March 18, 2011

cease and desist letter for serial harassment and unhinged rantings, state of receipt (update 2)

Nope.

**

Posted by Jeff G. @ 5:34pm
123 comments | Trackback

Comments (123)

  1. In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

  2. In case you all missed it in the older thread, I got a response from the LA County DA’s office:

    Mr. Goldstein,

    I am interesting in speaking with you regarding your concern you addressed to the Los Angeles County webmail. Please call me at [redacted] at your convenience. I am not scheduled to work on Monday, so if you leave me a message, I will return your call on Tuesday.

    Take Care,

    [redacted]
    Senior Investigator
    Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office
    Employee Relations/Internal Affairs
    201 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1455
    Los Angeles, CA 90012

    [redacted phone]
    [redacted fax]

    I’m hoping that maybe someone from that office can look into the theft of my identity, which is evidently being used to serially harass someone such that a cease and desist letter was issued. Which of course means that should “I” send another harassing email, the unnamed person with the unnamed attorney who issued the (as yet unreceived by me) letter could go to court and get a summary order against “me.” Which becomes me, given our legal system’s fondness of texualism. That troubles me very much.

    Luckily, someone in that office has the information available to him to help put a stop to this crime. Unluckily, he has to date been remarkably non-forthcoming — even after having been very very very forthcoming with his pronouncements that I was the party responsible for committing the original crime of unhinged serial harassment (and engaging in its subsequent cover up). I know all this because this officer of the court, who works in that office, posted it on his public website for all to see.

  3. He’s interesting to speak with you?

    Are you sure the LADA’s office hasn’t been hacked, too?

  4. Well-played, Jeff. That’ll smoke up his wigwam.

  5. “Luckily, someone in that office has the information available to him to help put a stop to this crime. “

    Unluckily, Patterico just has to shut up, and it will probably just fade from memory. You on the other hand, have to vigorously pursue the matter to clear your name.

    No abuse of power here…

  6. Not a play, serr8d. I have to assume that someone really did receive emails signed by me, and that this person sent a cease and desist letter.

    Because I am CERTAIN that it wasn’t me who sent these emails, I have to protect against what the person who is using my identity might do in my name. After all, s/he has already committed the crime of cyber harassment.

    It’s just too bad a DDA in LA County — who has knowledge of the lawyer who sent the cease and desist letter — won’t help me get in touch with him or her. Because if I can find out where that cease and desist letter was sent, I might be able to stop this potentially ongoing crime. After all, there’s no privileged information. Supposedly I’ve already seen the letter, so it shouldn’t make a difference for me to see it again — lawyer’s name and all. Or, short of that, just speak to the lawyer who sent it to find out where it was sent.

    I’m just trying to do what’s best for all the victims here — and I’m seeing if the LA County District Attorney’s office won’t help out in any way it can.

  7. I would like to commend the Senior Investigator for his bravery and patriotism demonstrated his willingness to walk into the hellish abomination that is communication with Jeff Goldstein. I just hope he’s not married, the poor soul. She doesn’t deserve this.

  8. Good on ya Jeff.

  9. at this point, I’m guessing it’s from one Mr. Schroedinger, Esq.

    in other news I got some kitties in a box today. not real ones… lucky ones.

  10. Heh.

    Ace linked to a Patterico post about the Lee Stranahan article. From the end of Pattericos:

    P.S. I don’t mean to suggest by anything I say in this post that dishonesty or nastiness are exclusively characteristics of the left. If there has one thing I have learned while blogging, it is that people on the right can be every bit as venal and nasty as those on the left. Here on the right, we just notice it more from the left, because you notice nastiness more when it’s directed at you.

    The man has a moral relativism problem. I guess he thinks the TEA party is every bit as venal and nasty as the union thugs in Wisconsin.

  11. If you ask me, the only logical conclusion here is that a certain LA County DDA is a damned liar. The only word on the table that this incident happened is from Patterico, a man who has a LONG history of animosity towards Jeff that clearly, on multiple occasions, seems to consume him far more than it would a healthy, right-thinking individual. He has shown awareness of casual internet slander and is a deputy district attorney, to boot.

    I mean, if the accusations are true (And by true I mean the identity theft theory would have to come into effect by default. Anyone with even a halfway reasonable read on Jeff can tell that he does not hide from things he has written, especially from something that’s so small potatoes.), Patterico is so woefully consumed with anger towards Jeff that he has to let slip a fact told in private in an otherwise unrelated conversation just because it casts Jeff in a bad light. But that then supposes an incompetent or mistaken lawyer, a letter being hidden away, and a damned specific impostor.

    Whereas the alternative? A lawyer practicing casual slander towards someone else on the internet that he has had a long history of attempting to slander.

    His transparent and juvenile attempts to deflect the issue by arguing pedantically about word choice suggests the incompetence applies in either scenario.

  12. I sometimes get the feeling that Frey was expecting you to be awash in C+D letters/orders. Because you’re so unhinged and DEATH THREAT-y. That way a simple “I was told you got a C+D” was a sucker bet as far as he was concerned. He probably expected you to sputter and spit, but not deny it out right, becuase you’ve got to have at least one C+D by now, and wouldn’t be able to identify which one he was alluding to. But when your C+D count = 0, it doesn’t work out as well for him.

  13. “(if!!!! you do a death threat:)” do it like an unemployed dishwasher does in madison wi to a state of a wi employee

  14. I guess it was Pollyanna of me to think that blogging could be a cool way to present news and views and opinions and counter-opinions and establish a dialog with people you would never meet down at the local breakfast greasy spoon.

  15. Hmm. I see that one was sent via fax and certified mail. To make sure the person it is intended for gets it.

  16. It used to be that way, Nolanimrod. Then the hall monitors showed up, declared themselves in charge, and started handing out verbal warnings for poor blogsmanship.

  17. Sounds like an important post, LBascom. I sure do hope it gets linked by Allah, too. I’d hate to see something so crucial go unread!

  18. Wait — who do you think he was talking about in that ps?

    I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR!

  19. Also, it’s nice to know that casually accusing people of crimes and then, after offering no evidence, doubling down and accusing them of lies and cover-ups, isn’t really frowned on by some. Unless some cockholster on the left does it. The we slice like a fucking hammer!

  20. “Then the hall monitors showed up, declared themselves in charge,…

    AHEM!!!

    bh went through years of the most rigorous of training at the most prestigious of institutions to wear that badge and orange belt, Mr!
    I won’t stand for you disparaging the good name of brave hall monitors taken for granted all across this country.

    CEASE AND DESIST!!! (or I shall be forced to taunt you a second time;^)

  21. Here on the right, we just notice it more from the left, because you notice nastiness more when it’s directed at you.

