @ 9:05 pm #
Fritz, pull you nose from the scummy lawyers ass and smell the coffee.
Did you see any death threats?
Do you agree nk did nothing untoward in insulting Jeffs family?
Did you see where Jeff answered Pattericos hypotheticals depite Pattericos claims to the contrary?
Have you fucked off yet?
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 9:05 pm #
People here crack me up by the way. Jeff, SBP, Sdferr, others, just keep cracking me.
This is the place to find extremely smart people making extremely funny comments.*
*That initially confuse and then delight simpletons like me.
Comment by serr8d on 3/23 @ 9:12 pm #
Jeff, I’ve updated my earlier post, with a generalized explanatory comment I left at TFree (written down for a liberal(s) and others who aren’t really conversant). If there’s any errors I’ll apologize in advance.
Comment by Cepik on 3/23 @ 9:17 pm #
“I would say that makes you a qweef, yes?”
Pure comic gold dude. Coworkers hear me laugh out loud during lunch and wonder what is so funny. I have directed several here.
Comment by B Moe on 3/23 @ 9:19 pm #
Banning someone because they never do anything but show up to drop bombs (which I take to mean, because they disagree with you)
It is almost like they say this stuff, um, intentionally.
I know, I know, I’m sorry.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 9:21 pm #
Added it in an update, Serr8d, along with a link to SEK’s piece, for those interested. I still haven’t read it, but hey, at least I linked it on my terms, which is all badassss.
Comment by guinsPen on 3/23 @ 9:27 pm #
You, on the other hand, …[should have gone] to get a sandwich or something.
Fritz, the crust.
Now, go home and get you a bread-box.
Comment by Jim Ryan on 3/23 @ 9:28 pm #
We wuv oo, Jeff.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 9:32 pm #
In light of Patterico’s new post:
Socrates: [looks pissed off]
Dog: [looks pissed off]
Boy: [looks pissed off]
Black man: To be honest, Socrates, I found it a little insulting that I was supposed to respond to the boy when he called his dog in your hypotheticals.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 9:32 pm #
Incidentally, though I know the identity of commenter nk, I never released that info.
Something that should probably get thrown into the mix. I just like it that Nick knows I know. Maybe he’ll remember that both of us are humans, and that making cracks that are necessarily insulting to my wife or that insult the place where I train is not the best use of his time.
Nick’s, that is.
Comment by serr8d on 3/23 @ 9:32 pm #
Thanks, Jeff. Ummm…should the linky thingy be orangey or something? )
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 9:40 pm #
Oh. I just looked at Patterico’s post. He’s using SEK’s “take” on things to disprove what happened?
Talk about fucking desperation.
“LOOK! A PROGRESSIVE WHOSE STATED GOAL IS TO USE LANGUAGE TO AFFECT SOCIAL CHANGE AND WHO HAS TAKEN MY SIDE ON THIS DEBATE THROUGHOUT HAS DECLARED ME THE HONORABLE ONE! SEE? SO WHO’S THE PROTO-FASCIST NOW, GOLDSTEIN?”
Funny thing is, I bet the little “pragmatists” over at Patterico’s are lapping it up, not even realizing that they’re drinking the very poison that will eventually kill their freedoms.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 9:41 pm #
Oops. Sorry. Fixed.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 9:42 pm #
Anybody commenting over there? I would — you know, to correct the record and all — but I’m banned.
Because of the HONOR!
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 9:45 pm #
I’m thinkin’ unless it is really important I won’t be reading comments over there much any more. It’s actually too depressing.
Comment by A mirror on 3/23 @ 9:47 pm #
You really are a crazy bastard, you know that?
REVERSE OUTLAW!
Comment by Dog: on 3/23 @ 9:49 pm #
Oops. Sorry. Fixed.
Bite me.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 9:54 pm #
Well, let them have their klatch. I like it here better anyway.
Comment by lee on 3/23 @ 10:06 pm #
I’m taking a few whacks at them Jeff.
Like this:
Daleyrocks immediately asks:
Comment by lee on 3/23 @ 10:08 pm #
Then nk comes up with:
So I said:
Ahh, good times…
Comment by Patrick Chester on 3/23 @ 10:09 pm #
LTC John wrote:
Sad, but this stuff has happened before – Balloon Juice, The Commissar, etc. Jeff has remained constant and open and honest – and I beleive, correct – all along.
It must be easier to become Andrew Sullivan-esque or Patterico-ish.
It shouldn’t be.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 10:11 pm #
SEK was never banned. I might have told him I was through arguing with him, but I never banned him or kept him from responding.
Least, I don’t think I did. I’d need to know his IP.
So where’s the hypocrisy, exactly?
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 10:13 pm #
I’m banned at Mr. SEK’s alternate blog thing. He said I wasn’t but I am. I don’t think SEK realized. I got banned a long time ago for making a threat. Ok. I am going to print my threat but you have to promise you won’t ban me. Promise?
Comment by TheUnrepentantGeek on 3/23 @ 10:15 pm #
Will I get in trouble for saying that this is yet more evidence that Shakespeare was right?
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 10:17 pm #
ok. here go…
and then eric says…
and then I didn’t say anything cause of how banned I was. oh. I thought I was going to have more of a story here but reading back eric is funny but timb is really really funny…
Sorry… I thought I had a point.
Comment by malaclypse the tertiary on 3/23 @ 10:17 pm #
From a comment SEK left in his post:
“Virtually-stalking”? Hyperbolic much SEK? I find SEK smug and his protestation that he “disagree[s] with both [Jeff and Pat] pretty much all of the time” is irrelevant to whatever conclusions one might draw from the fact that he’s chosen to wade into this debate in the comments threads at Pat’s site—and in his characteristically supercilious manner.
