September 26, 2012

My “mental health” problems, revealed!

Note:  Inside baseball. Read at your own peril.

****

Some folks on Twitter yesterday expressed concern/confusion/dismay over my repeated and pointed attempts to contact both Michelle Malkin and Allah Pundit — with limited success. Actually, it went further that just my Twitter entreaties, which I was using as a performative to make the point crystal clear: I have been marginalized and blacklisted in some sort of way, and I want to know why that is. Their silence on the subject — save for Michelle’s one Tweet, expressing (unconvincing) confusion — served to make my point, at least to those with some history of the matter.

In addition to the Tweets — including one where I publicly posted my phone number — I sent an email to Michelle yesterday, as she’d counseled me to do when we last saw each other at BlogCon in Denver, which also incidentally was the first time (yesterday being the second) that I’d try to privately speak to her about what I find a very disturbing blogospheric trend:  namely, the attempts that have been made to freeze me (and others) out of the mainstream online conservative opinion matrix.

I received no answer to the email.   Nor did I expect one.

To those who know nothing about the history leading up to yesterday’s online exhibition, I was deemed a stalker, a beta male, or mentally unhealthy. Which opinion is precisely what remaining silent was supposed to engender in you — particularly those of you whose rise as bloggers and online activists is, from my perspective at least, relatively recent.

So now I’m going to reveal the larger story behind all this, which I realize is lost on this newer generation of bloggers and blog readers “born” after the Obama ascendancy in 2008.  You are all free to ignore any and all of what follows. But it is what it is.

Prior to 2008-9, and in fact going back to 2002 / 2004, protein wisdom was one of the most respected and popular “right wing” sites in the nascent blogosphere. I have always called myself a classical liberal, and I still do, but I was early on lumped with “conservatives” or “libertarians,” though my self-description was party neutral and redounded to a profound respect for the founding ideals of this country.

Among others, Michelle Malkin, who began her own site sometime around mid-2004, credited me (along with people like Allah and Bill Ardolino, now of Long Wars Journal and Threat Matrix), for promoting her site early on in its infancy. Though we weren’t as powerful as, say, Instapundit, our links at the time nevertheless carried a lot of weight, and brought new eyeballs to a ton of new “conservative” sites.

Malkin’s site quickly became a success — due to Michelle’s excellent, unafraid, and dogged work, of course (many of us had been linking her columns regularly, long before she began blogging) — and Michelle was, if I remember correctly, the very first guest to appear on my Right Talk Radio show, “The Citizen Journalist Report,” which I co-hosted with Ardolino, then of INDC Journal (noted both for its Moonbat series, and for doing much of the forensic investigative work during Rathergate, for which Charles Johnson received much of the credit).

Back in the earlier days of the blogosphere, when John Hawkins (now of Townhall) was taking polls and giving out blog awards, protein wisdom routinely finished in the top one or two in best original content — mostly because I mixed the politics with political satire and other surreal bits, from doggerel poetry to on-running narratives about my driveway neighbor, an ornery armadillo, Islamists in bunkers or a CIA-affiliated dolphin. The Martha Stewart Chronicles were particularly well received; and along with my “interviews” (most famously I suppose with Ted Kennedy), my convention coverage (which fooled some smarmy writer at Salon into sneering at the level of “right wing amateur journalism”), and short fictions, my site took on the reputation of a kind of strange, cultish entity, one where readers could find dissertations on the nature of language, hermeneutics, interpretation theory, and the post-structural attempt to decouple meaning from originary agency — which I would illustrate leads without fail to the institution of cultural assertions and kernel rhetorical and linguistic assumptions that promote, and then finally entrench, tyranny — coupled with “commentary” from washed-up celebrities, discussions with Kleagle hoods, and things like, eg., “the pinball post.”

It was on the strength of this reputation that I did a few popular “Vents” for Malkin’s soon to explode-in-popularity Hot Air site (one of the first to use original video), and was welcomed as a charter member of PJM, penning one of the first ever posts to appear at that new enterprise — a fictional meeting between myself, Tim Blair, Roger Simon, and Ed Driscoll at an airport bar, a bit that seemed to infuriate Ann Althouse, who didn’t recognize it as a satire, and used it (and the live coverage of Thanksgiving Day parade I participated in) to sneer at the upstart organization.

All of which I note just to provide some context to my now three-years long dismay at what I’ve come to see as a kind of coordinated attempt to keep me marginalized among right wing opinion leaders. My marginalization, the point being, has nothing to do I don’t think with my output or the quality of my writing or thought. Instead, something else has led to it. And that something else is what has me so upset, and so willing today to write this post — knowing full well the response it’s likely to receive from many who even bother to read it.

Still, it’s an unburdening, and it’s mine, and this is my site, so you can skip it, de-friend me, de-link me, taunt me on Twitter, burn me in effigy (it’s okay, I’m not a Muslim, so you should be good), ignore me altogether, or write me off as a pseudo-intellectual psychosexual predator whose one goal in life is to destroy the reputation of Honorable and Righeous fighters for what is good and right and moral. It is this latter, in fact, that is a kind of sub rosa meme, and it’s origins are, to those in the know, entirely traceable.

Which brings me to the meat of the post.

Yes, I can be a dogged asshole who will fight for a position I believe to be the correct one long after any opponent wishes I’d just go away. And yes, I am willing (some would say too much so) to point out the problems I see with the thinking and strategies on my “own side” — often in bitingly sardonic ways. These things, I submit, I do because, ever since political blogging was in its infancy, I’ve always considered what we do a form of public intellectualism; and with my background as an academic, I truly believed, for the longest time, that we were having constructive discussions on issues, regardless of our party affiliation. Sure, egos would get involved. But in the end, it was about propagating the right ideas — the kinds of things that would wake up a country heading toward Idiocracy (by design).

— Which is why, for instance, I used to invite bloggers of all political stripes to guest post here — From Scott Erik Kaufman, now at Lawyers, Guns and Money (and a complete leftwing hack who likely sees teabagger racism in the color of John Elway’s ties), to Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft, to more mainstream libertarians like Steve Green — and why I held open debates between my site and left-feminist sites, or atheist sites, or sites that promoted intelligent design, and debated people like Steve Sailer and Aaron Hawkins on race, racism, and racialism.  Early regular readers and commenters included, for instance, Matthew Yglesias, then a student at Harvard, later a writer and editor for the Atlantic, Slate, Think Progress, and other progressive propaganda outlets; and Andrew Northrup, who founded the influential Poorman site, which set the stage for sites like Sadly, No! and TBogg and other sites dedicated to personally attacking right-leaning figures.

The blogosphere was different place back then.

And I was a different kind of writer.  I wanted readers to see the back and forth of intellectual rigor; to consider the arguments themselves, learn the finer points, understand the central assertions that were being contested, and watch how they were argued by people forced to confront one another rather than merely snipe from separate sets of ones and zeroes. I was never a Party guy. Hugh Hewitt isn’t the boss of me. And that’s the way I like it.

This dynamic was always the aim of my site. I never wanted it to be an “easy” site to read or, for that matter, immediately understand. In fact, so arrogant was I that I expected people to learn the site’s grammar by immersing themselves in it over a series of days or weeks, getting to know the inside jokes, getting a feel for the play between whimsical posts and the more serious academic discussions, etc. Those who caught on generally became long-time readers; those who didn’t were looking for something else, and more power to ‘em. I’m not a journalist, as my series of posts titled “I AM NOT A JOURNALIST” tried to make clear in its own understated way. My tagline? Ironic.

And that brings the story — and this post — nearly full circle. Beginning with the election of Barack Obama, the tone of my site began to change. I had watched as people on the “right” joined the leftwing culture-shapers in denigrating Sarah Palin, mercilessly at times, while often themselves elevating in stature a lightweight, largely unknown Marxist based almost entirely on certain cultivated identity markers: African American (but one of them clean and articulate ones, as Reid and Biden reminded us), whose political ascension could absolve “us” of “our” racial sins; a Columbia and Harvard education; a familiarity with faculty lounge jargon and academic cant, which gulled many RINO “thinkers” into believing he was a nuanced, “brilliant” pragmatist, open to the politics of big and important ideas and chin-scratching late night policy debates over a fine scotch: no more freedom fries and flag-waving rednecks, no sir! Obama would usher in the era of the polished academic politician who was a contemporary to many in the media who fawned over him (and, in a sense, lived vicariously through his meteoric rise), a man who saw problems three-dimensionally, not as simple aggressive maneuvers on a RISK board. He was the anti-Bush — and John McCain was, well, next in line. Though at least he didn’t shoot wolves from a helicopter.

This attitude toward Obama — whom the media failed to vet — was, we now know, completely misguided. Obama was who he had always been, a Marxist ideologue raised by a Communist, schooled in Marxism and leftwing activism (including revolution, by erstwhile revolutionaries), who made his bones first as a racially-demagoguing rabble rouser, then as part of the Chicago thug machine politics.

Large sections of Obama’s life were missing from his autobiographical accounts. Questions persisted about his early family life, his missing records, his seeming invisibility at universities he attended, even his very name.

— And yet, through all this, once he won the Presidency, many on the right declared the era of Reagan over (as if McCain represented the Reagan legacy in any way whatever), and told us we needed to embrace the new President, lest the GOP be reduced to a Southern regional party. Obama voters had bought in to hope and change. So now we had to pretend to, as well.

And many did — and began casting those who saw in Obama a looming ideological danger as “Visigoths” or “purists” or “true believers,” unhelpful to the goals of liberty, which, to these types, means electing Republicans, even if those Republicans aren’t particularly keen on protecting liberties.

It was at around the time of Obama’s election that someone pointed me to a particular instance of this kind of argument, a rather (I thought) maudlin bit using children as a rhetorical prop, which made the case that, while we don’t have to agree with Obama’s policies going forward, and while we must and should fight them when they clash with our own policy prescriptions for fixing problems, we still must nevertheless acknowledge that Obama is a good man and a patriot who wants what’s best for this country.