    An old music springs to mind.

  22. Mr. Goldstein, could you write a post about your history with Patterico? For those of use who are not in the know? Here’s why you should consider it: As I was defending you on the Patterico site, people over there claimed that you were a scoundrel and a liar and that you even called Frey antisemitic. When I doubted them, they offered up a link to your site that proved them quite correct.

    I am hopeful that the post in question was either made in jest because of something that happened previous to that, or the accusation was withdrawn with apologies later. But to be honest, I completely missed that entire argument on either site. So, could you get us typical AoS morons, with our poor memory retention, up to speed? What’s the entire deal between you and Frey? Thanks in advance.

    Apologies for believing that “Joe”=”Jeff G.” You guys have convinced me that I was mistaken.

  23. I only ask because it would be difficult to ask Frey to retract probably false accusations about you if you’ve made un-retracted probably false accusations about him.

  24. Moron: Try blowing through the category in the left sidebar ‘la-county-deputy-district-attorney-patrick-frey.’

    And actually read the comment threads. I think you will find the probably false accusations about ‘him’… aren’t.

    Your notion that Frey might not retract cause he was first poked in the eye by Jeff suggesting he might be anti-semetic … ironic. The mind reels.

  25. I only ask because it would be difficult to ask Frey to retract probably false accusations about you if you’ve made un-retracted probably false accusations about him.

    WTF?

  26. Great! Didn’t know it was there. I’ll read that now.

    If you find my position ironic, Stephanie, you’re not willing or able to look at things from my position. I only have two things to go on: This latest kerfuffle where Jeff seems to be clearly in the right, and the antisemitism thing where Jeff seems to be clearly in the wrong.

    Clicking off RSS links without reading them has serious repercussions, it seems! If you’d have asked me a week ago if I thought Frey and Goldstein were friends, I would have said, “Of course!” Heh.

  27. Oh dear. Second comment in the very first article in the thread has Jeff G. saying, “I’m not saying Frey is an anti-semite. Pointedly I’m not. I just don’t know.”

    Well if you don’t know, don’t say such a horrible thing! Holy crap. I would prefer if Jeff were the good guy in this thing and Frey were the bad guy. Mostly because I’m still pissed that he banned me once. It doesn’t look like I got my wish. How would you like it if I said, “I’m not saying that Jeff Goldstein rapes, murders, then rapes again six year old children. I just don’t know.”

    Was he just being snarky? I hope so, but it’s really not clear when you look at the content of the articles in question. I repeat my original request. What the hell happened to start this? Certainly Jeff didn’t just decide to write a post claiming that Frey was antisemitic, and possibly equally as clearly, Frey didn’t write a post attempting to assuage viewers into believing that Goldstein is a fool. Yet one of them must have happened.

    I repeat, “So, could you get us typical AoS morons, with our poor memory retention, up to speed?”

    Thanks. Sorry for being a pain. I’d ask the same over at patterico, but he USES his ban stick, and I hate using proxies. They’re frickin’ slow.

  28. Kevin (assuming you genuinely asked in good faith and you’re not sneakily trying to be a douchebag internet hall monitor,)

    I may be talking out my ass here, because although I’ve followed this business from the beginning, it started a long time ago and I wasn’t involved aside from reading the exchanges. So take this as a semi-outsider’s view of things.

    If you start at the “Is Patrick Frey an anti-semite?” stuff, you’ll be missing a lot of things that preceded and in fact led to that exchange. I’d go back further to the whole bit with Rush and the “I hope he fails” business, which I think is around the time this all started. It began, as far as I could tell, with a disagreement on whether or not conservatives should watch what they say in order to avoid misinterpretation. Frey’s stance was that they should, because (IIRC) conservatives saying questionable things hurt the movement as a whole; Jeff’s was that they shouldn’t because (among other things) no matter what a conservative says, it’ll be taken out of context and made to hurt the movement anyway. So in essence by changing what you say in order to placate someone who is expecting the worst from you, you’re ceding the rhetorical battleground (VIOLENT IMAGERY OMGWTF!)

    So it pretty much started there, and the disagreement got personal, and at some point it went nuclear. Then it calmed down for a while with little more than sarcastic sniping back and forth every once in a while.

    Then some time later came Frey “asking” if RSM was racist because he’d said things that could be perceived as racist. There was a lot more to it than this, but the “Is Patrick Frey an anti-semite” was (to my reading anyway) Jeff doing satirically to Frey what Frey had done to RSM – suggesting in a very google-able public forum that certain phrases Frey had used were indicative of anti-semitism in the same way Frey had taken things RSM had said to be indicative of racism.

    Then came google-bombing, madness, threats of reputation-destruction, madness, etc.

    Like I said, I wouldn’t call myself a real insider here by any means, but that’s about the most concise way I can think of to describe the situation. If you ask me, I think person A groundlessly accusing person B of a crime – especially if that crime is one that person B has personally been victimized by in the past – is a lot worse than person B satirically suggesting that person A is anti-semitic. But you know, different strokes, your mileage may vary, blah blah blah.

    Sorry if I stepped on any toes or left out any key details. I’m going on memory here.

  29. Did you read the “anti-semitism” posts, Kevin? They are parodies of Frey’s public seminar on that pressing conservative question, is Stacy McCain a racist? Or does he just say racist things because his racism is buried in his “subconscious”?

    The verdict for which will be determined by reader polls and hypothetical elderly black dudes who distrust them some crackas!

    Those posts were meant to show Frey the very real linguistic weaknesses and dangers of the position he was espousing and how he was espousing it. That his commenters want now to pretend that those posts were intended as some serious suggestion that Frey is a Nazi sympathizer — well, I can guarantee you everyone who’s read here for any length of time can give you a full recount of the irony of that particular assertion.

    Though it isn’t surprising. Bracket out the intent and the text means whatever they say it means.

    Oh. And there’s the inconvenient fact that Frey had put up about a dozen posts with “Jeff Goldstein” in the title before I ever responded with his name in the title — “Jeff Goldstein plays the race card,” “Jeff Goldstein, Man of Substance,” “Jeff Goldstein’s violent blah blah blah.,” etc. And those came after the first round, where Frey accused me in public of issueing a “death threat” against one of his commenters.

    But why rehash it. He is who he is, and he does what he does. He’s vowed to “destroy” me and drive me off the internet. Whereas I just want him to stop trolling around my site and go find a hobby.

  30. Oh dear. Second comment in the very first article in the thread has Jeff G. saying, “I’m not saying Frey is an anti-semite. Pointedly I’m not. I just don’t know.”

    Well if you don’t know, don’t say such a horrible thing! Holy crap.