Comment by Cepik on 3/23 @ 10:18 pm #
That is what blows me away,
nk came out of the blue accusing Jeff of bringing the president’s kids in but he never did. I had read Cree Tee’s before and he was never like that. He just snapped. Worse, it was explained out that Jeff didn’t do as accused, it was gone over again, hashed, rehashed, hell the horse’s rotting, flogged corpse was there for all to see and he keeps going back to it. Then, what he said to Darleen was bizarre too.
What happened to him?
Comment by TheUnrepentantGeek on 3/23 @ 10:19 pm #
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 10:17 pm #
Some people’s cruelty is an innie, some poeple’s cruelty is an outie. Why must they hate on the innies?
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 10:19 pm #
Show us, hf.
Comment by maggie katzen on 3/23 @ 10:20 pm #
I don’t think so, RAPIST!
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 10:21 pm #
“Virtually-stalking”?
Is that what “finding out the name of the guy who just talked smack about your family” is being called in legal circles these days?
Comment by serr8d on 3/23 @ 10:22 pm #
I looked in on SoCal. There’s nothing I’d term as intelligent life; Patterico posted and hasn’t returned. The post itself seemed…lifeless to me.
I think his heart is out of this, but his pride is strong. He’s taken a road that, if not one-way, is impossible to turn around on until he’s reached bottom. I’ve done my share of 4X4 offroading, and sometimes you just hope something opens up before you bottom out.
Now, he might show up at 3:00 AM and carry on, but that’s not likely. If you ban someone, the ban works both ways, tacitly.
Comment by lee on 3/23 @ 10:22 pm #
I don’t remember you ever banning him, but that’s what his post is about, you banning him and then insulting him when he can’t respond. Thus the hypocrisy.
Here’s your comment he linked.
Oh, also he says:
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 10:23 pm #
nk is a nut job. SEK is not as smart as pretends to be, yet he’s leading mass over there. Conservatives at the feet of a disingenuous progressive, looking up, being taught.
Priceless.
Comment by maggie katzen on 3/23 @ 10:24 pm #
well, let’s say you’ve got this roustabout…
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 10:26 pm #
Ask him where the threat of physical violence was. Did he link it?
There wasn’t one.
Also, that comment he linked? That was me deleting a trackback. Not banning him. Not preventing him from commenting.
Least, that’s what it seems like to me from the context.
SEK dishonest? Why, HOW DARE YOU!
Comment by McGehee on 3/23 @ 10:27 pm #
In my usual non sequitur fashion…
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 10:32 pm #
You made me giggle out loud almost maggie which is funny cause at the time I was very upset how this happened. I think. But it’s odd cause this blog is one of those ones entirely premised on what a smart set of fine fellows we are. There is one person named ari there that I think is good people, maybe, but the rest are those ones I didn’t know very well in high school I think. I still think SEK’s ok mostly though. Someday I think I will ask him if he’s ever wondered if maintaining his online voice has come at a cost.
Comment by lee on 3/23 @ 10:36 pm #
Yeah Jeff, he linked:
You fucking ANIMAL!!
Comment by serr8d on 3/23 @ 10:36 pm #
Heh. This, I worked up on 3/11, before anyone ever mentioned ropes or hanging. Not that I’m prophetic or anything… )
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 10:40 pm #
I left this on SEK’s site. If somebody wants to quote me and leave it on Pat’s, I’m cool with that:
Comment by Grampa Simpson on 3/23 @ 10:46 pm #
Trackbacks? When I was a kid, we didn’t have trackbacks.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/23 @ 10:50 pm #
they made SEK take his post down at the American West place… lycée? colloquium? But they made him take it down… I think ari the guy I was talking about earlier made him. He thought he could put it up and he did but they made him take it down. Someone else can do the math on that. What I think is it’s Mr. Goldstein what warns warns warns about the seductiveness of coercive measures that let people take control of the message. People should say thank you Mr. Goldstein more often I think.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 10:51 pm #
I was gone for a bit. TV drew me in.
Gold stars to lee, Serr8d, dicentra, and McGehee.
Comment by Patrick Chester on 3/23 @ 10:53 pm #
Fritz wrote:
JeffG wrote:
Reminder: Catch Wrestling Seminar April 10-12
In Chicago. Tony’s gym is located just a few miles from O’Hare. A few spots still available.
Those of you who will be in Chicago and want to skip the seminar but meetup with me, let me know
When is it a threat and when is it a RSVP?
If you’re in a public place, and you advertise that you’re in a public place, people can see you.
…and they can see when Fritz here appears to have left something off of Jeff’s announcement. Makes me wonder why he didn’t, oh, leave a link to where we might find this comment by Jeff.
So, Fritz… link? Or did the stinking fairies steal it from you?
(Hoping I don’t screw up the formatting…)
Comment by Patrick Chester on 3/23 @ 10:54 pm #
(Don’t mind me, just going after low-hanging fruit. A quote that suddenly cuts off just makes me go “hmm…” sometimes.)
Comment by Molon Labe on 3/23 @ 10:56 pm #
The bookmarkable link to dicentra’s site is worth a visit just to find out what “dicentra” means. Or intends.
Comment by maggie katzen on 3/23 @ 10:56 pm #
oh, you think it’s easy to catch the cat making that “Who cut the cheese?” face?
Comment by Darleen on 3/23 @ 10:57 pm #
I had a real rough day back at work and this was a pleasure to read. I haven’t had time yet to read the thread but I had to write my own “A boy and his dog”
the snowbilly edition
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 10:58 pm #
Blowhard is evidently banned there, as well.
Somebody leave my response to SEK over there? Hey! Let’s ALL get banned. It can be like an OUTLAW initiation or something!
Comment by Scott Jacobs on 3/23 @ 10:59 pm #
I would like to call everyone’s attention to the rank hypocracy of Jeff:
While Jeff speaks of Patterico’s obvious support of nk and his bvile statement (which I find funnier and funnier the more Jeff bitches about it), Jeff himself has condoned a vile and blatant threat towards jack Dunphy.