I vehemently disagreed, and I said so — and from that point on entered into a year’s long war of sorts with the article’s author, who believed I was attacking him personally — attacking his “honor,” as he kept referring to it — rather than doing what I always did, which was pointing out the dangers of blinding ourselves to certain truths, all for the sake of decorum. As Mark Levin is given to saying now, there is no nobility in pretending virtue exists where it does not. And if we can’t correctly identify who it is we are battling, we have put ourselves at an immediate disadvantage. Language matters.

That is to say, since the inception of protein wisdom in Dec of 2001, I have been arguing — against those on both the left and right, against both academics and lawyers, layman and professionals — that the way they’ve been taught to think about language and how it functions is itself the mechanism by which the country will necessarily continue to move leftward.

Today, nearly eleven-years on, I still believe that, and I’ve continued to write about it, though against what it now seems is a rather pointed resistance, largely from leading bloggers on the right, many of whom work in the field of law and rely on a particular set of ideas about language to justify certain conventionally professional practices. The influence of my arguments, diminished by some, adopted through mere repetition by others over the years, can be heard in the occasional feint toward intent or intentionalism — less a linguistic theory than a simple fact of communicative discourse, as I’ve described it. Intentionalism, I remind people always, just is.

This displeases those who wish to take control of signification and manipulate it for their own ends. But it is what it is, and as I’ve always often pointed out, how we get there matters. In the realm of interpretation, nobody accepts that we are “allowed” to begin with a conclusion and then reason our way backwards to justify the conclusion we’d already decided upon. At least, nobody accepts that who would call it “interpretation” with a straight face.

Along these same lines, then, when Rush Limbaugh uttered the now infamous line, “I hope he fails,” many on the right developed a case of the vapors. How dare he! How unhelpful! Obama is hugely popular; how will such a controversial utterance affect the mid-term elections? Do we want to remain forever in the political wilderness?

The reaction to Limbaugh was swift and often very nasty. Democrats tried to paint him as the de facto leader of the Republican Party. And for their part, the actual leaders of the Republican Party ran as fast as they could to distance themselves from Limbaugh.

One of those who discussed at length why he thought the Limbaugh soundbite was so very troublesome was that same writer with whom I’d battled over the characterization of a rank, race-baiting Marxist out to “fundamentally transform” the US (recall, Obama had told us he was about wealth redistribution, and saw all sort of problems with the Constitution; and he was known for his dirty politicking, as anyone from the Chicago Ryan campaign or the 2008 Hillary campaign would attest) as a “good man.”

And his position, which was a direct rebuke of the intentionalism argument I’d been offering for years, was elevated from his site to a guest post on Hot Air, where it was sure to gain a lot of attention.

So I contacted Michelle Malkin, who at time still ran the site, and asked if I could write and post a rebuttal. She was thrilled to have it, she told me, and that post appeared a day or two later. It was very well-received, and parts of it read on Mark Levin’s radio show that evening.

Point/counterpoint. A battle of competing ideas, one based in certain assertions deriving from the legal field, the other based in a foundation in semiotics, interpretation theory, and a cohesive idea of sign function in a communication chain — along with why it matters, and how it can be manipulated.

Public intellectualism. At least, that’s what I thought it was.

After that, which took place in 2009, I received one other mention from Hot Air — that concerning a perceived flaw in my “theory,” an attempted gotcha piece that I responded to on my own site. There has been nothing since.

Of course, there were extenuating circumstances, and that brings me to the point of this long recounting. The writer of both articles with which I took public exception seemed very bothered by both pieces. I became his enemy, a man he believed was out to destroy his reputation and destroy his honor. In point of fact, I didn’t give him much thought.

Until, that is, he wrote another piece — again brought to my attention by a reader — in which he joined Charles Johnson and others, including a (now) federal prisoner named Barrett Brown, in a consideration, I guess is a kind way to put it, of Stacy McCain’s potentially racist statements. Now, [the prosecutor] didn’t call McCain a racist — he made clear he would never do such a thing without knowing for sure McCain was, in fact, a racist; but he did wish his readers to examine certain statements, pulled from their complete context, to determine whether or not those statements were, in fact, racist. Discussion ensued. Polls were taken. But of course, no one was calling Stacy McCain a racist. They were merely looking at his speech to see if it, unattached to him somehow, was in fact racist. As if it spawned itself and made it’s way into the world, dishonorably and unfortunately attaching itself to Stacy’s name, though he himself need take no responsibility for being a racist merely because we could determine, by way of polling data, that his speech was in fact very very racist.

The assumptions that animate an argument such as the one being made concerning racist speech as uttered by a non-racist was, I proceeded to point out, based on faulty linguistic assumptions. At base, the battle was over competing ideas about how language functions: textualism, which allows a text autonomy outside of its original production and the agency (person or persons) who either produced or (in other instances, endorsed or ratified) it; and intentionalism, which would point out that you can’t have racist speech without at least some agency claiming to find racism in it, at which point, we need determine who or what is responsible for said racism. Either it was intended — in which case, it makes no sense to refuse to call, in the instance under consideration, Stacy McCain a racist, or at least, a racist at the time he wrote what he wrote; or else the “racism” wasn’t intended by the author, but was rather identified by the person or persons who received the message, agency now operative on the receiving end, that was being granted license to characterize what wasn’t intended as racism “racist” speech.

My goal was to work through this particular problem, and in so doing, work through what I believe are the dangerous errors in textualism, an interpretive stance adopted by many in the legal community including many conservative justices. By breaking down how textualism works — in short, it doesn’t function as it believes it does, but is rather a form of intentionalism that empowers readers and robs the individual who created the message / text of ownership, with respect to meaning, and once politicized, becomes nothing more than a kind of mob-rule, a motivated, consensus-driven replacement of truth with the kinds of “truths” asserted by anti-foundationalists — I’d hoped to point out its kinship to other populist interpretive movements (like, for instance, the long-discarded New Critic school), parallels I believed would serve my case for the dangers of “democratizing” interpretation, which sounds in keeping with American “values” but is in fact anathema to them, robbing the individual of a will to mean beyond that of what a majority declares he meant.

Because this way of thinking, inasmuch as it leads to the institutionalization of collectivist thought by way of our very epistemological assumptions (along with the ever-widening scope of “plausible” or “legitimate” palimpsests of interpretations by courts that are themselves merely newly expanded layers placed atop older, “plausible” or “legitimate” interpretations, many of which turn on incoherent hermeneutics), is, I’ve been arguing for over a decade here now, the foundation for the destabilization of our form of governance. That is, it is, philosophically and linguistically speaking, at odds with the Enlightenment ideas upon which this country and its Constitution were based, and it is intended to deconstruct, weaken, invert, neuter, weaken, and eventually overthrow the central tenets of that Constitution: individual autonomy, natural rights, limited government, checks and balances, separation of powers, and attempts by any government to assume it can grant you your natural rights rather than merely serve, through the consent of the governed, to secure them. A government who can’t grant those pre-existing rights cannot legitimately take them way. That way lies tyranny. And it is tyranny that lies at the end of an epistemology that is infected with the linguistic assumptions and assertions of Gramsci, the response theorists, the deconstructionists, the post colonialists, and every other branch of literary / social theory developed and promoted to problematize the basic “truths” of the Enlightenment.

And before anyone (still reading) objects to the notion of some sort of immutable universal truth proceeding from Enlightenment ideas, let me just add that the truth of the proposition is not what matters. What matters is that, as part of our social contract, which then leads to the formation of a government based around a set of agreed upon ideas, we agree to accept the proposition as if it were true. One not need believe in God to accept and abide by the concept of natural rights. One need merely do so. That agreement, that man cannot take away certain of our rights that pre-exists his authority, and that are part of birth right, are what is exceptional in American exceptionalism. Sure, Greeks probably believe in Greek exceptionalism. But that’s a slippery semantic dodge offered up by a leftwing ideologue who doesn’t understand or appreciate our country’s true originary genius, a man who is bathed in class warfare, identity politics, and the authoritarianism / “liberal fascism” that always seems to be the resting place after long bumpy marches toward progressive Utopianism.

So, you see, an argument that racist speech need not be attached to any particular agency — an argument of a type, incidentally, that is not at all uncommon, given that the predominant teaching of language function and interpretation today comes from the very leftist assertions that are designed to become entrenched in our thinking, and keep us losing even when we appear to “win” — is precisely the kind of argument that my site has always taken on, long before my encounters with the author of this particular misguided piece.

— Which is why the immediate blowback from my having done so — characterized by the writer of the piece discussing the potentiality of someone’s racism, publicly, as again trying to personalize an issue while being largely unconcerned with the content of the argument — was absurd and, given my site’s history, almost surreal.

I’d argued these points with people before, both on the left and the right. My archives are practically littered with such occasional pieces, generally brought on by some argument that uses faulty and, to my mind, dangerous linguistic assumptions of the kind that will, if not corrected, lead to a surrender of our liberties. Before we even saw it coming. (As a current case in point, look at what a hanging folding chair “means,” and listen to when and when not our free speech is to be used. When progressives are asking, do we put too much stock in free speech?, it’s time to perk up your ears, people.)

The point being, this was nothing new for me. But it was treated as some sort of assault on the character, integrity, and honor of a man who fights to put away criminals — while I, a pseudo-intellectual and stay-at-home Dad, can spend all my time plotting ways to destroy this man.

You want crazed paranoia? There it is. And it played out here and elsewhere on the web. In fact, so often did this person take to writing headlines with titles like “Jeff Goldstein plays the race card” or “Jeff Goldstein xxx” (you can look them up, there were a dozen or so, including 10 in a single week), I thought for sure I had so gotten under his skin — simply by making linguistic arguments and answering every single one of his assertions, publicly, in the form of a point/counterpoint — that he was losing his mind.

Eventually, to make my point as dramatically as possible that it is dangerous, dishonest, and disingenuous to write a number of public posts “questioning” someone’s racism without having the sack (and relying on legal training to avoid potential libel pitfalls) to take a position on the matter — that is, to indict through inference while pretending to keep your own hands clean — that I wrote a couple clearly satirical posts that mirrored nearly precisely the arguments and rhetorical methods used by this examiner of racism in order to illustrate, pointedly, just how easy and dangerous it is and can be to adopt the set the linguistic assumptions he’d adopted and continued to promulgate.