    Exactly. Yes. You are this close to making a breakthrough, Kevin.

    Go on. Squint, and I bet you see it!

  31. I had to look up ‘ingenue’ :(. Ouch! I’m girly? I’m an engineer, so hopefully you’ll forgive me for not being up on antique words. Jeff, patterico is not on my rss, and you are. Hopefully you’ll be able to infer where my allegiances lie from that. I dislike that I have to have allegiances within the party at all, but whatever.

    I’m glad that you know who was at fault and that others do as well. But some of us, me in particular, don’t. I’m merely asking that you fill the rest of us in. What happened, and when? I realize that this is a tall order just to placate a single viewer. But I imagine that there are many lurkers who would like to see such a post as well. IMO, fwiw.

  32. “If you start at the “Is Patrick Frey an anti-semite?” stuff, you’ll be missing a lot of things that preceded and in fact led to that exchange.”

    Mr. Ninja, your comment is almost EXACTLY what I was hoping to read. I say ‘almost’ because I’d like specifics rather than generalizations. But it’s a start and I thank you heartily! There’s so much that I don’t know, and I dislike that feeling. There was a google bombing? Does that even work anymore? I want to know more.

    In any event, you make me like bacon even more, if that’s possible.

  33. Kevin, imagine a chigger gnawing through the skin of your exposed ankle. You scritch and scratch, and only draw blood, because the thing is already embedded under your skin and won’t stop digging until it reaches your heart’s left ventricle and asplodes the damned thing.

    Such is the doggedly annoying persistence of a Frey who’s found a foe what flummoxed him.

  34. Kevin —

    This should give you some idea about who is at fault. Read it with an ear toward how he acts toward me. That’s Frey.

    I’m not going to rehash it any more than I already have. Like I’ve already noted, Frey sent out private emails to people vowing to destroy me. And he’s been trying — whether by selling me as a phony intellectual, a crazed psychopath, a dishonest broker of Guardian headlines and irradiated Japanese monsters, a corrupt changer of comments, or whatever else he’s floated over the last several years.

    All while I go on about my business, swimming the sweet sweet waters and dining on the plankton.

    I’m his white whale.

  35. I think you will find the probably false accusations about ‘him’… aren’t.

    Heavens to Betsy! Just to clarify, I meant the ironicness (is there such a word) of the situation of Frey trying to school the trained intentionalist on intentionalism and getting schooled in the process and the fact the he who got schooled to this day believes he won that round, the accusations ‘aren’t.’ If that makes any sense. (Yes I’ve been into the Glenlivet again – the good stuff)

    That Frey was ‘intentionally’ clubbed with a vile accusation for issuing a vile accusation is… poetic justice in my mind. Your mileage may vary.

    Whether he is an anti-semite, meh. It’s not relevant to the situation and is a convenient rewriting (by Frey) of the history of the exchange by trying to claim it as a badge of dishonor leveled and not as a rhetorical intentioned to persuade him of the errors of his ways re intentionalism and leveling charges against others and the consequences thereof. But, hey, if he wants to don that mantle, who am I to argue?

    Now I’m off to sleep this off. I doubt I made any sense, but I did want to set my comment straight.

  36. Take this straight up with this for a chaser and perhaps the light may shine. If not a little dicentra never hurts.

  37. Kevin – that’s what I was trying to do, provide a little background and point you in the right direction for your research. I would have gone into details but I was just an observer and it’s been a long time – I didn’t want to say anything I didn’t know for certain happened. Plus I’ve got a sick 2 year old and a sick 3 year old who WON’T GO TO SLEEP EVEN THOUGH IT’S ALMOST FUCKING MIDNIGHT.

    So…yeah.

  38. “Did you read the “anti-semitism” posts, Kevin? They are parodies of Frey’s public seminar on that pressing conservative question, is Stacy McCain a racist?”

    Great! I knew it had to be something. But it’s not clear in context, or the links :(. That’s why I REALLY think you should publish an article about what happened, and when. Without context, your article makes it look like you are a dick. It seems like that would be easy to explain away. You should. remember, for every moron like myself who will admit to their lack of knowledge about a thing, there are hundreds more who won’t.

  39. Great! Didn’t know it was there. I’ll read that now.

    If you find my position ironic, Stephanie, you’re not willing or able to look at things from my position. I only have two things to go on: This latest kerfuffle where Jeff seems to be clearly in the right, and the antisemitism thing where Jeff seems to be clearly in the wrong.

    Didn’t you say in another thread you’re not a PW newb?

  40. Yeah, I did :). That’s why I ignore everything in the right and left columns on blogs. Trust me, you will too after a while.

  41. Trust me, you will too after a while.

    Ummm, no. The sidebars are key to figuring out what’s up with a blogger. What you’re really saying is that you are reading Jeff’s posts from the RSS feed in your reader, without visiting the page. Jeff, there’s a setting in your WordPress software that allows only a summary of a post to go out over the RSS feed. For a long time you had that set correctly, but after the Big Change, it’s now set back to full post feed again. I recommend you find the control and pull the curtains.

  42. As I was defending you on the Patterico site, people over there claimed that you were a scoundrel and a liar and that you even called Frey antisemitic. When I doubted them, they offered up a link to your site that proved them quite correct.

    Like Hell it did. I didn’t see anywhere in that link where Jeff “called Frey antisemitic”. In fact, paragraph 6 starts with

    To begin: I wish to state up front that I am not calling Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey an anti-semite.

    Jeff said that he was NOT calling Frey an anti-semite. How can you say that “proved them quite correct”?

  43. Monster —

    That entire post keeps saying how I’m POINTEDLY NOT calling Frey anti-semitic. Just as Frey was POINTEDLY NOT calling Stacy McCain a racist. He was just asking the question over and over, and pointing out instances of “racist speech” that Stacy, who isn’t a racist, uttered.

    See?

  44. Excuse me, Kevin? What does it matter what Jeff did or didn’t do in the past? You really let Pat and his morally-challenged sycophants distract you so easily?

    A prostitute can be raped. A bully can be assaulted. What only matters here is Pat’s obvious and unethical behavior in this instance.

    He made a serious, damaging claim and refuses to substantiate it. A claim with clear legal consequences.

    I am alarmed that a DDA figures it is ok to frame someone now based on that someone’s perceived behavior in the past.

  45. Mr. Ninja, your comment is almost EXACTLY what I was hoping to read. I say ‘almost’ because I’d like specifics rather than generalizations. But it’s a start and I thank you heartily! There’s so much that I don’t know, and I dislike that feeling. There was a google bombing? Does that even work anymore? I want to know more.