It’s right here.
By his failure to respond, Jeff has condoned a blatant threat against not only a darn fine person, but a member of the LAPD.
Not that I expect Jeff to do anything about it. “Rules for thee” and all that.
Comment by Merovign on 3/23 @ 11:00 pm #
I especially like the part where Patterico doesn’t want to discuss it publicly anymore.
Over. And Over. And over. Usually after he posts another slap. Which is kind of very pathetic. The first sign that someone sincerely doesn’t want to talk about something is that they stop talking about it.
Also, IIRC, it’s been a pattern, a meme almost, here at PW, that people who “cyber-stalk” get their IPs revealed.
Ane even more also, it’s cute how nk never felt threatened or interpreted anything as a threat, until suddenly it was always a threat and “grounds for self-defense” (chuckle). Memories must dance across that man’s mind like an old beater pickup doing donuts on a lawn.
Comment by peter jackson on 3/23 @ 11:02 pm #
Jesus Jeff. There are 49 links in that post. You a bloggin’ muthuh fuckuh.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 11:02 pm #
They are just looking for a way to justify the banning and to give Patterico cover that he might have thought a real threat existed.
In the absence of all history to the contrary.
Because of the HONOR!
Comment by Darleen on 3/23 @ 11:03 pm #
Scott Jacob
Get down off the cross, honey, you’ll get splinters.
Comment by Molon Labe on 3/23 @ 11:06 pm #
349 Jeff himself has condoned
So now tolerance is a crime?
Comment by Cepik on 3/23 @ 11:06 pm #
Scottie,
Jeff posts as JeffG not easylivng1 . . . . just sayin’
Comment by Cepik on 3/23 @ 11:07 pm #
Darleen @ 353,
Classic, pure gold!
Comment by Merovign on 3/23 @ 11:09 pm #
Scott Jacob:
1) It’s spelled “hypocrisy.” And since Jeff, as far as I can tell, hasn’t responded to that commenter, I can only assume that you don’t know what the word means, either.
2) I imagine that, for you, things like “context” or “comparison” only exist when they can be used against others, and should they dull your already blunt attacks, they exist only to be ignored?
Could you be any less effective a debater? It’s hard to say. You could, for example, post your messages in “tongues.” That would do it.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 11:10 pm #
Of course, if Nick the middle-aged Greek lawyer really does want to show up to Tony’s seminar hoping to see oiled men wrestle and then happens to draw me as a sparring partner, all bets are off.
In all seriousness, though, he mentions where I’ll be and muses about showing up. Later, Pat mentions that Nick the middle-aged Greek lawyer isn’t afeared, onacause he can handle hisself. Then Nick the middle-aged Greek lawyer (picture here — presented for examination of potential threat to my wellbeing purposes only) talks about how Patterico had really done me a favor, cause had I crossed state lines or some such, well, then he’d a had hisself a case agin’ me for violating his civil right to be an anonymous prick who ain’t askeered o’ me — after he went all self-defense on my hapless ass, of course. With his middle-aged Greek lawyer-fu.
So tell me again, who’s introducing violence?
Comment by Scott Jacobs on 3/23 @ 11:10 pm #
Awwww… You almost got it right Darleen… You wanna try again, or will you be going right to the claims that you are being personally insulted?
Comment by malaclypse the tertiary on 3/23 @ 11:11 pm #
And easyliving1’s comment is a response to a Dunphy’s “understanding the impulse” to savagely beat a teen girl. Scott Jacobs, sir, you are a funny man.
Comment by Scott Jacobs on 3/23 @ 11:12 pm #
Since it is a crime Jeff claims Patterico to have commited, then yes.
Yes it is.
Unless you’re going to use hypocrisy as an actual defense here. I mean, you’re free to do so, I suppose, I just didn’t quite expect you to be so gall-durn blatant about it all.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 11:14 pm #
Mr Scott Jacobs –
I guess you didn’t scroll down to see this.
My commenters tend to be able to work things out without my help, you see.
That you would equate the two situations is, well…let’s just say it’s one of the reasons I’ve never heard of you before all this.
Comment by Merovign on 3/23 @ 11:15 pm #
Hey, you spelled it right this time! Good job.
Did you look it up, too?
Comment by Scott Jacobs on 3/23 @ 11:16 pm #
Yes, because understanding warrants your slaughter.
I don’t think what the COs did was right either, but I also can certainly understand how perhaps it was on last act of defiance from a long, LONG list of people that sent the COs over the edge. Were they right? No. Jack says as much. I am saying as much right now.
But that doesn’t mean that we don’t – at some basic level – understand how perhaps a stressful job might have overwhelmed them. Ever snapped or yelled while on your very last of nerves? Same same idea, only worse.
Comment by malaclypse the tertiary on 3/23 @ 11:17 pm #
Scott Jacobs, sir, are we to infer that you really think easyliving1’s comment constituted a threat? Because I like multi-layered jokes as much as the next guy, but I’m excited to hear the punch line!
Oh. Did I say “punch”? DEATH THREAT!
Comment by Cepik on 3/23 @ 11:17 pm #
Jeff,
You mean he isn’t Cree? As in First Nation, Mehti all that?
Comment by Scott Jacobs on 3/23 @ 11:19 pm #
awwww…
There’s that wry humor I’ve come to expect from you, Jeffy… You big kidder you. Obviously, you don’t have to denounce anything. Silly me. Only OTHER bloggers have to do that. Silly me.
And for kind, sweet Merovign, I can’t help but be amused that all you have is attacks on my spelling. When you have to resort to a Red Herring, I suspect you don’t have much…
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 11:23 pm #
“Jeffy”.