And even then, I did so only after his series of posts that would be titled using my name followed by some assertion of my evil, deceit, low breeding, etc.  That these posts were known to be Swiftian in intent and content (read dicentra’s send up of the way the prosecutor was “arguing” here) didn’t seem to matter to him.  Because plucked from that context, and relieved of their stated intent, they could be used to suggest to those who hadn’t been following all that closely that I was out to ruin him!  He could show you the words:  I’d accused him of being an anti-semite!  Why, it was right there for any reasonable person to interpret as an attempt to ruin him!  And the OUTRAGE would then flow like John Boehner’s little orange tears.

Which, guess he made my larger point for me, come to think on it.

My feeling was that he’d attempted to have his posts, with my name always in the title, appear under any Google search of my name. But whatever. Later, he would show up clearly inebriated in the comments section of my blog and the blogs of others and attack me personally, at one point posting over and over and over and over (more than thirty times in a single night, I believe) a pre-written piece of my supposed violent transgressions, complete with links, and crafted as an indictment, that included, among other dishonest tactics, errors of omission, decontextualization, etc. It was quite a sad sight to behold.

But then, a funny thing happened on the way to today (or yesterday rather, if you’re following all this). After this very public spat eventually began to settle down, I noticed that people who had often linked me or supported me over the years were now simply ignoring me. Among the most prominent were Michelle Malkin and Allah at Hot Air. Others followed suit. And pretty soon, it was quite obvious, particularly to long-time readers of my site, that something fishy was going on.

Was this sudden marginalization because I was rough on the GOP establishment and was often disgusted with Party-first types? Was it my support for certain TEA Party-supported candidates? Was it my honest and open distrust of Romney’s supposed conservatism? Was it the way I noted PJM’s tactless sudden dismissal of most of its affiliated bloggers?  Perhaps. That, and my sometimes rather biting manner can be offputting, though for years when it was aimed elsewhere, it was roundly applauded by the people now avoiding me.

No. Something else was going on. Behind the scenes.

And I got a sneak peak of it from a set of emails sent me by a person who’d been in touch with the honorable man I was bent on destroying, which honorable man in the emails made the case that he was an honorable man I was out to destroy, and that I was crazy, a liar, potentially violent, decidedly unstable, and I needed to be stopped stopped stopped.  For freedom.  To be run off the internet, I believe the phrase was, though I’m paraphrasing from memory. [update: since writing this post, I’ve heard from others the prosecutor contacted through email to plead his case against my craven evilness, while selling himself as a man of goodness and righteousness – ed.]

In fact, here’s a direct quote from one of the prosecutor’s private missives regarding his plans for me:

But hey, if it will toss his ass off the Internet, maybe I’ll do it.

But why do it all in one post?

Nobody will read all that. Except him.

Maybe I’ll dribble it out over a couple of weeks.

One damning point every day.

Just factual.

Nothing but links and facts.

Now go run and tell your hero. This is going to last a WHILE.

Oh — and I know a few people too. I’ll be telling them what a fucking psycho he is. He was going to write a book? Good luck.

[note: earlier here I attributed to the prosecutor my paraphrase (at the time) of his email. I did so because while I was rereading an old comment thread yesterday — the prosecutorial meltdown thread under a dicentra post, it was referenced in a comment aimed at the prosecutor and blockquoted, so I assumed it belonged to him. I regret the error. Still, the paraphrase captures the gist of the actual note, now posted above]

So I began to wonder: if this one person who posted the email chain (and was accused of violating a sacred trust for doing so) fishing for support and working on running me down had been in behind-the-scenes talks with a guy who wanted to run me off the internet, how many others had the prosecutor been talking to, pleading with, etc., that I didn’t know about.  How many other such “conversations” had he privately initiated?

Now, keep in mind that the person in question — this honorable man whom I was unfairly and in a crazed rage out to destroy — is a skilled prosecutor for a large city. He is given, as others besides me have shown, to obsession, and as a prosecutor he is accustomed to presenting “evidence” in a way that is most damning to the person he is looking to prosecute. What is put in, what is left out, time lines, etc., — all can be manipulated for maximum effect, as even a hausfrau fiction writer and former academic like me knows.

And I suspect that the most effective deployment of these tactics would happen in a scenario where the person being prosecuted is unaware of the prosecution, and is never given a chance to respond to the charges, or to do his own wounded, concerned, charming offline special pleading.

This, I suspect, is exactly what happened. I was found guilty of attempting to harm the honor of a good man, and I was found guilty in absentia. And the word got around. It only took a few major players to buy in. Because that’s the way traffic works on the networked opinion matrix: cliques are formed, and narratives are driven and then reinforced through a kind of incestuous interlinking.

In addition to what I believe was a behind the scenes whisper campaign against me, this honorable man made, later on, an unsubstantiated claim, publicly, that I’d been sent some sort of legal document for the email harassment of some unnamed party. I immediately called on him to release the letter, release copies of the emails, or any proof that any such incident ever happened, such a letter was ever drafted or sent, or that I’d ever received it. He didn’t. The truth is, I never received any such letter because none was ever sent. There were no harrassing emails. And there was no real complainant. But, as an honorable man, the prosecutor couldn’t release the name of the supposed aggrieved, who told the prosecutor, the prosecutor then told us, s/he didn’t wish to be named. Though presumably s/he didn’t have that same concern when s/he sent me the letter, more than likely for legal reasons (as well as common sense reasons) containing the name that it was now important to keep concealed. Which s/he didn’t. Because this person never existed.

Or if s/he did, they weren’t particularly trustworthy.  And may in fact have been playing the prosecutor, taking advantage of his zeal to run me down.  The date of these claims was March of 2011.  Please keep that in mind as I’ll return to it.

Anyway, it was a carefully delivered bit of public innuendo meant to reinforce a picture of me that had been crafted and perpetuated by this prosecutor over time, and once again, with his legal training, he was able to claim he was merely repeating something he’d been told, not making the charge himself.

Being publicly accused of a crime by a state prosecutor seems to me a serious deal. So I contacted the prosecutor’s office and demanded they look into it. The fact of that call was then used, I’d bet, to further build the narrative that I was so crazed and vindictive — and so bent on destroying an honorable man who just wanted to be left alone to prosecute gangbangers and cop killers — that I’d tried to cost him his job!

A wild thing, I was. The Devil himself! To be shunned by serious political commentators as a potential threat and a very real danger to society (though when Aaron Walker and this prosecutor were “SWATted,” I came to their defense publicly).

All carefully constructed. All privately and secretly sold. And all disgustingly false.

How shunned have I been as a result? Well, a reader did a bit of research, and found the following stats:

I used the terms that I’d found to be the ones used at the sites [ Pingback: (site name) >> ] used at Protein Wisdom and so on.

Pingbacks from Michelle Malkin at Protein Wisdom had  23 results total, 2007 had 7, 2008 had 14, 2009-10 had 0.  2011 had 2. Link.

Pingbacks from Hot Air at Protein Wisdom had 71 results total, 2005 had 1, 2006 had 1, 2007 had 5, 2008 had 62, 2009 had 2. Link.

Pingbacks from [prosecutor’s site]  at Protein Wisdom had 42 results total, 2006 had 2, 2007 had 1, 2008 had 17, 2009 had 9, 2010 had 13. Link.

Pingbacks/Trackbacks from Protein Wisdom at [prosecutor’s site] had 42 results total, 6 in 2004, 24 in 2005, 9 in 2006, 2 in 2007, 1 in 2009.

[The prosecutor] changed from calling them trackbacks to pings some time in the 2007-2009 time frame. The absence in 2008 could mean he used a third way (though I don’t think he did) of referring to them for a time. If so I haven’t found it yet. He gets very few blog trackbacks so what he uses is hard to find.

So. It’s not an exact set of figures, I’m sure — for one thing, bloggers often link by keywords or author names, not site names, and trackbacks aren’t always generated — but the trend is clearly evident:   No Malkin links in 2009-10. 2 in 2011, and none this year.   With Hot Air, the big year was 2008.  2009 had 2 (I posted my Hot Air piece in 2009).  With none since.

On the other hand, the prosecutor’s site saw links to protein wisdom spike in 2008, 2009, and 2010.  Since then, nothing.

Meantime, while I was supposedly attacking this prosecutor’s honor, the big years for links to him from me were 2004-2006.  Not during the time of our disputes.

Which brings me to the final revelation. Earlier in this post I mentioned a man by the name of Barrett Brown, a strange character, something an anarchist information revolutionary, who is now being held in prison in Texas for making threats against an FBI agent, among other things. Brown has gained a degree of fame / infamy as an unofficial spokesman (and let me stipulate, he doesn’t call himself this, the press and others have) for the notorious hacker group Anonymous.

Earlier this month, in retaliation for some other transgression Brown believe was being committed by conservative bloggers, Brown released a series of 2011 chat transcripts. In them, one of the things that is discussed is using Anonymous — the notorious hacker group — to manipulate my Google numbers and other such things that lawless hackers do to their perceived enemies.  I was a “thorn” in the shoe that needed to be dealt with.

You can see those chats, in their entirety, here, here, and here.  These took place in February of 2011.

Now, to make this as pointed as possible:  a state prosecutor, in an online chat with a rather dubious character, broached the idea of using the hacker group Anonymous to harm me, my site, and so my livelihood — and left it up to Barrett and those he said he’d contact in Anonymous to decide on the actual mischief to be done, because, as the prosecutor notes in the chat, he doesn’t want to hear in advance about anything illegal.

Legal training. Bases covered. Plausible deniability.

Whether this whole chat set-up was some sort of sting being run by the prosecutor, etc., — that’s of no real concern to me for purposes of this post.  What IS a concern is that, in his otherwise laudable efforts to work on a separate dispute, he took time out to trash me yet again and, with someone he believed to be associated with a dangerous anarchist hacker group, discussed ways to make my “lies” about him disappear.  At one point, Brown mentions that he could release to [the prosecutor] certain emails that he claims to have of mine.   I wonder:  do those supposed emails contain claims that I harassed someone?  Were they emails supposedly written by me showing said harassment?  Is Barrett Brown, under federal indictment, the source of a public charge leveled against me by a state prosecutor?