    Kevin, one thing you need to know about Jeff is that he doesn’t really do a lot of hand-holding on this sort of thing; he tends to display by example. In other words: you’re going to have to do your own thinking, and come to your own conclusions. If I were to lead you through the logic, you’d come to my conclusions, instead.

  46. So, IOW: take some time to read through both what Patterico has written, and what Jeff has written about what Patterico has written. If you need help on specific questions, I think we can accommodate you. But you’re going to have to come up with your own questions.

  47. Well if you don’t know, don’t say such a horrible thing! Holy crap. I would prefer if Jeff were the good guy in this thing and Frey were the bad guy. Mostly because I’m still pissed that he banned me once. It doesn’t look like I got my wish. How would you like it if I said, “I’m not saying that Jeff Goldstein rapes, murders, then rapes again six year old children. I just don’t know.”

    Kevin, to my mind and based upon your above statement, you’ve been given a great deal of useful information and treated with a surprising amount of tolerance by the commenters here.

    You admit to having your own axe to grind with regards to Frey, yet somehow also manage to equate (the prospect of) religious bigotry with rape and murder?

    Perspective would not appear to be your strong suit.

  48. So, is Frey going the way of Charles Johnson? Seems as though popular individual bloggers are susceptible to power and all its trappings, including paranoia. I remember CJ calling RSM out for being a racist, and did something similar with Robert Spencer.

    So, it’s a good thing Jeff and I aren’t popular bloggers. :)

  49. I was offended by the treatment of RSM. A trained and adroit prosecutor brings out some old conversations and for a few day a week sets about framing a discussion around the question of whether these statements and the use of words like revulsion within this broader conversation about race are by a racist, or are racist. Which is fine, but the prosecutor constantly “google bombs” RSM by full name.
    Is *blank* a racist? Then took the accused’s stammering and ineloquent self defense as perhaps, but not 100% certain that *blank* made racist statements.
    Jeff turned the rhetorical table around, and all the sudden a blizzard of personal fouls got called…
    At the time I saw it as “if you are going to dish it out, you’ll have to learn to take it”.

    Another thing I saw that I did not like was this happy and approved bigotry towards white southerners who don’t toe the party line on how conversations about race must be conducted. Particularly if they were sorta stiff-necked proud southern small town whites who refused to bathe themselves in shame over the participation of their ancestors as soldiers of the Confederate army.
    I was struck by how far we’ve gone down this slippery slope of political correctness when referring to our civil war… in the 70’s, the Band, Joan Baez… hell, Jerry Garcia could play “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down” a song of profound lament woven through with battered pride, dignity and showing some humanity of the common man on the wrong side of a brutal internecine conflict and no one booed because “of course everyone knows those crackers… ahem… southerners ALL deserved to suffer for the sins of the slavery… why when I was in the University, I took a Black Studies course”.
    In the comments, I saw this sort of bigotry and maybe a white on white racism, go unchallenged for the most part. I think some were marked for either reeducation or extermination.

    Then it turned pretty ugly between Jeff and Patrick, and sorta factionalized the readers and commentators.
    If either were to catch fire, the other would not piss on them… but in the absence of fire… well…

    Anyway, it is a chapter in my blog reading and comment participation history, that I’m looking to close once again.

  50. So, it’s a good thing Jeff and I aren’t popular bloggers. :)

    I’ve thought the same thing about myself on many occasions. Sometimes I think it would be kinda awesome to have a thriving and lively comment section, then stuff like this happens and I realize I don’t have the temperament for the inevitable drama that comes along. I’d probably end up sitting in a dark corner sucking my thumb and saying “Scarecrow.” over and over again. That or in jail the first time someone tries to screw with my family.

    The sad thing about this most recent episode and what kicked it off is that it pretty much proved the point Jeff was making during the “good man” events. A commenter here made a comment that included the suffix “-rico” and all hell broke loose.

    It wouldn’t have mattered if Jeff or one of the commenters here had sincerely said “Patrick Frey is a gentleman’s gentleman, and he kicks ass” – Frey or one of his commenters would have posted something like “OMG GOLDSTEIN CALLED PAT GAY AND SAID HE LICKS ASS! WTF!”

  51. In graduate school, I noticed that during periods when I was teaching a course, I tended to get sick a lot more often. I thought that handling large numbers of papers could have had something to do with that.

    And some of the undergraduates had criminal tendencies.

    Running a blog under your own name seems to have a similar risk. You can end up bringing trouble to your home from the damnedest sources.

  52. Jeff re your comment at the top of the comment thread – There’s a difference between consulting an attorney with an object in mind, and actually having him do something for you. I thought that part about the follow through on that c/d letter was vague back when it was brought up. (I admit I haven’t followed updates on the matter.)

    Things can get lost in translation you know. “I was so distressed I talked to my neighbor lawyer at the end of his driveway and he said such and such can be done. Then I really thought about it, hard” might have been what really happened, but it gets elevated into “I had my attorney draft a c/d (just in case) or had him send a cease and desist notice” , though this never happened. That might be because the friend was vague – then Patrick read more into it than was meant to be implied, or even that the friend meant to be a little ambiguous or even exaggerated so Patrick WOULD read more into what was said than what happened.

    Bottom line I’ve never seen any clear declaration that such a letter was ever REALLY drafted or sent, even from Patrick. Has there been one since around the time he brought it up?

    Frisch is indeed quite capable of adopting your ID and hounding the hell out of anyone on your behalf. If someone received truly profane, threatening, distressing letters, especially in the recent past, I can’t think of a more likely candidate to do so claiming to be you, ( though there are assorted scams and pranks going around that involve theft of ID).

    Even if P. has the fullest faith in his friends distress and perfectly understood whether a letter was actually sent, an impersonator is not beyond the pale, and he might at least provide SOMEONE with the assurance that this is not the case.

  53. Bottom line I’ve never seen any clear declaration that such a letter was ever REALLY drafted or sent, even from Patrick.

    Well, except at the very beginning Pat stated “at least *I* haven’t been sent any cease and desist letters”, then later equivocated by saying he was “told” a C&D had been sent to JeffG and he trusted what this person said.

    The fact now that JeffG has categorically denied both the harassment and receipt of the letter puts it squarely back in Pat’s court. Either he is unethically withholding information about someone impersonating JeffG or Pat has made this up out of whole cloth and is compounding the initial immorality with trying to brazen it out.

    The least implausible scenario is that JeffG really did receive a C&D letter and is willing taking a huge risk by claiming he never got it when, if it existed in reality, could have been produced at the start.

    The longer this has gone on, the more suspicious any so-called letter that is, if ever, released will be genuine.