Doesn’t take much for these “conservative pragmatists” to begin acting like leftists, does it?
DID YOU NOW, OR HAVE YOU EVER CONDEMNED YOUR COMMENTER FOR HIS OPINION ON A PIECE YOU HAVEN’T READ?
Comment by Cepik on 3/23 @ 11:23 pm #
Scott,
go to fucking bed. You are way over the top. To think this drama stemmed from contextual wording, speech patterns, niceties, what not.
Comment by lee on 3/23 @ 11:24 pm #
Also, confessing to an impulse is not the same as making a threat.
Much like offering to bring a tree to your own hanging isn’t a threat.
Somehow, I doubt Scott will be able to manage his OUTRAGE in the light of reason however…
Comment by Cepik on 3/23 @ 11:25 pm #
lee,
I think it is all faux outrage. CHRIST! they sure are venomous
Comment by malaclypse the tertiary on 3/23 @ 11:25 pm #
Scott Jacobs, sir, much as I enjoy your histrionics here, I submit you could be edified by taking into consideration something called the subjunctive mood. Just sayin’.
Comment by Scott Jacobs on 3/23 @ 11:25 pm #
And we segway right past ad hominem, and go right to False Dilemma…
God you’re good. A Masters, you say?
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 11:27 pm #
Scott, have you ever made internet comments like nk before?
Comment by Merovign on 3/23 @ 11:27 pm #
Ever snapped or yelled while on your very last of nerves? Same same idea, only worse.
Wow, talk about hypocrisy. Defending the ACTUAL beating of a teenager in the context of condemning someone for NOT CONDEMNING someone else who WROTE (very) intemperately about someone who defended (shall we say sympathized with?) the ACTUAL beating.
And, Scott, the part where you said “all you have is attacks on my spelling”? That’s a little thing called A LIE. Not like I need to tell you what that is. Go ahead, look back at #357 and tell everyone the ONLY thing I did was criticize your spelling. Go on, double-dog dare you.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 11:27 pm #
I don’t think people have resorted to red herrings. I think they are merely pointing out that that’s what your “argument” amounts to. Along with a non-sequitur, and probably a half-dozen other fallacies I could dig up were I at all interested in what a moron thinks.
The cool thing is, I don’t have to grade papers anymore, now that I just sit on my ass all day looking for ways to destroy Patterico’s reputation.
I don’t think we’ll be hearing much from you, Mr Scott Jabobs. You don’t impress me as the kind who can get people to rally behind you.
’s okay, though. Hangers on are people too.
Comment by Scott Jacobs on 3/23 @ 11:27 pm #
Niceties… Yeah….
You use those words, but I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Comment by maggie katzen on 3/23 @ 11:28 pm #
well, I have heard those suckers can be hard to navigate. remember when GWB fell off one?
Comment by malaclypse the tertiary on 3/23 @ 11:28 pm #
Scott Jacobs, sir, you grow more entertaining with each comment. Jeff, give this man a guest posting spot!
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 11:31 pm #
Fritz showed up earlier and he was unable to answer the question.
How about you Scott? Have you ever posted internet comments like nk’s before?
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 11:31 pm #
Actually, I used those words, Mr Scott Jacobs. And I know exactly what they mean.
I’d explain, but I’m intellectually well above your paygrade.
If that stings, you can call me “Jeffy” again, though. I’d understand.
Comment by Cepik on 3/23 @ 11:32 pm #
Well,
I used “To think this drama stemmed from contextual wording, speech patterns, niceties, what not.”
If they don’t mean what I think they do what do they mean? Or what do they mean to you?
Comment by Cepik on 3/23 @ 11:33 pm #
Naturally #382 is for Scott
Comment by Scott Jacobs on 3/23 @ 11:33 pm #
Wow. You went right past the “wrong” part of my comment, didn’t you… I’m shocked.
I’ll say it again, because apparently it needs reinforcement through repetition in your case: “I understand the impulse, and how it came to happen, but it is wrong that it happened. Understanding the impulse is not, unless you are a complete idiot, the same thing as condoning giving into that impulse.”
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 11:34 pm #
I have an about page, Scott. If you need my credentials they’re posted.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 11:34 pm #
I mentioned it earlier with Jeff.
The confusion on our part stems from trying to figure out which of Patterico’s commenters are not very intelligent and which ones are just intelligent enough to act obtuse.
Comment by Fritz on 3/23 @ 11:35 pm #
Does JeffG have any credibility left? Wild accusations of lies and threats and general craziness. He censors trackbacks (information wants to be free, man). Someone who has different politics can’t (Scale of 10, metaphysically certain) because of those politics accurately summarize a flame war, which dooms us to slavery and communism. He outed me, he continues to threaten to out nk, he believes that people can’t see him in public (and if they can he hopes they draw him as a sparing partner)… What’s next?
As Patterico writes, “I lied about him not answering [the hypotheticals], and anyway he shouldn’t HAVE to answer them, which is why he didn’t.”
Is he going to start calling people’s employers and make threats?
The man does have plenty of time on his hands. He’s proud. And he’s really, really angry.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 11:35 pm #
Hey, Scott, have you ever posted comments like nk’s before?
They were perfectly reasonable, right? Surely you’ve made similar comments then.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 11:36 pm #
And now Fritz is back.
Fritz, have you ever made internet comments like nk’s?
Comment by Karen Schell on 3/23 @ 11:36 pm #
This guy brings his dog to the talent agent and tells the agent “It’s a talking dog!”
Talent agent says “Get outta here, there’s no such thing.”.
The guy says, “Well check this out – Dog what’s on the top of a house?”
Dog: “Roof! Roof!!”
Guy says “Dog what is sandpaper like?”
Dog: “Ruff! Ruff!!”
Then the guy asks the dog “Who is the greatest baseball player of all time?”