All to protect his honor?  Which is granted, apparently, by Google?  I leave that to you to decide. I just find the timing interesting.

Now. I realize there are very few people in the world who care about this.  I also realize there are very few people who read through to the end — and that some of those who did are probably angry at me for having written this.

Well, let me just point out that I didn’t force you to read it.  And that I really don’t care one way or the other what you think about it.  It’s now out there.  And I feel better that it is.

I wanted my concerns and suspicions aired publicly and on the record.  So here they are, in one place, for all who wish to to read or not, believe or dismiss, and so on. Can I prove, beyond the limited instances for which I have actual physical proof detailing that there has been an orchestrated, behind-the-scenes effort to create a “Jeff Goldstein” who is far more crazed, evil, and malevolent than the one who spent the first 9 years of the blogosphere as one of the biggest banes to liberal intellectuals and leftist propagandists?  No.  But I can certainly let whomever wishes to do so decide for themselves.  I’d also like to point out in passing that the forms my detractors on the right have taken to attack me very closely imitate those from the left.  There’s another lesson about linguistic assumptions and inexorability in that observation, but I’m too tired to draw it out for you just now.

Here’s the thing, and I’ll wrap up now:  I once ate dinner at Michelle Malkin’s house.  Her family was over at my house for my son’s birthday 3 or 4 years back, and I drove my son the hour and half down to take him to her son’s birthday party when her family first moved to the state.

I worked with Michelle on a popular Hot Air Vent, gushed over by, among others, Allah.

And now, I can’t even get the courtesy of a return email, or a return Tweet, or a phone call.

Something happened to cause that.  Yesterday, I finally decided to go public and ask why.  I was greeted with a pointed and public silence.

When you blog, and you write what it is you truly believe, and do battle with what it is you truly believe is wrong or even dangerous, you’re bound to step on some people’s toes from time to time.  That’s natural.  But it needn’t, after the heat of the moment, stay personal.

Someone or set of someones has made all this very personal, and they have affected my friendships and my livelihood.  But most sad, from my perspective, is that so many people who knew me either personally or from my writings over the years never bothered to give me the benefit of the doubt, or even inquire about my side of the story.  Jeff let one his co-bloggers go!  He refused to protect another one from a mean commentary by banning said commenter!  Such treachery.  And yet never mentioned?  Is that I gave at the time unknown writers with no audience and no online name to speak of access to my rather large readership.  Because I’m an evil ornery cad.

But.  Such is the game and such is the “business,” I guess.  And I’ll live with it.  This post isn’t meant as a long whine, or a complaint, or even really an explanation.  As I wrote earlier, it is more of an unburdening, and the making public of things that I’ve come to learn over the last few years.  It is not meant to open up old wounds.  Finding out that I a public official was open to having Anonymous come after me was all that was needed for that to happen, but I held my tongue, because I knew the release of that tidbit was timed to problematize  [the prosecutor’s] work combating the lawfare campaign against Aaron Walker and others.

Still, yesterday’s very ostentatious display of the extent of my shunning compelled me to write this post.  It’s long past time I let it be known to a new generation of blogger taught to dismiss me exactly why it is they’ve gotten that message, whether directly or indirectly.

Also, the post itself serves as a direct rebuke to a certain set of “facts” supposedly surrounding me:  I’m no stalker, for instance, no crazed psychosexual deviant, no felon, no harasser, and I don’t have mental health issues other than the anxiety and sometime depression brought on by watching our country taken away from us, knowing we are mostly powerless to prevent our children from being sucked into subjecthood and the slavery of soft tyranny.

But yes. I can probably kick your ass.

Happy day of atonement, everyone.  And outlaw.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 1:47pm
193 comments | Trackback

Tags: , ,

Comments (193)

  1. I was wondering where this was all going. For the record, I read it all, as I’ve done to most of your posts over the last decade or so.

    I had actually wondered why I almost never saw your name mentioned anymore at other sites, especially since you were blogging up a storm. Now I have a pretty good idea.

  2. Excellent.

    And [the prosecutor], as I and one or two others among commenters here can attest, attempted, by e-mail communication, at the time of the highest wave of the philosophical disputes, to engage our services to his own use against Jeff. It was low then, and that was in keeping with other surmises as to [the prosecutor’s] tactics elsewhere.

  3. Bravo.

  4. I didn’t know you’d been contacted sdferr.

  5. Incidentally, I know this post is toxic. I just don’t really care any longer.

  6. Made it through. I don’t read Malkin’s or the prosecutors site. Or Hot Air.

    So.

    There’s that.

  7. Random thought: There’s two ways a lengthy column can be taken on the basis of that length. That the writer and his vendetta are full of shit, or that he’s passionate about what’s real, objective and true.

    Fortunately it’s cake to distinguish between the two.

    What sucks is that interpretation — there we go with that word again, much as objective reality is to the liar purely a perception thing — tends to introduce a whole ‘nother dynamic.

    And that’s where shit gets complicated, even as it’s intended to be obscured and reconstructed.

    Everything from the personality disorder who ripped you off to the cast-of-millions freakshow in the M.E. hinges on the same behavioral crux. Like that even needs to be pointed out.

    This episode is somewhere in between. Thanks for detailing it.

  8. You’ve forgot I think. Unfortunately, my computer — with those e-mails — melted down some brief time back and I haven’t retrieved access to them yet (if it proves possible). On the other hand, I wrote about the incident contemporaneously in comments, so there’s some evidence of it out there somewhere, though I can’t put my finger on it at the moment. (To say fully, I don’t even recall precisely what the hell it was [the prosecutor] wanted me to do or endorse, save that I took offense at the suggestion to the extent I thought it best to reveal the e-mail here. I think I copy-pasted the body of the text in comments, and caught [the prosecutor’s] wrath for revealing ‘private’ communications right there in that same comment thread.

  9. sted the body of the text in comments, and caught [the prosecutor’s] wrath for revealing ‘private’ communications right there in that same comment thread.

    You know, if I knew you were so untrustworthy with private emails, I would have never you sent you those nudie pictures of me.

    THOSE ARE PRIVATE.

  10. Incidentally, I know this post is toxic. I just don’t really care any longer.

    As they come to realize they cannot stand objective inspection, you’ll always become toxic to the disordered mind.

    Wear it with pride. Usually alone.

  11. If people can find them in some way back sort of way, I’d love to have the email chain Pablo once posted on the Pub, the litany of posts where the prosecutor was spamming the comments trying to google bomb me, and the thrashing one person did on the Pub exposing the base “editorial” tactics and double standards of the prosecutor.

  12. Jeff:
    I seem to recall Reynolds linking sometime in the last couple of weeks, so you’re not complete mud at PJM (or at least in his corner. I can’t comment in re: RL Simon’s.)

    That being said: shame on anyone using Brown to go after anyone. For blog posts.

  13. I remember the live chat with me and Jeff on one side and [the prosecutor] and a couple-three cronies on the other, and it lasted way, way into the night.

    To no avail, I might add. Our interlocutors by then had begun to stop asking honest questions or providing honest arguments and were transitioning into “neener neener” and “mine is bigger than yours” and “hey housefrau! show us your tits” mode.

    Which later became “Jeff Goldstein delenda est” mode, for reasons known only to them.

    Having witnessed every last post in that dispute with [the prosecutor], I can testify that Jeff exercised patience that would have impressed Job. The tone and tenor of his responses to [the prosecutor] and his proxies was strictly academic and matter-of-fact: no “what, you moron, can’t you understand plain English?” attitude or name-calling or sneering or anything that could be interpreted as remotely objectionable.

    Apparently, the objectionable part was that Jeff was extremely good at defending his position in public, and it was self-evidently the right position (or at least the only position consonant with Classical Liberalism), and so his interlocutors decided they had lost face And We Can’t Have That.

    Those “objectionable” quotes of Jeff’s that were sent around occurred after three solid days (including the aforementioned late-night chat) of Jeff being patient and persistent, even long after the other side started in with the taunting and the baiting and the just plain nastiness. But the nastiness was one of those things You Had To Be There To Understand, I guess.

    If [the prosecutor] was willing to employ dodgy hackers to destroy Jeff, he was willing to do things much less drastic, such as spread e-mail rumors and generally make sure that Jeff’s name was utterly blackened in the minds of all “right-thinking people.”

    Anyone new to this should know that this whole issue consists of hundreds of posts and comments—on blogs other than pw and [the prosecutor]’s—and so to get a feel for what happened, you’d have to find a helluva lot of free time to read through it all.

    And a helluva lot of patience to read the same stuff over and over and over, as the arguments cycled back to the start and around again.

    Just one of those things where the truth is buried deep in a lot of words, and it’s hard to blame people for not wanting to plow through it all.

  14. Glenn Reynolds, as I’ve often pointed out here, has been always stalwart and fair. I respect him tremendously. He is a fantastic blogger (the pinnacle of his sort, with Drudge second); and he seems to lack evidence of ego that so often plagues many who do this.

    I really do hope one day to meet he and his wife in person. Of course, that requires being included in panels and the like, and evidently I have nothing worthwhile to say that speaks to liberty, conservatism, politics, language, the TEA Party, electoral strategy, the GOP power structure, or nanobots.

  15. But that’s a slippery semantic dodge offered up by a leftwing ideologue who doesn’t understand or appreciate our country’s true originary genius

    He understands it, but it doesn’t suit him: those pre-existing, natural rights are a barrier to indulging his narcissistic fantasies. A truly exceptional America shouldn’t be razed to the ground and rebuilt. A nation of ethnocentric jingoists?

    The faster the better.

  16. I have no idea where this list came from so I’ll just randomly post it anyway.

    excessive sensitivity to setbacks and rebuffs;

    tendency to bear grudges persistently, i.e. refusal to forgive insults and injuries or slights;

    suspiciousness and a pervasive tendency to distort experience by misconstruing the neutral or friendly actions of others as hostile or contemptuous;

    a combative and tenacious sense of personal rights out of keeping with the actual situation;

    recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding sexual fidelity of spouse or sexual partner;

    tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a persistent self-referential attitude;

    preoccupation with unsubstantiated “conspiratorial” explanations of events both immediate to the patient and in the world at large.