  54. Of course P. meant to *imply* Jeff had been sent a letter based on information given to him from someone else). But implication is not declaration, moreover there is some vagueness about what the friend actually said.

    I’m leaving room for misinterpretation, as humans are so good at it. P. might have read more into it than he ought, or maybe the friend encouraged that kind of misinterpretation. Also, impersonation, until there is some reason to think it impossible, is all too plausible esp. with regard to the decompensating Frisch.

    I believe someone sympathetic wrote P. a note saying he had been so distressed by some contact with Jeff that he consulted an attorney about taking some action to stop it, and that the words “cease and desist letter” were used in the note. What and how and when or if that actually occurred is still vague, and also under what circumstances the exchange occurred.

    Jeff has had to deal with some goofballs in his day… the lamb cannons, weasels, and so forth. Most of them were terribly upset to be outed or be told to stop messing around or they would be. There was also the blogger who thought her life was in danger from having her name appear in a blurb on the page, and she was a little paranoid. There’s that whole wrestling kook guy thing going on still I think, and some tightly wound firedoglakes weirdos.

    Unless this is declared to be some straight up normal person who is freaked out by really abusive emails from Jeff, I’m not inclined to give it much weight – Patrick could just as easily get himself a kooky C/D and it wouldn’t reflect on him a bit – or have someone claim to have resorted to one or imply they were ready to resort to one.

    If Deb decided to pass herself off as P she would cut and paste from him and sprinkle in some rather harrowing additions. Someone who didn’t know P. could think they were for real.

    I am not actually clear on the point of whether P.’s friend said this happened within the last year or whether P. just heard from his acquaintance about it this year. Is it possible the complained of exchange is not recent?

  55. SarahW, what you’re talking about is the deliberate misleading of the reader by a malicious reinterpreter — which would be right up Fried’s alley of course. But if he were pulling that kind of BS in court against even a mouth-breathing public defender who got his law degree off a matchbook cover, he’d drown in objections.

    I still think Fried’s immediate supervisor’s job probably depends on keeping Fried as far away from a courtroom as possible. I mentioned in another thread my suspicion that all he does is sign off on filings destined for traffic court, where defendants rarely show up.

  56. My #58 refers to this:

    Of course P. meant to *imply* Jeff had been sent a letter…

    Even if Fried believed his friend, the only way he’s innocent in this is if his friend lied to his face.

  57. Sarah, Patrick has claimed that the lawyer that sent it is mad at him too, FWIW.

  58. Pablo, I would like to read that bit for myself. Do you maybe know which thread it’s in? The lawyer is irritated with Patrick?

  59. So, it’s a good thing Jeff and I aren’t popular bloggers. :)

    You’re a blogger? Who knew?

  60. Me, I’m still wondering if it’s really true that Patterico has been buggering the neighbor’s dog. I have witnesses, you know.

    But they prefer to remain anonymous.

  61. You’re a blogger? Who knew?

    *suddenly gets paranoid* Are you calling me a racist anti-semite!?!?!

  62. I believe someone sympathetic wrote P. a note saying he had been so distressed by some contact with Jeff that he consulted an attorney about taking some action to stop it, and that the words “cease and desist letter” were used in the note. What and how and when or if that actually occurred is still vague, and also under what circumstances the exchange occurred.

    It didn’t occur. There is nothing vague about any of this. I don’t care what Frey’s subsequent softenings and walkbacks sound like to anyone else, or whether anyone else forgives him. Either someone has stolen my identity to commit a crime — and Frey, his friend, and his friend’s lawyer are holding information back from me that would help me find out who; or else Frey, or his friend, or both, lied — the result being that Frey has said publicly that I was sent a cease and desist letter (he was told) and that I had been engaged in serial harassment and unhinged rantings, putting a family in fear. Those characterizations appear to be his — odd, given he claims never to have seen the emails.

    Only he and his unnamed friend and the unnamed attorney know exactly what the truth is from their end. From my end, I deny every sending any such things, I deny receiving any such letter, I deny engaging in any cover-up, and I demand that the proof be released or a full, contrite, and very public retraction be issued.

  63. Even if Fried [sic]believed his friend, the only way he’s innocent in this is if his friend lied to his face.

    No, he may have been innocent in believing his friend, but the moment Jeff questioned the veracity of the charge, and pointed out that the perpetrator, if any, may be an identity thief; as an officer of the Court, Frey had an ethical, if not legal, obligation to go back to that friend and request documentation of the claims. If that documentation was not provided, Frey would then be in the position of making an unsubstantiated allegation against Jeff, which may well be actionable.

    IANAL, but I’ve seen a couple of legal types comment here. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but if Jeff communicates via registered letter with Frey’s office and demands that he either
    1) Substantiate the charges by providing Jeff with contact information for the lawyer who allegedly sent the C/D letter.
    2) Issue a public retraction of the charges, with a statement to the effect that Frey had relayed information that, at the time, he thought was reliable, but upon further investigation cannot be substantiated.
    [aka “Shit or get off the pot.”]

    and Frey refuses to do either of those things, then an action against him for defamation/libel ought to be a slam dunk. And then, in Discovery, you’ll get anything he has and is hiding from you.

    Whether a bonus charge of the defamation being done under color of his authority as an ADA would stick is an interesting question worth raising in that upcoming Tuesday conversation.

  64. “Excuse me, Kevin? What does it matter what Jeff did or didn’t do in the past? You really let Pat and his morally-challenged sycophants distract you so easily?”

    Yes, Mrs. Click, I did. I have a general appreciation of Jeff’s writing mainly because he can be hilarious at times. But I missed this whole antisemitic thing, and reading it by itself, it sounds terrible. I’m not willing to read 20 posts and 10,000 comments just to find the truth. Jeff explained that it was a spoof on Frey ‘not calling McCain a racist’. I’m quite satisfied to know that. As I said before, I’d be much happier if Jeff were the good guy in this, and I’m happy to find out that he is.

    Kevin, one thing you need to know about Jeff is that he doesn’t really do a lot of hand-holding on this sort of thing; he tends to display by example. In other words: you’re going to have to do your own thinking, and come to your own conclusions.

    You probably could have left out that second sentence, unless you were trying to be condescending. But if that was your goal, you’ve succeeded :). In any event, I made the request, and Jeff can either write the post or not, as he chooses. I still think it would be beneficial, but it’s not my call. Hardcore readers seem to know the whole deal, so maybe it would not be as beneficial as I suspect.

    You admit to having your own axe to grind with regards to Frey, yet somehow also manage to equate (the prospect of) religious bigotry with rape and murder?

    Religious bigotry has caused quite a bit of rape and murder in both the past and the present. Though I withdraw entirely that comment since I now know that it was a spoof. I apologize and hope it is accepted.