Dog: “Ruuf! Ruuf!!”
The talent agent is really peeved by now – so he throws the guy and the dog out the door and slams it shut. Out on the street, the dog gives the guy a puzzled look and says “Maybe I should’ve said DiMaggio?”.
But seriously folks….
Comment by Scott Jacobs on 3/23 @ 11:38 pm #
If you can explain, blowhard, how it is relevant, then I would be more than happy to answer
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 11:38 pm #
It’s amazing that nk is such a reasonable guy (beloved of Patterico) yet no one will actually admit to ever acting like him.
Odd.
Comment by meya on 3/23 @ 11:38 pm #
“It’s bad enough Meya visits my blog.”
eh?
“In this sorry affair, Patterico has argued precisely like a leftist.”
That’s rich.
Comment by Fritz on 3/23 @ 11:40 pm #
“I’d explain, but I’m intellectually well above your paygrade.” People who say things like that, like people who insist on being called doctor even though they only have a Ph.D., are, well, probably over-proud.
Comment by lee on 3/23 @ 11:40 pm #
So, Scott, with regards to your #349, you are now admitting to being an idiot?
Comment by Molon Labe on 3/23 @ 11:40 pm #
Censoring trackbacks. Condoning posts. And I thought I knew the guy.
I like how Fritz and Scott both LUN(*) to the Patterico fanboy site.
(*) link under name
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 11:41 pm #
I don’t know, how could nk’s comments be relevant?
Obtuse it is then.
Comment by Merovign on 3/23 @ 11:41 pm #
Scott, you skipped right past the part where Jeff didn’t even mention, much less condone, the comment about Jack Dunphy. Fair is fair.
And to be completely fair, yes, “defense” is not the correct word for your statement, taken out of context. Unfortunately for you, I put it back INTO context of your weak attack on Jeff, where it does in fact become a defense.
When used as a cudgel, “it’s wrong, BUT” is a defense.
You understand Dunphy’s sympathy, but condemn Jeff for not condemning someone else’s “snap.”
Your problem is that you’re clever, but not very bright.
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 11:42 pm #
Surely if nk is a normal, good fellow, just one person will admit to once acting like him.
No one? No one?
Comment by crazy bitch on 3/23 @ 11:45 pm #
I acted like nk once blowhard.
Comment by Karen Schell on 3/23 @ 11:46 pm #
“In this sorry affair, Patterico has argued precisely like a leftist.â€
That’s rich.
===========================
And true. But his biggest problem is that he’s nowhere as good at it as is his lefty fan club. Practice should help with that, though. He can start with rhetoricals defining “is”.
Comment by crazy bitch on 3/23 @ 11:46 pm #
But not Scott. I’m crazy, not an idiot.
Comment by Molon Labe on 3/23 @ 11:47 pm #
oof. ball in your court blowhard.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 11:47 pm #
Who are you asking? Or is this more like pleading?
Be careful how you answer, Fritz. I’m crazy, you know. And over proud. Why, talking to me is like playing with dynamite, brother!
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 11:48 pm #
Yes, crazy bitch, I admit it. A crazy bitch did once act like nk before on this blog.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 11:51 pm #
See, there’s what you get for confusing what Patterico writes with, like, truth and stuff.
Those li’l orange things in the post? Those are links. You can pretend they don’t exist, but there they are.
Which is why it ain’t my credibility you should be worried about, Fritz.
Trackback by Signaleer on 3/23 @ 11:55 pm #
A hypothetical: What the Boy Said to the Lawyer…
The boy stepped out on to the porch, unaware of the important looking man coming up the sidewalk. “Come here, Shyster!†the boy called out. < ……
Comment by blowhard on 3/23 @ 11:55 pm #
Patterico, did you ever make comments like nk’s before? Daleyrocks?
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/23 @ 11:56 pm #
Come on, all you Patterico supporters. Where’s my threat of violence? When did I “ban” SEK? Where’s the HYPOCRISY?
You can play kick the can all you want, but these are questions that need answers. Otherwise Patterico’s turning to a leftist for a defense seems not only desperate and opportunistic, but knowingly disingenuous, as well.
If he wants his honor back so badly, perhaps he should start acting honorable. Instead, he just keeps doubling down.
Oh well. It’s his money. I’m playing with the House’s chips at this point.
Comment by meya on 3/23 @ 11:58 pm #
“Otherwise Patterico’s turning to a leftist for a defense seems not only desperate and opportunistic, but yet another set of lies he is trying to push.”
This “leftist” stuff is the strongest arrow in your quiver.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/24 @ 12:02 am #
Don’t forget “pragmatic conservative,” meya. But yeah, it goes to the heart of the argument that started all this, thanks for noticing.
– Or was that supposed to be a pointed rebuke, done cagily?
Question: Why isn’t Patterico here defending himself? Why send in the second string flunkies?
I mean, I know why I’m not over there setting things straight — I’m BANNED.
But Patterico isn’t under the same constraints here.
Guess he feels safe inside his little huggie hole.
Comment by blowhard on 3/24 @ 12:02 am #
Okay, it’s clear now. No one is willing to defend nk. (Hint: that’s okay.)
Next issue: show us this phantom “death threat”. Even SEK, Progressive for Patterico, has walked away from that.
So, where was the “death threat”?
Comment by lee on 3/24 @ 12:03 am #
Yeah, I’m pretty sure it’s not really your credibility Fritz is flailing over Jeff.
He’s like a kid that’s been told his mother is a whore…by the guy that left a Franklin on the nightstand before zipping up and heading out the door.
He’s shaking his little fist at you, and saying you lie, ‘cuz the truth is too awful to bear.
Comment by liberrocky on 3/24 @ 12:03 am #
@meya
Quit trying to create a distraction and answer the questions.