  17. Wow. I’ve enjoyed your blog since 2002, but wondered why the PJMedia and HotAir associations were discontinued. I hope that this post prompts some other recipient of these behind the scenes tactics to come forward. Disappointed in Malkin and others.

  18. I remember all of this except the parts that I didn’t know.

    What a shame.

    Part of this is just the change in the blogosphere that has taken place since 2001. There is much less linking and communication between left and right, and the whole anti-idiotarian meme is dead-dead-dead. We are back to right vs. left (with a very few notable exceptions).

    I think the money being interjected into the blogosphere has changed the motivations of bloggers. Red meat sells. Honest dialog without winners and losers doesn’t.

    None of which changes the fact that he’s a douche (but you left his name in there at one point, I don’t think that was intentional). Nor that I don’t know what to do to help.

  19. What Carin said.
    No, not the nudie picture post.

  20. Meh. Frey is a tiresome and self-important ass. I quit reading his tripe many moons ago.

  21. I was here back in the day–I may even have commented under my own name. I recall nishi being the bete noire commenting in fool’s motley for the sport of all, and the surreal hilarity mixed in with the serious danger of thought-provocation in the posting. Along with comments routinely running to the high hundreds.

    As well as–and obviously–cock.

    I wandered off because I wandered off, because, well, wife and kids and life and all, but I remember admiring the hell out of the HA video post on the anti-Semitic petition. Which I have put to good use in discussions: “it’s not the pleasant tone, it’s the toxic substance.”

    It is difficult to explain what happened to the blog’s visibility in terms other than a concerted and successful whispering campaign. If you were the pervy beta male Devil and all, you’d think it would be pretty easy for someone with the tools available to law enforcement to establish–produce the sulfur, emo music cache and stained cocktail dress.

    So, while, yeah, inside baseball, it is a helpful Rosetta Stone for newbies or those who have signed back on.

    Oh, and I haven’t de-friended you on FB. I’m taking a break from the medium for a while.

  22. I just realized why this type of post is always so long (well worth the read, by the way). It’s because Jeff woke up one morning in 2009 and discovered he was a giant cockroach.

    Composition must be so much faster when you have four arms and two antenae to type with.

  23. There’s a lot one could say on this, but I’ll say this: now’s the time to prepare for coming back harder, and rising above just the blog (though please don’t stop the blog, it’s my favorite).

    There’s strength in these arguments, and I believe it’s fundamentally stronger than the petty joys of throwing people away the second they misspeak on an issue (aka Akin, not you). It’s a battle worth fighting.

  24. In all fairness, if your honor were that frail and tenuous you would probably protect it pretty fiercely, too.

    Maggies Farm still links you a good deal, too. I like those folks.

  25. Cockroaches aren’t clubable, by the way.

    Nor are pseudo-intellectual hausfraus more devoted to TRVTH than #winning!

  26. maybe I am missing a key detail but, isn’t possible that the swatting of Mr. __ and your alleged E-mail harassment, etc. are all be related? I mean couldn’t the same someone(s) be trying to pour gasoline on what was a small fire between you two?

    Doesn’t recall excuse Mr. __ , as a victim of false allegations himself, he should be aware of how low some would go.

  27. I just realized why this type of post is always so long (well worth the read, by the way). It’s because Jeff woke up one morning in 2009 and discovered he was a giant cockroach.

    Composition must be so much faster when you have four arms and two antenae to type with.

    That right there, my friend, should be dipped in bronze, allowed to harden, and then given to Martha Stewart to pleasure herself with.

    Bravo.

  28. bgbear —

    I brought that up. I have my suspicions that the prosecutor was duped into making the false allegation. But, his being who he is, he never retracted, and his sycophants continue to allow that the cease and desist letter is still lost somewhere in the US mail, waiting to find me and properly chastise me for my harassing harassmenting.

  29. OK, I’ve instapapered this, archived to hard drive, and will tweet it out.

    Good stuff. I remember a good chunk of this, and it was around this time that I finally understood intentionalism as a result of the back-and-forth. In fact, I took a rare step for me and sent Jeff an email telling him so, and he graciously responded expressing his appreciation for having a student catch on.

    Since it is Yom Kippur for another couple hours, it seems fitting here to relate a parable about the sin of lashon ha-ra (disparaging speech, lit. “bad tongue”):

    A man went about the community telling malicious lies about the rabbi. Later, he realized the wrong he had done, and began to feel remorse. He went to the rabbi and begged his forgiveness, saying he would do anything he could to make amends. The rabbi told the man, "Take a feather pillow, cut it open, and scatter the feathers to the winds." The man thought this was a strange request, but it was a simple enough task, and he did it gladly. When he returned to tell the rabbi that he had done it, the rabbi said, "Now, go and gather the feathers. Because you can no more make amends for the damage your words have done than you can recollect the feathers."

  30. Wow. That’s really one to remember, DarthLevin.

  31. December 10, 2009
    Patrick Frey’s mania
    Note: what follows are the comments left on protein wisdom by Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey from 12/16-12/19. I have back-dated the publication of this post so that it doesn’t appear on my mainpage except via link.

    The repetitions of certain comments you see below are not errors. Frey was trying to “Google Bomb” me.

    Below these Patrick Frey comments will be a collection of comments I left on Patrick Frey’s Patterico’s Pontifications over the weekend. For the sake of fairness.

    ———-

    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    “Well, you suck at it.”

    I may have to step it up later. I have other things going on right now. Sorry.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 10:52 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    “Just so you know, I don’t give a damn about your “best interests.””

    Yeah. You sorta have a hard time recognizing irony, huh?

    I’ll stack up the crazee of Jeff’s threats against the crazee of my publicizing them, any day.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 10:37 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Indeed it is.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 10:36 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From On intent, 2: a follow-up to the David Letterman “debate” [updated, to answer the fresh charge from Patrick Frey that I haven’t addressed his concerns about language, concerns that are covered in this very post], 2009/12/19 at 10:35 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    “My guess is that a restraining order will be involved.”

    Hahahahahahahaha.

    Look. If Goldstein doesn’t want me repeating his violent threats on his blog, he does not have to: 1) contact my IP host; 2) contact my bosses; 3) get a restraining order; or 4) whatever other stupid ideas you people come up with.

    All he has to do is ban me.

    He should have just banned Frisch, too.

    If he had, he could have saved himself years of grief.

    But if he bans ME, it will be for telling the truth about his violent threats. Which is ALL I have been doing. Linking his threats of violence, to make it clear who this guy is.

    Since he’s been seeding Google with crap about me, I have to defend myself.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 10:34 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From A self-styled South Park conservative response to self-styled “radical moderate” preening, 2009/12/19 at 10:29 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    LTC John,

    I know that everyone here just has my own best interests at heart. You’re all so sweet.

    Let’s tell the truth one more time.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 10:28 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Wrap it up, Frey.

    Oh. I was done for the day.

    But, since you told me to stop, I won’t.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 10:26 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    The stuff I’m posting is all Jeff’s own words. Pablo suggested I do it.

    If Jeff feels that it’s a worrisome thing for his words to appear on his site, he can delete them and ban me.

    I banned him for threatening my commenters. Perhaps he will ban me for telling the world about it.

    Or, he can stand by his speech. In which case, SPREAD THE WORD!

    See, McGehee, I don’t respond to threats like yours. When I stop, it will be on my own, for my own reasons. Because *I* have decided to. I don’t take kindly to thuggery — but I do collect it and remember it.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 10:26 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Your quote is a keeper, McGehee.

    So, you know, I’ll keep it.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 10:15 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From Thought crimes, 2009/12/19 at 10:14 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” 2, 2009/12/19 at 10:14 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    McGehee:

    OHNOES! Someone is commenting on a blog and posting links!

    Let’s try to harm him at work for this behavior! Or maybe just try to make him think we will, in a thuggish attempt to squelch speech!

    When did this turn into a leftist site?

    More excuses.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 10:13 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From This way lies fascism: an OUTLAW’s lament (cont.) [UPDATED], 2009/12/19 at 10:07 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From Losing more slowly: an OUTLAW’s lament, 2009/12/19 at 10:05 AM

    *****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    OK. Be right back.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 10:05 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From Yawn: more on Limbaugh, his detractors, and the rhetorical turn [UPDATED TO ACCOUNT FOR MY NEEDING TO RUN OUT THE DOOR TO TAKE MY KID TO SCHOOL AND NOT HAVING REALLY FINISHED MY THOUGHTS BEFORE POSTING], 2009/12/19 at 10:04 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From The Pragmatism of Idealism (or , how I learned to stop worrying and love the f bomb)., 2009/12/19 at 10:00 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From Best Short Summary of the Dust-Up [Dan Collins], 2009/12/19 at 9:59 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From The “Jeff is a vainglorious character assassin whose lies and misrepresentations of the truly virtuous among us threaten to destroy the whole of conservatism and he therefore should be bounced from polite company with a wag of the finger and a firm cockpunch” open thread and jazz bar post, 2009/12/19 at 9:59 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From On OUTLAWISM and the next phase of liberty’s defense, 2009/12/19 at 9:57 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Blake,

    Thanks for the excuse. Be right back.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 9:56 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From A Good Man is Hard to Find, 2009/12/19 at 9:56 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From Shep Smith and Carl Cameron: Fox News Uberdouches, 2009/12/19 at 9:55 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From Outlaw Speak, 2009/12/19 at 9:54 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From On nobility, 2009/12/19 at 9:54 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    “Hey, Pat, why don’t you use the Grayson solution?”

    I believe the answer to speech is more speech.

    Which reminds me. Since people are continuing the speech, so shall I. Be right back.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 9:53 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    trfogey,

    Your ass-sitting hero has chosen to seed Google with references to me.

    I must defend myself. Which I am doing.

    He has made a show of not banning me.

    That allows me to defend myself. Which I appreciate.

    However, I suspect we are headed somewhere . . .

    “I banned Jeff Goldstein for physically threatening my readers. Jeff Goldstein banned me for telling his readers about it.”