    SteveG, thanks! That’s all the information I wanted. Well, except I still know nothing about this google bombing thing. But I don’t mind remaining ignorant about it.

    For the record, I think this C&D story is over, and Mr. Goldstein is the ‘victor’ if you will. It’s all but assured that there was no letter.

    Thanks for putting up with my confusion on this issue.

  65. Even if P. has the fullest faith in his friends distress and perfectly understood whether a letter was actually sent, an impersonator is not beyond the pale, and he might at least provide SOMEONE with the assurance that this is not the case.

    He won’t. He wants it to just go away, lost in the moral relativism that his disingenuous or ignorant commenters engage in (namely, the suggestion that I called Frey an anti-semite. Which gives Frey permission, in their minds, to level false accusations of criminal behavior against me in public; of course, if that’s the case, someone should tell these commenters that, based on the metric they’ve chosen to justify his actions, they must then conclude that Frey called Stacy McCain a racist — something Frey vehemently denied doing. Frey’s trying to have it both ways is a testament to his self-serving, situational ethics. His commenters buying it is a function of the relative stupidity of those over there who actually believe what they’re spouting).

    I had nothing to do with sending any unhinged, harassing emails, serially or otherwise. I was not sent a cease and desist letter (that I received). I did not excise my sent mail list to hide the identity of my victim. And more, why the hell would I? And at this point, if I know who the victim is — either from the cease and desist letter I’m supposed to have been sent or from, you know, being the one doing the harassing, why haven’t I released the name?

    Hell, I want the stuff to come out. Because it didn’t come from me. I’ve got ediscovery experts, computer and IT experts, and lawyers all waiting to get hold of these emails and examine them for problems with provenance, signs of tampering, signs of forgery, etc. And of course, there are always things like GPG for cryptographically signing emails so they can’t be faked that every would-be forger should probably know about.

    I want to know who stole my identity, if that’s what happened here. Otherwise, I want a full contrite public retraction.

    Why are Frey (a DDA), the victim’s attorney, and the supposed victim not releasing any of these emails or information about where the cease and desist letter was sent (and how)?

  66. Well, except I still know nothing about this google bombing thing.

    Here you go, Kevin. This is how Frey the solid conservative family man likes to spend his Winter vacations.

    For the record, the Google Bomb failed when I changed all the links in all but the first instance of the comment (which I left alone) to point to Frey’s own private email exchange about how he was going to destroy me, prevent me from getting published, and drive me off the internet.

    Whoops!

    In typical Frey fashion, he now decries the unethical horrors of altering comments — even as I’m sure he knows that’s how trolls are often treated in other prominent parts of the blogosphere.

  67. For the record, I think this C&D story is over, and Mr. Goldstein is the ‘victor’ if you will. It’s all but assured that there was no letter.>/i>

    Patterico will never admit it. Well, maybe under oath if he fears getting caught in a lie.

  68. Good Lord. Ok, I get it. He’s a dick. To be fair though, I already knew that.

    “What follows are the comments I left on Patrick Frey’s site over the weekend:

    [*crickets chirping*]”

    Hah!

  69. Those characterizations appear to be his — odd, given he claims never to have seen the emails.

    Actually — and I admit I haven’t read everything from Fried that’s been transplanted here for our amusement — what I remember reading is only that he denies having said he’s seen them.

    This is Fried we’re talking about, and you have to parse his words at the molecular level.

  70. No, he may have been innocent in believing his friend

    In believing his friend, yes — but given SarahW’s hypothetical and the way Fried characterized what he’d been told, there is no way he is innocent from the moment he started betraying his friend’s confidence by discussing the matter on his blog.

  71. Here you go, Kevin. This is how Frey the solid conservative family man likes to spend his Winter vacations.

    The number of times my name appears in that post is disturbing. I’m thankful that I seem to have lost my attraction.

  72. However this eventually plays out, PF is either a liar or a weasel. Neither reflects well on his character.

  73. Pablo, I would like to read that bit for myself. Do you maybe know which thread it’s in? The lawyer is irritated with Patrick?


    Here you go
    , Sarah. As it turns out, you quoted him better than I did:

    The bottom line is that my correspondent and his lawyer are both irritated with me, with some justification, and say they will release everything if Jeff writes him again, in violation of the cease and desist. Otherwise, all they care about is that the harassment not resume, which means not releasing anything as long as he doesn’t contact the person again.

    See how there’s an implicit threat that “all this stuff” will be released if Jeff doesn’t leave it alone? Which is weird because that’s what Jeff keeps asking for.

  74. Did I mention that this is all complete bullshit? An utter fabrication? A spot of fantasy intended to have a deleterious effect on our host?

    Way to step on your dick, Pat. You really should get a life, or focus better on the one you have. The internet is not worth it.

  75. …that’s what Jeff keeps asking for.

    Ah, but just because that’s what Jeff says — or even what he consciously means — doesn’t prove that’s his actual intent. You see, Jeff’s words are only part of a larger context that masks an intent beneath the “intent,” and even a renowned polymath and professional hypnotist can’t divine what that is without help from that guy at the DA’s office who sends the case files to traffic court.

    And that guy says Jeff isn’t asking for the C&D letter to be released — he’s “asking” for it to be released, to cover up for the fact that he doesn’t want it released.

    The strawberries, that’s where Fried has him.

  76. What are the possible explanations for not receiving a new copy of the original C&D letter? (Yes, this supposes a victim X and hired counsel actually exist.)

    Under any possible scenario I don’t understand that. An attorney is bound to take any and all reasonable steps to make sure a promised service has been delivered. If there is any question as to the delivery a C&D letter as part of that service, that attorney is taking serious risks with their own practice by not making sure it was delivered after it’s been questioned. I’d think that any delay on this matter would be meaningful as well.

    Forget supposed victim X, forget Frey. What attorney wouldn’t — upon public dispute — make sure the right person received a C&D letter they were tasked with?

    Can anyone make sense of that?

  77. Well I don’t know, but I been told

    A big-legged woman ain’t got no soul.

  78. What are the possible explanations for not receiving a new copy of the original C&D letter? (Yes, this supposes a victim X and hired counsel actually exist.)

    Under any possible scenario I don’t understand that. An attorney is bound to take any and all reasonable steps to make sure a promised service has been delivered. If there is any question as to the delivery a C&D letter as part of that service, that attorney is taking serious risks with their own practice by not making sure it was delivered after it’s been questioned. I’d think that any delay on this matter would be meaningful as well.

    Forget supposed victim X, forget Frey. What attorney wouldn’t — upon public dispute — make sure the right person received a C&D letter they were tasked with?