Comment by blowhard on 3/24 @ 12:04 am #
Brother Bradley Fikes, could you please show us the death threat, now. Daleyrocks? Scott? SEK? Fritz?
We’ll keep tackling these. You’ll keep backing down. Why did Patterico put you into such a hard position?
Comment by liberrocky on 3/24 @ 12:08 am #
@JeffG
These aren’t second stringers, they are undrafted free agents that will be back digging ditches after the first preseason game.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/24 @ 12:15 am #
I’ll settle for the threat of violence.
To recap. I said I’ll handle this like I always handle these situations. To date, I’ve outed a lot of people who’ve presumed to make the conversation about my family or family situation. Is there a record of my violently accosting them?
What would a “reasonable person” think I meant, given this evidence?
Sorry. That’s probably going to drive daleyrocks to cutting, if he’s not there already.
STAY IN YOUR SAFE LITTLE CLOISTER BOYS. JEFFY CAN’T HURT YOU WITH HIS MEAN WORDS IN THERE!
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/24 @ 12:16 am #
I’ll take your word, meya. I don’t consort with that type.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/24 @ 12:18 am #
Gonna watch this movie (see top post) now.
Which means it’s a good time for the flunkies to rush in and flood the comments with talk of all my CRAZY.
But be careful, flunkies. Some of the regular commenters here bite, too.
Comment by blowhard on 3/24 @ 12:19 am #
Maggie, from up in the comments, sorry I missed that, gold star. That cat scares me, he has “death threat” eyes!
Comment by meya on 3/24 @ 12:19 am #
“I’ll take your word, meya. ”
Rich indeed.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/24 @ 12:23 am #
Actually, it’s “Jeffy,” meya. Head on over to Pat’s and introduce yourself as someone who hates me. You’ll see: BFF!
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/24 @ 12:24 am #
I’m actually kinda enjoying the clarity here. I feel like Daniel Larusso, pruning the bonsai tree.
Comment by dicentra on 3/24 @ 12:35 am #
#345: The bookmarkable link to dicentra’s site is worth a visit just to find out what “dicentra” means. Or intends.
Shhhh! Nobody’s supposed to know that I named myself “bleeding heart” even though I’m totally not.
Uh…
Comment by Darleen on 3/24 @ 12:37 am #
Somehow, this seems appropos (mildly NSFW)
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/d3cf02cb2a/cock-shot
Comment by Dave E. on 3/24 @ 12:43 am #
“I’ll settle for [pointing out where I made a] threat of violence.”
As far as I can tell, the [Patterico and commenters] party line is now that there was no threat, but that you were stopped before you “went too far”. That’s convenient. My comment that was left there two hours ago in response to nk and still hasn’t been addressed by anyone defending either Pat or nk:
Still waiting for anyone from that side to acknowledge the indefensible, let alone defend it. That’s just lame. On the other hand, they could just be busy.
Comment by dicentra on 3/24 @ 12:45 am #
I’m playing with the House’s chips at this point.
Careful, or he’ll beat you with his cane…
Comment by dicentra on 3/24 @ 12:45 am #
but that you were stopped before you “went too farâ€
Ooo! Ooo! I know this one!
Minority Report!
Comment by blowhard on 3/24 @ 12:53 am #
Dave E., good stuff.
“Ooo! Ooo! I know this one!
Minority Report!”
Dicentra, awesome!
I think this is now a matter of exactly how surreal they’re willing to become.
What’s the line? “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/24 @ 12:57 am #
meya
Quit trying to create a distraction and answer the questions.
Hah. There’s a laugh.
SFAG is so twisted she has to screw on her shoes in the morning.
Comment by Patrick Chester on 3/24 @ 12:58 am #
So… I guess fairies really must have stolen Fritz’s link to that comment he quoted.
Lousy stinking yellow fairies. Atrocity-filled vermin, etc., etc.
(Thought I’d give Scott “I’ll call the blog host ‘Jeffy’ to show how sophisticated and mature I am’ Jacobs something else to engage in faux horror over as well. “ZOMG! He’s paraphrasing Wizards! The VIOLENCE! ELEVENTY!1!!”)
Comment by USS Ben USN (Ret) on 3/24 @ 1:01 am #
Comment by lee on 3/24 @ 12:03 am #
“Which is why it ain’t my credibility you should be worried about, Fritz.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure it’s not really your credibility Fritz is flailing over Jeff.
He’s like a kid that’s been told his mother is a whore…by the guy that left a Franklin on the nightstand before zipping up and heading out the door.
He’s shaking his little fist at you, and saying you lie, ‘cuz the truth is too awful to bear.”
LOL! Except Patterico and his felloow whores are putting out for free. Although if necessary, to obtain temporary peace, they are more than willing to pay the johns (regressive leftists) who screw them.
Comment by Dave E. on 3/24 @ 1:05 am #
Dicentra gets a gold star.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/24 @ 1:30 am #
I never even gave the guy’s full name. Glad they stepped in when the did. Or I might have found another platform to do so.
Patrick Frey will never admit he’s wrong. He’d rather go to these absurd extremes and defame me if it means his HONOR is somehow protected.
Now I’m being convicted for a thought crime that they attributed to me?
No, they haven’t fallen into any of the traps I’ve described. How dare you say otherwise? That’s an attack on their reputations! Why, they are just as classically liberal as the day is long…
I’m surprised the current GOP hasn’t snapped this guy up already. He’s like their wet dream.
Comment by USS Ben USN (Ret) on 3/24 @ 1:44 am #
I can stomach ignorant but honest bloggers (in as much as they are aware, at any rate), but I can’t stomach dishonest and “my pride is more important than doing the honorable thing or having principles” bloggers like Paterrico.
In a sense, at least one good thing came out of this: he showed his true colors, and it ain’t purty. No use wasting time there.