    That would be a good line. If it happened.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 2:28 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Any other thuggish ways to combat the truth?

    Come on! SOMEONE must have an idea!!

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 2:26 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    trfogey,

    Ah, the thuggery!

    Here is a way to combat the truth by causing harmful consequences to the man who tells it.

    Truly you have learned well at the feet of the ass-sitter.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 2:25 AM’

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From On Patterico [Dan Collins], 2009/12/19 at 2:15 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From Better that Patterico fails, I think [UPDATED: NOW WITH EVEN MORE PATTERICO!], 2009/12/19 at 2:15 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    “Pay attention, people: THIS GUY SENDS CALIFORNIANS TO JAIL!”

    Happened again today.

    Poor guy. All he did was shoot at a cop.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 2:13 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From Self defense Saturday, 2009/12/19 at 2:11 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Truth = harassment
    War = peace

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 2:10 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From “Unintentional Racism” and the failure of formalism [updated], 2009/12/19 at 1:43 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From Intent, an update [updated 12/15], 2009/12/19 at 1:30 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From If instead of a race-baiting, pseudo-intellectual money grubber propagating fraudulent views on language, Jeff Goldstein were an all-beef Hebrew National footlong hot dog, 2009/12/19 at 1:30 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From In which I carry on the more substantive business of blogging with an eye toward political stability, limited government interference in our freedoms, and the kind of social change that tracks with the precepts laid out in our foundational documents (and eschew all that trivial stuff that no one really cares about, like the way the foundation for our epistemologies can be irretrievably corrupted at its very core by incoherent ideas of language which are frankly much too thinky to grapple with), 2009/12/19 at 1:30 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From a protein wisdom philosophy primer: George Berkeley (1685-1753), 2009/12/19 at 1:28 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From Some glancing blows…, 2009/12/19 at 1:27 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From Things to do in Denver when you’re dead, #76, 2009/12/19 at 1:27 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    The other threads are better places to go anyway. I already left the comment on this one.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 1:26 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From “Aloha, Segregation: The Akaka bill would create a race-based state in Hawaii“, 2009/12/19 at 1:25 AM

    *****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Then I just did him a favor with the last two comments. More HOTNESS!

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 1:21 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From “Special Report: Democratic districts receive nearly twice the amount of stimulus funds as GOP districts”, 2009/12/19 at 1:21 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From Mr. Thin-skin [Darleen Click], 2009/12/19 at 1:20 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    You guys are right. I can’t possibly keep up.

    All I can do is try.

    It’ll all get nuked, eventually. “I banned Jeff Goldstein for physically threatening my readers. Jeff Goldstein banned me for telling his readers about it.” I’ll be saying that soon enough.

    You guys are just speeding the process is all.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 12:41 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From Capitalism v Socialism [Darleen Click], 2009/12/19 at 12:39 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From When are facts not really facts?, 2009/12/19 at 12:35 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    There we go.

    Another lie, please?

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 12:28 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    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.

    From Things to do in Denver when you’re dead, #13, 2009/12/19 at 12:27 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    “This man has absolutely no sense of irony. This is a deeply, deeply clueless person we’re dealing with.”

    You were being ironic when you claimed my post meant the opposite of what it means.

    You have learned well. When you fuck up, call it irony.

    Every time someone lies about me here, I’ll post the violence comment on another thread here.

    Should have the whole site covered by morning.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 12:26 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    “Thanks for all the material, scary smart lawyer dude.”

    That’s funny.

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 12:24 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    Slart:

    “Also: Patterico has done a front-page post on how racisty RSM is for having made that bumper sticker comment.”

    From my post:

    My view of the “bumper sticker” is informed by my reading through these threads, and my conclusion is that [Charles] Johnson’s cartoonish characterizations aren’t on the mark. In context, McCain’s proposed bumper sticker appears to be a joke . . .

    Lie much?

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 12:22 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    If you get it, Slart, then you’re a liar. My post defends McCain.

    Liar, or idiot? Which is it?

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 12:14 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    “He has absolutely no idea how silly all of this is making him look.”

    I have an idea how silly this makes YOU look, claiming my intent is the opposite of what the post says.

    Oh well, you said it already. No choice but to double down. GO!

    From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 12:00 AM

    ****

    Patterico
    http://patterico.com | patterico@gmail.com | 68.5.246.8

    “Also: Patterico has done a front-page post on how racisty RSM is for having made that bumper sticker comment.”

    Now, here are the comments I left on Frey’s site during this same time span, in their entirety:

  32. OK, I see that now. I originally read it that mr. f intentionally used a fraudster rather than possibly being duped by the same people trying to undermine him.

    It was a lot of words to read for a bear of little brain ;)

  33. Ah yes, Xmas ’09. Good times, good times.

    Some of the really really over the top stuff (as opposed to this, merely really over the top stuff) was in the comments on a post over at Little Miss Attila’s blog.

  34. I remember, Ernst. If you have a chance, maybe track it down and provide a link?

  35. December 18, 2009 [Originally posted by Pablo on the Pub, which was hacked and is not currently retrievable. Reposted here as written – jg]

    I don’t know if Patrick Frey is an anti-semite, but he’s quite clearly an asshole.

    As many of you may have seen, Patrick’s been hooting and hollering about BETRAYAL!! regarding some offline conversations that took place between us. If you haven’t seen any of that, start here and scroll down. Are you feeling the hate? Now ask yourself, would you want to be a little rat? No, if you were going to be a rat, you’d want to be the biggest, baddest rat on the block. So, here is the entirety of a couple of weeks of email conversations between Patrick and I’ve tried to strike a balance between keeping them in chronological order and keeping them coherent, as several times a couple of different dialogues were going on. If I could thread them, I would, but I can’t so what you see is what you get. Email addresses are redacted because no one deserves spambots, especially me. Enormous links in the originals have been converted to Tinyurls so as not to blow out the margins. I’ll also note that this post is the first time anyone other than Patrick or I has seen any of these emails (as far as I know) with the exception of a couple of the later ones in which I indicate that I’m cc’ing my reply, as you’ll see below.

    The first conversation began with Patrick emailing me to ask about this comment:

    From: “Patterico”
    To: “Pablo”

    Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:09 AM

    Why is your face red, Pablo?

    P

    On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Pablo wrote:

    Oh. Because I thought we were about to engage in a discussion that might have led to a deeper understanding of what the divide is about in all of this, and I inferred that that was the case. I turned out to be wrong.

    Pablo

    On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Patterico wrote:

    I really hoped for that. Then Jeff said people should stop discussing this with me.

    P

    P.S. I figured your face was red because you were embarrassed you had defended me. It still appears that way to me.

    He’s engaged in an attempt to discredit me as a person. Has it worked with you?

    I won’t be commenting there again.

    On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Pablo wrote:

    Jeff is being Jeff, and he’s always been mercurial.

    I’m more impressed with the fact that I’ve tried to engage you a few times, on the basis of your questions and in good faith, and you ignored my attempts to do so. That’s happened on both your blog and Jeff’s.

    On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Patterico wrote:

    Not deliberately. I was talking to about a million people. If you can point me to the stuff on my blog I’ll respond. I’ll even respond via e-mail to the stuff on his.

    I promise I never deliberately ignored you. You’re one of my favorite commenters. Why would I do that?

    P

    On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Pablo wrote:

    Here, here, here, here, and here.

    You missed all that? I have a hard time believing that. I know there was a pigpile going on, but you’re been around the ’sphere long enough to know how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    Anyway, fair warning, it’s midnight here and I’ve got a long day ahead, so bedtime is fast approaching. But I appreciate what you do, so I’m engaged.

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Patterico wrote:

    First one: I got hung up on your saying there was a “block.” I actually responded to that part directly. And I never got past it.

    I will now.

    I’m interested in your questions, but I’d like to know what you mean when you say “society” and “disapprove”. Are we talking about what the general public should think, such that this is a question of what everyone’s opinion should be? Or is this a matter of what society should do, which infers some sort of institutional intervention?

    OK, I remember this as an echo of similar things you said on my blog. My impression — perhaps reinforced by the frown I was already wearing because I was told I had a “block” that I know I don’t have — was that you were using questions like this to pick away at what should be clear questions. Now, with a day or two’s perspective, I see you meant it.

    I meant nothing about government getting involved. I meant — and I think I said something similar to you at my blog already — that it’s just a normative question. What do you think the reaction should be? What do YOU think?

    P

    On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Pablo wrote:

    “What do you think the reaction should be? What do YOU think?”

    I think it’s situational, and I think that’s at the crux of this. Clearly, you can and should moderate your speech in certain situations.

    But, if we get to what this discussion really means, we’re only talking about the political arena. And, God help us, we’re talking about Rush Limbaugh. As is the White House.

    On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Pablo wrote:

    “I was told I had a “block” that I know I don’t have …”

    I said there is a block, not that you have one. And if I were mistaken, this thing wouldn’t have been broiling for these last couple of weeks.

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Patterico wrote:

    Sorry. I took it as: I had a block.

    Get the hilarity of this. Jeff is asking his COMMENTERS whether I was referring to him in my post.

    He’s not asking ME. He’s asking his commenters. And if one says “He didn’t mean you” he takes down the update, and if another says “Yes he did” he puts it back up.

    (Don’t ask me. I’m having too much fun watching this to clarify it for him. AND THUS THE POINT ABOUT DELIBERATE LACK OF CLARITY IS MADE!!)

    Seriously, in my opinion Jeff Goldstein is a fucking psychopath.

    P

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Patterico wrote:

    “Clearly, you can and should moderate your speech in certain situations. ”

    Yes, and the discussion is merely about when.

    See, I have been portrayed as a guy who ALWAYS WANTS TO BE A PUSSY. But really, I’m not saying anything different in principle from anyone else, because everyone recognizes what you just said. It’s a matter of degrees — as I said in the comment at Jeff’s listing our points of agreement.

    Which I think I’ll do a post about.

    P

    On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Patterico wrote:

    I’ll keep looking, but if you’re implying that your face was red because you said I wasn’t a douchebag — and you were obviously wrong about that, as proven by my Horrible Outrage (Jeff labeled my comment OUTRAGE but that was bullshit like 95% of what he said about me in that thread) — then I gotta tell you, I’m not happy.