    Can anyone make sense of that?

    The minute this arose as an issue, any lawyer (especially one who is currently in a state of irritation) worth his BAR card would have sent a follow up with a copy of the original C&D. If someone you’ve issued a C&D to on behalf of your client claims to have no knowledge or receipt of it, you resend that bitch signature required US Mail and by FedEx to that motherfucker’s address. And you keep the receipts. And you bill your similarly irritated client for an hour.

    Bull. Shit. is what it is.

  79. And you bill your similarly irritated client for an hour.

    Oh, and for the mailing/FedEx fees, naturally.

  80. Well, that’s exactly what I’d do, Pablo.

    If I had a client that existed. If I existed.

    Forget this nonsense about them being irritated with Frey or only doing something if Jeff emails the wrong person. There is a public dispute that a C&D letter was sent and/or received. An attorney would cover their ass immediately regardless. There is no way around it.

  81. By the way, is it even possible to be in violation of a cease and desist letter? There is no authority or ruling to be in violation of in regards to a simple, declarative letter.

    You can be in violation of an order, of course.

    So why that particular phrasing on Frey’s part? He certainly wants to make a big deal over the fact that a non-lawyer like Jeff might accidentally use the word “order” rather than the word “letter”.

  82. Well, that’s exactly what I’d do, Pablo.

    If I had a client that existed. If I existed.

    Yep. And if I were a lawyer. Which, but for my obstinate nature…

  83. (especially one who is currently in a state of irritation)

    You mean there’s more than one sort?

  84. I’ve been told elsewise.

  85. I am betting the victims lawyers name is Yossarian.

  86. A heh for each of you.

  87. You mean there’s more than one sort?

    Yep.

  88. Pablo, thanks for that link. I have to say I don’t think Patrick made it up out of whole cloth, but “the client and his lawyer are irritated with me” is a little squirrelly.*

    Also no clarification when these alleged harassing email contacts occurred vs when the tale of the situation was related to Patrick. Just how old is the situaton being discussed?

    * The lawyer contacted Patrick? That seems unlikely. The only person he would be interested in contacting would be Jeff, to repeat the cease and desist; that is, if it were a typical layperson/lawyer relationship and the lawyer doesn’t know Patrick or frequent his blog.

  89. Yep, and now my wallet’s gone missing.

  90. As well as my compact.

  91. * The lawyer contacted Patrick? That seems unlikely. The only person he would be interested in contacting would be Jeff, to repeat the cease and desist; that is, if it were a typical layperson/lawyer relationship and the lawyer doesn’t know Patrick or frequent his blog.

    Yes, it sounds like bullshit. But there he is saying it.

  92. Oh, well I see everyone in between makes the same point about the attorney being more concerned that his letter was delivered properly if he thought it had not been, than in expressing irritation with Patrick.

  93. In case anyone was wondering, still nada.

  94. In believing his friend, yes — but given SarahW’s hypothetical and the way Fried characterized what he’d been told, there is no way he is innocent from the moment he started betraying his friend’s confidence by discussing the matter on his blog.

    Even arguendo, were we to assume Frey believed what he was told, you’d have to concede that it was singularly unwise – particularly for an attorney – to broach the subject in such a public fashion knowning that he could ‘never’ substantiate it. Talk about putting your own balls in a vice.

    By the way, is it even possible to be in violation of a cease and desist letter?

    Of course. If not then such letters would never exist. But ultimately it becomes a matter for a court to decide. That’s the difference between a letter and an order.

  95. Hit send too fast.

    That’s the difference between a letter and an order. failure to abide by the former may bring you to court, failure to abide by the latter puts you at odds with the court.

  96. LADA Public Ingrity Divsion

    Public Corruption

    Public Officials
    School Officials
    Election & Campaign Violations
    Brown Act

    The citizens of Los Angeles County have the right to expect that their elected and appointed officials will carry out their duties in a lawful, ethical and professional manner. They also have the right to expect that administrators, supervisors and the immediate subordinates of elected and appointed officials, who play an integral role in achieving the mission of the officeholder, will discharge their duties and obligations in the same lawful, ethical and professional manner.

    The District Attorney’s Public Integrity Division ensures that public and appointed officials – and their subordinates – fulfill their legally mandated duties. To this end, the District Attorney’s Office will use all resources at its disposal to detect, investigate and prosecute criminal misconduct at all levels of public service.

    The Public Integrity Division’s ultimate goal is to increase the public’s level of confidence in its elected and appointed officials.

    http://da.co.la.ca.us/pid.htm

  97. The title lacks integrity.

  98. unless you were trying to be condescending

    Not trying to, no. Just saying: don’t expect others to do your homework for you. We’ve been around and have followed all of this, and if you really want to understand, you’ve got to try and follow at least some of the history. Otherwise, you’re just going to have to take our word for it.

    In other words, I’m being the opposite of condescending: I am trusting that you don’t really want to take anyone’s word for how things played out.

  99. I mean, you could go over to Thersite’s resurrected blog and ask how his picking a quarrel with Jeff worked out. You’re bound to get an answer that’s objective, there.

    Therein lies the peril with letting others adjust your POV.

  100. If those sounded condescending: sorry.

  101. Ok, I’ve given up on convincing Jeff to do a timeline of exactly what the hell happened to set this multi-year hubub in motion. It appears to be too much to ask. I’ve instead asked Patrick to do it. Unfortunately, I receive no more ‘love’ over there than I do here. So he probably won’t do it either. I suspect that I’m getting re-banned as well.

    I have an unrelated question though. Why are so many people willing to name-call people they disagree with? How does that help things? Jeff implied that I was effeminate, Patrick implied that I’m a lying instigator, someone said that I enjoy having sex with goats, others called me an idiot (which is the only one that might be true). All of this was because I want to know the truth about the deal between Jeff and Patrick. It seems over the top.

    And, to quote Gutfeld, if you disagree with me, then you are a lying idiotic effeminate instigator who has goat sex.

  102. Why do you need to know?

  103. Why are so many people willing to name-call people they disagree with?

    I do it mainly to get laughs, not sure about any of these other sons of sheep-shaggers.

  104. Best answer I could have hoped for, McGehee :). I have to say that I’m shocked at the bile spewed by our side when you don’t totally agree with them. I thought that was mostly a lefty thing. To be fair, most of the vile comments came at patterico’s site, but even Jeff entered the fray and called me girly. That made my boobs ache.

  105. Jeff implied that I was effeminate,

    When I said you were acting like an ingenue, I meant the green, inexperienced, innocent part. Not the chick part.