Pingback by Thought crimes on 3/24 @ 1:59 am #
[...] A: It was the fastest way to turn left. [...]
Comment by TheNewGuy on 3/24 @ 3:59 am #
Good to see you back, Jeff… and in your usual excellent form.
Comment by louchette on 3/24 @ 4:18 am #
went to bed early last night. didn’t read all these comments yet. but i’ll try to get something posted and drop a link here after coffee and ritalin kick in. =P
Comment by Carin on 3/24 @ 4:25 am #
louchette, I’m thinking I have to move Westward. It is the only way to party with the big boys.
Comment by BumperStickerist on 3/24 @ 5:09 am #
In terms that Patterico cannot misinterpet:
-
the LAT is to Patterico
as Patterico is to Jeff G
-
Comment by Rusty on 3/24 @ 5:13 am #
I was goiong to say something about intentionalism as it compares to the art copetition put on by the Chicago Art Institue and a bunch of high school juniors and seniors, but I did a couple of Ambien and two shots of Knob Creek when I got home and fergot all about it. Insight; If your part of a, “writers group”, a lot more writing gets talked about than actually gets done, but you can still strut your stuff and act all edgy and everything, though.
Comment by BumperStickerist on 3/24 @ 5:16 am #
Most of Patrick’s many, many demands of the LAT’s Reader’s Representative/Ombudsman for corrections or clarifications about stories are either ignored or dismissed by the LAT. Patrick often takes exception to the LAT’s OpEd writers’ characterization of events. All of which makes for an entertaining, useful, long-ass end-of-year post by Patrick, full of hyperlinked text and humor-encrusted umbrage.
Jeff’s comment about Patterico’s OpEd stylings about Rush and the cascading issues involving language are similar, if not identical, to the comments Pat makes about, say, Steve Lopez’s opinion pieces and Chuck Phillips’s reportage.
Irony, not dead.
Self-awareness, RIP.
.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 3/24 @ 7:11 am #
Patterico’s been keeping strange company lately. After timmah got his ass handed to him a few times over there, and I taunted him over it, he started digging into my personal information. Hell, I could even see in my server logs where he used a specialized “whois” site to get information about my site.
No big deal — I don’t hide who I am — but then he started using it as the basis for ad hom attacks.
Others pointed out that this is what timmah does — he follows people around, uses irrelevant personal information to attack.
Patterico’s reaction?
Nada.
Strange bedfellows, Mr. Frey.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/24 @ 7:54 am #
I have a hunch it’s because timmah kisses his (Patterico’s) ass, Rob.
Comment by Merovign on 3/24 @ 8:17 am #
Nooooo! Not another layer of TEH HYPOCRISY!
That word keeps coming up. I wonder why?
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/24 @ 8:51 am #
Sometimes it comes up “hypocracy”, Merovign.
Comment by Merovign on 3/24 @ 8:55 am #
I was kind of imperialistically subsuming all spellings under one hegemonical umbrella. ‘Cause that’s how I roll.
Comment by McGehee on 3/24 @ 9:27 am #
Also lamppost. Mustn’t forget the lamppost. For the lawyer (see update) to misinterpret.
Comment by RTO Trainer on 3/24 @ 9:32 am #
Mine includes the father.
Comment by Fritz on 3/24 @ 11:17 am #
Why did you out me, then? Do you think that adding [redacted] really narrows down the possibility of the simplest Google search? Tell me, when did I ever talk about your family?
Comment by SarahW on 3/24 @ 11:52 am #
“And easyliving1’s comment is a response to a Dunphy’s “understanding the impulse†to savagely beat a teen girl. Scott Jacobs, sir, you are a funny man.”
Mr Jacob, with that context its clear that you kind of miss the key distinction. I don’t think anyone is obligated to police their comment sections or take responsibility for commenters. The difference is that NK was defending Patterico in this unfortunate way. Patterico also took the trouble to comment on these remarks, and so was aware they were said on his behalf, but did not flat reject them as uncool.
Comment by SarahW on 3/24 @ 12:02 pm #
The right thing to do, assuming everything NK said was TRUE, and/or assuming Jeff deserves to be insulted, is to reject that any kind of defense that uses a mans wife and child, when the wife and child have nothing to do with anything that is going on, and are not related to the dispute.
I wouldn’t fault Patterico for not knowing everything his commenters say, or hold his feet to the fire for every nut job that spouts off. But when those comments are made in defense of Patterico, and P took the time to comment, there was no comment to be made, but “thank, NK, but not thanks. That’s not how I roll”.
Comment by dicentra on 3/24 @ 12:41 pm #
Dicentra gets a gold star.
WooHoo!
Comment by ThomasD on 3/24 @ 1:01 pm #
Fritz ‘asks’ “Why did you out me, then?”
Jeff can speak for himself, but I took it as an ironic statement about your repeated misuse of the term ‘public.’
But that’s just me. You may wish to consider that Jeff did close his ‘outing’ of you with “I like to know who I’m talking to when they begin ordering me around.”
So, maybe you really didn’t have an honest question to begin with?
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/24 @ 1:37 pm #
You said your name was Fritz. Your email address gave a first initial and a last name. I asked if you were the same person as the one in the Google search.
How is that outing you? Was I to assume you were trying to hide your identity by using your actual name in your email address? Or were you just interested in hiding it from me?
What I redacted was information that goes to where you live, what your wife’s name is, etc.
I don’t know your wife, so I didn’t think to bring her into this. Whereas we all know that my wife is some easily manipulated dolt who let me impregnate her so that I can stay home and DESTROY PATRICK FREY’S REPUTATION.
Hell, even my son was just an excuse to do that same thing — with the added bonus that I can bring the big blog bucks while sitting on my ass all day using his existence as an excuse not to go out and do REAL work.
Kids don’t need looking after. I mostly just leave him to his own devices. I have more important things to do, you see, like think of ways I might make a buck off of destroying Patric Frey’s reputation.