    Am I misreading the “My face is red” comment? Please tell me I am.

    P

    On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Pablo wrote:

    I’ll stand by what I said earlier:

    “Oh. Because I thought we were about to engage in a discussion that might have led to a deeper understanding of what the divide is about in all of this, and I inferred that that was the case. I turned out to be wrong.”

    That’s why I made that comment.

    On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Patterico wrote:

    http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=14560#comment-679202

    This comment I missed utterly. But it doesn’t seem to require a response, other than “sure” and “thank you.”

    I’m just going one at a time here.

    P

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Patterico wrote:

    http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=14560#comment-679224

    Yeah, in all the refreshing and scanning, I totally missed that one too.

    It’s a re-ask of something I answered. Believe me, now I see why you were upset. You were pressing me for an answer and I do appear to be deliberately ignoring you. I promise I wasn’t. I saw the first comment but not the two subsequent.

    P

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Patterico wrote:

    As for this:

    http://tinyurl.com/y964ad7

    Point #1: you made the comment in the morning as I was getting ready for work. I was slammed that day, came home, and never commented on that thread save maybe one comment made as I walked from the parking lot to the office at work. Look for my responses to others; you won’t see any except one at 8:39 a.m. Nothing else that day.

    I was in trial this past week and working at home a lot in addition to working during the day.

    (Jeff, by the way, has no job. So he can yak all day and “beat” me that way. To the cheering of his chorus section.)

    Point #2: I didn’t know you were talking to me. I remember reading Juan’s number 8 and thinking: Yup. That’s it. Juan just said to Pablo what I would have said.

    P

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Patterico wrote:

    More baiting here:

    http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=14570

    I haven’t even read it. I just saw the pingback.

    I’m doing a post about our areas of agreement, and then I’m going to do my best to pretend that Jeff Goldstein never existed.

    P

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Patterico wrote:

    Aaaaaand now I’ve read it. And it’s exactly the kind of ugly bullshit I expected to read.

    FUCK that guy. I am done with him. I don’t expect you to agree and you don’t even have to respond, but I am DONE.

    I still really like you, and hope I can mend whatever rift I caused with my inattention to your questions.

    P

    (Pablo notes: Be sure to click that link and read the “ugly bullshit.”)

    On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Pablo wrote:

    “Yes, and the discussion is merely about when.”

    OK, so let’s talk about the political arena, which, again, is what we’re really talking about here.

    But let’s do it tomorrow, because I’m going to bed.

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Patterico wrote:

    “See, I have been portrayed as a guy who ALWAYS WANTS TO BE A PUSSY.”

    That portrayal is because you’re perceived as advocating timidity in the political arena, which, again, is what we’re really talking about.

    “That portrayal is because you’re perceived as advocating timidity in the political arena, which, again, is what we’re really talking about.”

    Why am I perceived that way? I’ll tell you why. Because that fucking psychopath Jeff Goldstein is pushing that interpretation.

    It’s 100% not true. But he’s pushing it anyway, because he dislikes me personally. This is purely personal with him.

    P

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Patterico wrote:

    This is hilarious. Jeff Goldstein is OUTRAGEOUSLY OUTRAGED by Obama’s remarks.

    Jesus. Patterico is not at all outraged by this. ‘Twas merely a rather conventional joke about how retards are, like, kinda retarded and stuff. No one should be outraged. Get off your high horse! we’re told. It’s not like he said he wants the retards to fail — just that failing makes one like a retard. And just what does it get us to be outraged, after all? I mean, do special Olympians even vote?

    . . . .

    Me, I can make jokes like this. But I’m not playing at being the leader of the free world, nor am I the one who promised to make us a respected nation again. I mean, what the fuck is this guy doing on a late night comedy show to begin with?

    Tin ear? Sure. But what bothers me is that the joke only works as an intentional joke if you understand the connection between your low score and what makes special olympians “special.”

    I won’t go so far as to say Obama intended to offend. The special olympian trope is fairly conventional in off-the-record humor. But this guy is the FUCKING PRESIDENT!

    How soon before he slips up and jokes with an Israeli leader about the Jews spending 40 years in the desert because somebody dropped a quarter?

    This guy is a fucking disaster.

    Quick nod to his intent, full-bore switch to IT DOESN’T REALLY FUCKING MATTER WHAT HE MEANT! IT’S OFFENSIVE!

    blowhard makes what sounds like a stunningly disloyal and on-point comment:

    I’m sorry but the Jon Stewart clown nose on, clown nose off does seem to apply here.

    Your targets? “Perception is very important” off. My targets? “Perception is very important” on.

    Exactly. That is precisely how Jeff is behaving. Perception is very important with Obama and not with Rush.

    Yet of course blowhard doesn’t mean that. He means to be saying that Allah and me have inconsistent positions. Because we criticized Rush for making a stupid comment that would offend people, and we criticized Obama for making a stupid comment that would offend people.

    OH, THE INCONSISTENCY!!!

    You know, Pablo, these people might as well be leftists. They have gone clinically insane and have lost any ability to reason.

    P

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Pablo wrote:

    Perception is very important with Obama and not with Rush.

    Well, yeah, which is why they spend so much time trying to craft perceptions. (Or perhaps not as much as they should, given the flurry of gaffes) Perception is very important when you’re the President of the United States and not so much when you’re a talk show host. They’ve got different powers, different responsibilities, different audiences and different standards of credibility to uphold.

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Patterico wrote:

    Yeah. But if Rush is seen as the de facto head of the conservative movement, their responsibilities seem more similar. Which is why I was arguing that we should not set him up as such.

    P

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Pablo wrote:

    And who thinks he is? Who says he is? Who is setting him up as the de facto head of not the conservative movement, but the Republican party?

    This is why the tactically correct response is attacking the premise and not conceding the framing to a bunch of fucking liars.

    Like with the ginned up AIG bonus outrage, the Rush thing is a baldfaced attempt to play the public by manipulating the narrative. And “You know, they’re kinda right about that” isn’t helpful and plays right into their hands.

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Patterico wrote:

    I’m assuming that you will treat these e-mails as private, by the way. I know Goldstein thinks it’s fine to go around repeating the contents of private e-mails, but presumably you haven’t signed on to that particular ethic of his.

    P

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Patterico wrote:

    He’s now calling me a “liar” in that thread.

    He’s just trying to bait me as hard as he can.

    P

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Pablo wrote:

    Pat, you’re getting that at your own blog from some of your own commenters, as are Ace and Allah. It’s not just Jeff, by any stretch. And this has clearly gotten way too personal with both of you.

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Patterico wrote:

    Yes, it has, which is why I have decided not to interact with him any more. If I respond to his current statements that I am “insane” and a “liar” (quotes from recent comments about me) it will be more nuclear than before. I cannot interact with this man and never will again.

    P

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Patterico wrote:

    I see your clarification: your face is red from writing that you would expect e to try to understand others’ positions.

    Meanwhile, Jeff is calling me “insane” and a “liar” and I didn’t notice a word of dissent from you on that point.

    Looks like you’ve made up your mind about me. Another person successfully turned against me. He’s tallying ‘em up.

    P

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Patterico wrote:

    Sorry, that was unfair. Just not happy. Pretend I didn’t say that.

    P

    On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Pablo wrote:“I see your clarification: your face is red from writing that you would expect e to try to understand others’ positions.”

    And engaging that, expecting that such a discussion was about to take place.

    “Meanwhile, Jeff is calling me “insane” and a “liar” and I didn’t notice a word of dissent from you on that point.”

    You don’t notice me on that thread at all, and you certainly don’t notice me responding to comments that were made at quarter past two this morning. Further, I’m not interested in refereeing a shit flinging contest between you two. I wish you’d both knock it off, but you’re big boys and you can do as you please.

    “Looks like you’ve made up your mind about me. Another person successfully turned against me. He’s tallying ‘em up.”

    Jeff doesn’t have the ability to do that. But you do. Are you trying to? Because it seems to me that if I were turned against you, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. And yet I’m seeing dismissiveness in that remark.

    And yes, this is a private conversation and will be kept as such.

    (Pablo notes: Patrick directly quotes me here, in public. But we see that this is OK, because we have not a contract, but merely a commitment on MY part. You see: “I didn’t promise not to. Pablo promised me not to.” And my defense, as he states when quoting me? Exactly right. Patrick asserts that my saying this conversation is confidential means that all conversations ever between us are confidential, as if the word “this” doesn’t mean what we all know it to mean. But only for me, not him, as you can tell by him quoting me as well as saying so outright. As for exposing this conversation now? Well, I’ve always thought that if you’re going to be accused and convicted of something, you might as well have the satisfaction of doing it.)

    And so ends that conversation. 4 days later, I get another email:

    From: Patterico

    To: Pablo

    Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 =:39 PM

    Subject: I see you’ve entirely written me off

    Did you know that, the night I saw it and closed the thread, I genuinely saw it as a death threat? Rope, tree, nk. Some assembly required. You know?

    Did you even know that the very next morning, when a couple of people said that they didn’t think it was, I said (paraphrasing): maybe you’re right. I just saw the escalation of outing “Nick” the “Greek” together with talk about settling scores without lawyers and it looked ugly to me. One of his SUPPORTERS said he was talking about an “ass-beating.” I can find you the comment if you like.

    You can believe me or not. Just please don’t go around perpetuating the idea that I’m still maintaining it’s a death threat. I thought of it that way, late at night, after watching him insinuate that he was going to get back at nk somehow. Now I see it was just him making vague unspecified threats — outing? A beating? who knows — and I still think that was worth banning.

    P

    On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Pablo wrote:

    “You bring the rope, I’ll bring the tree.” In response to a guy who’s talking about the rope.

    I don’t see how you could genuinely see a death threat there. Do you still think it was one? And is a death (or any other) threat the reason you banned him, or is it something else? Because that’s what you said it was and I think most people believe it was something else.

    http://tinyurl.com/dch44k

    Are you convinced? If so, which way?

    On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Patterico wrote:

    My hand hurts and I don’t want to spend a long time typing about this. Any chance we can talk on the phone?