  106. Though, I wouldn’t put it past parents these days to give my first name to a girl.

  107. Timeline:

    1) Pat calls Obama a Good Man
    2) Jeff says he doesn’t believe Patrick believes that, and that he’s only saying it as kind of knee-jerk feint toward showing how conservatives are good sports — precisely the kind of thinking that led to the nomination (and defeat) of “maverick” centrists like John McCain.
    3) Patrick believes his honor has been impugned, loses his shit, and spends the next 2+ years trying to “destroy” Jeff
    4. Today.

  108. When I said you were acting like an ingenue, I meant the green, inexperienced, innocent part.

    A healthy bit of irony in that misunderstanding :)

  109. this is an epic: blogs and peace

  110. From 1992, KD Lang’s “Miss Chatelaine“, from her album titled Ingenue. This may or may not be helpful.

  111. I realize that Kevin is asking specifically about Pat, but it’s worth noting that the whole good man thing was really pervasive amongst the “Maverick” centrists and “mainstream” GOP sites at the time; more than one writer got the vapors over Rush’s proclamation that he hoped Obama failed…

    Which, of course, we had been saying around these parts for some time; even prior to the election itself when it became painfully obvious that O!’s ascension was a foregone conclusion. What all of those vapor suffering writers missed at that time was the obvious connection between our well established, and dicumented, desire to see all of the progressive policies Obama espoused and represented fail!; and in their percieved dire need for the starboard side of the political spectrum need to display a gentlemanly “comity”, a “post-racial hipness”, or whatever-to essentially rhetorically surrender to their outrageous and utterly false point of departure that we were all secretly racists! and PROVE! our tolerance by giving brother O! a pass-they rushed to ostracize any who weren’t onboard with the civility program for Marxists.

    Vividly demonstrated by JeffGs sudden inability to get linked by larger sites that had previously linked here often; and inderscored by his last post linked to by Cap’n Ed-that had a deliciously worded title about embracing the “f” bomb(the word fail)…

    Funny how finally 2 years later, after Obamacare, the spendulus, the financial non-reform monstrosity, nationalization of auto companies, and the bloating of government, it suddenly hip again to say that one wishes to see Obama fail; a point I reminded writers of often in their comment threads.

    And I’ll point out that those parties still get links, even the self-admitted-acerbic Dan Reihl, by the larger sites. But PW? crickets…

    Ironically, I don’t even visit the sites where I first got directed here from any more. While I’m not in the fray as much as I used to be, due to a project I’ve been immersed in lately, when I do have time PW is among the handfull of places I check out.

    In the largest of senses, Jeff was right about what has come to be characterized as the good man debate, and all of the larger sites, and the timorous go-along-get-along politicians themselves, were completely wrong. And watching them all bombast and declare Obama’s failed policies, and pat themselves on the back for their staunch staunchiness, is a revival of absurdist writing indeed.

    At least, in my humble opinion…

  112. “1) Pat calls Obama a Good Man”

    That one line, if true, is more than enough of a timeline for me (link?). Anything further is justified. I wonder if Patrick knows that this is what started it? Assuming he said such a wrong thing, he has an EXCELLENT reason not to post an article esplainin’ this. Why won’t you? Is it just basic laziness? That’s quite an acceptable excuse, in my opinion. I’m lazy as hell. But it’s a lazy excuse nevertheless.

    When I said you were acting like an ingenue, I meant the green, inexperienced, innocent part. Not the chick part.

    Hmm. Thanks? :) I know this is a somewhat serious subject, but that comment made me giggle like a… a green, inexperienced, innocent person. (see what I did there?)

  113. I wonder if Patrick knows that this is what started it?

    I won’t presume to speak for Pat or any of the members of his commentariat.

    I suggest you ask about it and measure their thouts by the response you get.

    Because based on my observation, they seem to believe that the quote is used completely, and unfairly, out of the context it was written in. And anytime it’s prominently used here, or there in a comment thread, they challenge it’s usage and seem to upset and angry that it’s still being used to characterize, and ridicule, the pervasive notion from that time, that exhibiting any sentiment other than the metaphysical certitude of Obama’s honorable intent, and instead embracing Rush’s sentiment that we hoped he failed at instituting his socialist agenda, would somehow sentance conservatives to wandering in the political wilderness for 40 years by alienating the mushy middle low information voters who felt they had at once threw off their original sin of racism and helped make history, at least according to the MBM, by electing the first black President.

    But that’s only my observation.

  114. moore

    There should be a few lunch breaks in your timeline, too.

  115. And grab me another beer while you’re at it.

  116. An explanation of why you never mention International Pi Day would be good, too.

  117. Me? I have my suspicions.

    I’ll also be framing this:

    Is it just basic laziness? That’s quite an acceptable excuse, in my opinion. I’m lazy as hell. But it’s a lazy excuse nevertheless.

  118. moore

    I’m lazy as susan.

  119. Kevin —

    I don’t really know why I’d need to write an article explaining anything. Frey is who Frey is. Here’s the original “good man” post.

    At the time, I wrote this:

    […] I think Patterico’s position is not only wrong but dangerous.

    And no, I don’t think Patterico in general dishonest or unprincipled. Quite the opposite, in fact. But in this instance, I believe he made a calculated and ostentatious decision to take the high road, and in doing so he forced himself to call someone a good man whom he knows to be quite the opposite (and has in fact suggested as much on a number of occasions).

    In so doing, he has given cover to reprehensible behavior. If he believes such pragmatism will win elections, fine. Me, I’d rather lose the next few rounds if it means resurfacing with classical liberal principles intact and at the core of every campaign we run.

    This position — and the subsequent OUTLAW refrain (which grew out of a follow-up post)– anticipated the TEA Party movement.

    The only thing that’s changed is that I no longer believe Frey isn’t dishonest and unprincipled as a rule. Well, that, and I’ve been shunned by a number of people who bought into Frey’s bogus framing of the narrative.

  120. “I don’t really know why I’d need to write an article explaining anything.”

    I’d only say that if you don’t, Frey and his commenters can easily link to your site where you ‘didn’t’ call him an antisemite much like he ‘didn’t’ call McCain a racist. People who read only that page will not know that frey ‘didn’t’ call McCain a racist, repeatedly. That’s what will happen. I know this because it happened to me. And your supporters cannot immediately link a response explaining the parody.

    I know my request is a huge pain in the ass for you, and it will really serve no purpose for your hardcore readers. Even worse, I have to go back to work tomorrow, so you’ll likely not hear my whines again for a long time. Either way you go is fine with me, but I’m hoping you’ll go with ‘explanation’.

    Side note: Did you know that I have sex with goats? It’s apparently true. The patterico readers informed me.

Leave a Reply