Family values.
Comment by TheUnrepentantGeek on 3/24 @ 3:33 pm #
A lot of adolescents do this thing where everything is about them and everyone is looking at them. Spotlight syndrome? Sounds right. Any road, tis applicable here, I think. Jives with another idea I had re: the “Please please like us and call us reasonable/honorable” wing of the Republican party. Some people just need that kind of validation, I guess. Even if it comes from their ideological opposition with a stated goal of destroying them.
Comment by Mike K on 3/24 @ 3:33 pm #
#
Comment by Sdferr on 3/23 @ 8:34 pm #
What paranoid fantasies are you referring to Mike K? I mean, you say exchange, so you’re seeing paranoid fantasies on both sides traded back and forth? Care to point them out specifically or would you rather restate the points of dispute to better accommodate what is actually going on?
There is no way I will wade through this mess and look for items of specific complaint for either side. I am assuming that Jeff and Patrick have similar politics and flame wars accomplish nothing unless you are trying to get your site meter numbers up. That said, I will leave you to your pleasures. I also know Bradley Fikes very well and will vouch for his reliability and honesty.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/24 @ 4:00 pm #
How about instead of all this vouching, you examine what he did and tell me why it is reliable and honest, Mike.
The links are in the post itself. You wouldn’t have to do much “wading.” I refer to him when I speak of the commenter at Patterico’s who decided to take it upon himself to adjudicate, having first reached a conclusion.
You vouch for this being an honest and reliable method of examination, Mike K? I tend to doubt that.
And I don’t even have a sitemeter. To suggest that I’m arguing what I’ve been arguing consistently since 2001 because I’m looking for traffic is that same as saying I’m doing it for money.
Why ascribe base motives to me, Mike K? Especially when I posted the most visible argument on a site (Hot Air) from which I don’t profit?
Comment by blowhard on 3/24 @ 4:05 pm #
Then you have no basis for an opinion.
This is an assumption. An increasingly unsound one.
Do please take a look at the source code for this page and find the sitemeter code. I just did and couldn’t find it. You just implied a specific motive. Please back it up.
I witnessed Mr. Fikes’ on this site and over at Patterico’s and wouldn’t vouch for same.
Comment by blowhard on 3/24 @ 4:18 pm #
It is extremely salient that we now find someone who comes to conclusions before looking at the evidence vouching for someone who comes to conclusions before looking at the evidence.
Comment by Sdferr on 3/24 @ 4:25 pm #
extremely.
Comment by w3bgrrl on 3/24 @ 4:30 pm #
My take…
Lawyer: I should stop all this before it goes too far.
Skydiver w/o a parachute: Nah, give the kid his own rope.
Boy: You bring the rope, I’ll bring the tree.
Skydiver’s irrational mother: Are you threatening my son?
Dog: How many times do I have to beg at this door before you let me out to pee?
Lawyer: It sure sounds like he’s threatening your son to me.
Boy: How is it that I am accused of threatening the guy who just said he has auto-erotic asphyxiation fantasies about me?
Dog: Nevermind. I left you a present in the corner of the dining room. Thank me later.
Comment by Jeff G on 3/24 @ 4:37 pm #
It’s a guild of the elect, blowhard. Much like the current GOP in relation to conservatives / classical liberals / libertarians who keep trying to tell them they are wrong, Patterico’s followers assure us not to fret, they’ve got the truth taken care of, don’t you lesser folks worry, go back to your under employment and let us do all the thinking.
Go on! Scat!
Little scamps. Aren’t conservatives so adorable when they’re young?
Comment by blowhard on 3/24 @ 5:02 pm #
They are adorable. They still haven’t learned the final trick though. Fikes now has to come by and vouch for Mike. Then the circle of invincible ignorance* will be complete and unbreakable.
*Not the pure Catholic sense.
Comment by blowhard on 3/24 @ 5:04 pm #
Sorry, missed who was being called adorable.
Comment by louchette on 3/24 @ 5:22 pm #
sorry to be so late. i know i’m not a blog BFN like some who posted. but maybe it helps? this day was… tl;dr.
http://louchette.livejournal.com/183951.html
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/24 @ 6:20 pm #
Good stuff, louchette!
Comment by Sdferr on 3/24 @ 6:45 pm #
Deserving of a topline linky too.
Comment by louchette on 3/24 @ 7:04 pm #
*blush*
Comment by Merovign on 3/24 @ 7:21 pm #
w3bgrrl: heh(tm)
Comment by geoffb on 3/24 @ 7:33 pm #
Anybody who likes pocky is alright by me.
Nice work!
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/24 @ 7:49 pm #
http://louchette.livejournal.com/183951.html
Added to feed reader.
Pingback by The Jury Talks Back » What is a Hypocrite? on 7/21 @ 7:54 pm #
[...] 2. As Patterico has no honor, and SEK — in addition to not being around during the conflagration that supposedly prompted my banning — is about as slippery as a porno queen’s dildo, I haven’t bothered to read it, nor do I intend to. But if I know SEK (and, come on — we all do), I imagine that at key moments he leaves out key pieces that would necessary alter his narrative.* [...]
Pingback by TBogg » Judean People’s Front vs. Judean Popular People’s Front vs. People’s Front of Judea on 10/11 @ 4:18 pm #
[...] wingnuts attack each other (warning – Godlstein link): Once he’d established the pretext for disallowing me to defend [...]
Comment by Patterico on 12/18 @ 10:54 pm #
Pablo suggested I post this again:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
From: Jeff Goldstein: Arguing “On Point” — With Threats of Violence.
Thanks to Pablo for the suggestion. It’s a good one. Sorta makes it clear who wrote this post.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/22 @ 12:06 pm #
Reply to Patterico re: “violence” charges here.