    P

    On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Pablo wrote:

    It being 1 AM here, and assuming a lengthy conversation, not right now.

    Maybe tomorrow night. What’s your #?

    On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Patterico wrote:

    Home: (redacted)
    Cell: (redacted)

    I’m helping the wife with her argument tonight so it wouldn’t have worked anyway.

    Here’s a summary:

    http://tinyurl.com/dch44k

    Also read this

    http://tinyurl.com/dch44k

    And 140 right below it.

    And we’ll talk. I always wanted to talk with you anyway.

    P

    On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:05 AM, Patterico wrote:

    “Yeah. And there’s still a post up condemning you for the crime of falsely accusing deletion. For which you’ve apologized fully at least twice. Yeah. And there’s still a post up condemning you for the crime of falsely accusing deletion. For which you’ve apologized fully at least twice.”

    (Pablo notes: That’s a quote of a comment of mine on PW)

    Oh, please. Did you see the “apology”? The post where I explained what happened, Jeff fully responded to — in a post at his site which didn’t even acknowledge my explanation. Finally, at my site, after much arguing, Bradley Fikes asked him if he apologized. And the apology pretty much read like this: OK, now that my back is against the wall, I’ll say I apologize, which I would have if only that thread hadn’t been closed (never mind I had a whole post at my blog responding to it and never mentioned it). Anyway, it’s still suspicious that the comment was deleted, and Patterico is still a liar and an insane guy who operates in bad faith, That said, I’m sorry.

    If it amused me to go on with this, I’d “apologize” for nk’s comment in the same way. In fact, I have already: I said that *if* nk was going after Jeff’s family I would apologize. Close enough.

    Any claim of pure innocence on his part must take account of his outing of nk and of fritz, and of his history of threatening to fight people with whom he disagrees. That was what I was looking at when I closed the thread: that history of escalation, put together with what people were telling me about his apparent fragile mental state.

    P

    On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Patterico wrote:

    I guess my bottom line is that he can continue to maintain his Crazy Outing Stalker I Will Escalate pose, in which case it’s reasonabe to see his comments as threatening some kind of violence, as one of his supporters saw it as (Molon Labe said it meant at least an ass-kicking). Here is Stashiu’s analysis — and this is from someone who (like me) strongly supported Jeff re Frisch:

    http://tinyurl.com/dch44k

    Stashiu’s comment:

    If “death threat” is the most liberal (though obviously a contrived and convenient) interpretation, the most restrictive should be “promised ass-kicking”.
    Comment by Molon Labe — 3/22/2009 @ 2:20 pm

    Which Jeff seems to threaten a lot of people with.

    As for calling me a fucking idiot, well, we’re both in Colorado so he is welcome to do so directly to my smiling face. He might also use that opportunity to tell me how many of those in the Trade Center had it coming, the little Eichmanns, and then we can see just how tough he thinks having a tattoo and a blustery delivery really makes him.

    My guess is not nearly tough enough.

    That’s not the only example, it just happened to be on the front page right now. It’s one of the biggest reasons I don’t read PW anymore.

    Your addition of “I’ll look for a place that has a bar and a gym with a wrestling mat.” is more of the same. If Jeff had a problem with nk’s comments, even threatening him with an ass-kicking (your “most restrictive” interpretation) on a DDA’s personal blog is enough to warrant banning (IMO). Your hope that Jeff gets an opportunity to hurt Patterico is just as bad. If all you and Darleen are going to do is stir up shit, please feel free to pat yourselves on the back in victory and return to PW. Protein Wisdom was the first blog I ever followed regularly, but I stopped going after Jeff started puffing out his chest while proclaiming his MMA skills. He’s become so insecure that any criticism must be met with OUTRAGE OUTLAW! I’m sure he’s a great guy IRL and I wish him well… far away from wherever I happen to be.

    Patterico is a stand-up guy who will listen without being cowed. Jeff’s comments were getting really creepy. While I fall on the “he threatened an ass-kicking” side of the fence, there is enough creepiness there that “death threat” started becoming credible. Putting an end to it (in theory) was the responsible thing to do. Of course, the PW crowd just jumped onto another thread to continue their bullshit, ignoring the clear intent to drop it by closing comments. I’m sure there will be a few more thread-jackings for a while as well. Jeff’s more rabid defenders won’t be able to help themselves, just like our in-house trolls.

    As you know, Stashiu is capable of making up his own mind.

    Jeff can continue to pretend he bears no responsibility, but it’s not so. You can join in the view that this is made up by me and I had no reason to think it was for real, but it’s not so.

    P

    On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Patterico wrote:

    You can put me down for agreeing with Stashiu’s comments, especially:

    If Jeff had a problem with nk’s comments, even threatening him with an ass-kicking (your “most restrictive” interpretation) on a DDA’s personal blog is enough to warrant banning (IMO). . . . .While I fall on the “he threatened an ass-kicking” side of the fence, there is enough creepiness there that “death threat” started becoming credible. Putting an end to it (in theory) was the responsible thing to do.

    That’s about how I felt the next day. It seemed like a death threat at the time I shut down the thread, because of the creepy nature of the whole exchange. The next day, when some people I respected said that they didn’t see it as one, I was of the view: maybe not. Maybe it really wasn’t. But I’m still comfortable with the ban because that was some outing, hostile, seemingly “I’ll kick your ass” type shit.

    P

    On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Patterico wrote:

    I’ll say this and go to bed:

    Did you ever notice that, out of 200 Pajamas bloggers, 199 didn’t flip out when their program ended?

    Did you ever notice that Karl, about the most level-headed guy on Earth, is now someone Jeff has no use for?

    Did you ever notice that Dan Collins stopped posting on the main page? After taking shit time and time again?

    You can believe that someone like me, whom you previously respected, has just decided to FLIP OUT! Along with those other crazy, crazy turncoats: Karl, Dan Collins, Stashiu, and all the other commenters at my site you used to respect.

    Or you can ask yourself whether, just maybe, Jeff (while a very talented guy) creates many of his own problems, and revels in this sort of self-induced drama. And whether you might be enabling that by taking a black-and-white view of this.

    Have I behaved perfectly in this? I’m quite sure I haven’t. Is my hat coal-black and Jeff’s the purest white? You act as though that is so, but you might think about it further.

    Take care and I hope we talk soon.

    On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Pablo wrote:

    “Is my hat coal-black and Jeff’s the purest white? You act as though that is so, but you might think about it further.”

    No, I don’t think that at all. But I think you’re losing this argument, and you’re looking bad doing it. You busy? If not, I’ll call.

    (Pablo notes: And so ends that email conversation, which moved to the phone. Later, I get another email…)

    On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Patterico wrote:

    . . . naturally has Jeff’s slander on the first page of my results.

    Which (as I knew all along) was his intent.

    Luckily he’s got mental issues and that’s increasingly apparent.Messages keep pouring telling me what an asshole people think he is. Not just my commenters. Sometimes the sources are surprising.

    P

    On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Patterico wrote:

    I’m going to go ahead and draft up that “going nuclear” post afterall. Don’t know if I’ll publish it, but if I do it will not be in anger, but oin a calm attempt to set the record straight. If he’s going to leave up a result like that for Google, people who haven’t
    followed the controversy need to have a place to understand what happened.

    I’ll go out and document, for example, all the examples where he has threatened violence in the past. I’ll quote Stashiu, the decorated Navy veteran from Gitmo, who noted Jeff’s increasingly violent rhetoric and supported the ban for that reason. I’ll point out that I
    acknowledged that these may not have been death threats, and that the charge that they were remained up only for about 12 hours overnight before I made that acknowledgement. However, to perceive them as threats is reasonable in light of his disturbing record of taking Internet slight into the real world. I’ll point out how he threatens anyone who dissents with outing, and did casually out my commenter
    Fritz, as well as attempt to blackmail Nick with an outing. I’ll point out that a statement on his site saying my police officer co-blogger is a “beast that should be slaughtered” was not removed or retracted even after being brought to his attention, which sort of negates any huge argument to be made about my failure to rein in a commenter.

    I’ll point out how he says it’s a leftist attack to call him “Jeffy”but he personally calls me “Patty.” And several other examples of hishypocrisy and lying..

    I’ll point out that of 200 bloggers, 199 accepted what happened with Pajamas Media and one went nuclear. Of 20 commenters of mine who had comments in moderation, 19 accepted what happened, and one went nuclear. I’ll point out his shabby treatment of Karl (Pablo: last name, which I had not known, redacted), who I believe is a rising star in the writing world and a clearly level-headed guy.

    If I publish it, it’s purely a defense against the Google attack he has launched on me. It may be time for the world to understand where these lies are coming from.

    P

    On 3/27/09, Pablo wrote:

    I think he might welcome that. Because you know if you publish it, he’s going to respond to it, right?

    On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Patterico wrote:

    Sure. He’ll never not respond. But the truth is the truth. Well,it’s meaningless to him, but it’s still the truth.

    P

    On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Patterico wrote:

    happyfeet:

    “This is just a rumor I heard. Is the light posting have anything to with making a big big post what will be hurtful to anyone?”

    Funny, I haven’t mentioned this to anyone else in the world but you.

    So why would happyfeet have heard such a rumor?

    P

    On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Patterico wrote:

    Ah, here we go:

    http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=14619#comment-687040

    Nope. Only you, Pablo.

    Only you.

    Just an offhand thought I had as I was getting in my car. Never said anything to anyone else remotely along those lines.

    Now I know.

    What did you tell him about our phone conversation, Pablo?

    P

    On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Patterico wrote:

    But hey, if it will toss his ass off the Internet, maybe I’ll do it.

    But why do it all in one post?

    Nobody will read all that. Except him.

    Maybe I’ll dribble it out over a couple of weeks.

    One damning point every day.

    Just factual.

    Nothing but links and facts.

    Now go run and tell your hero. This is going to last a WHILE.

    Oh — and I know a few people too. I’ll be telling them what a fucking psycho he is. He was going to write a book? Good luck.

    P

    On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Patterico wrote:

    I guess we’ll start with his insinuation that I am an anti-Semite. That’s a good place to start because it demonstrates what an utter fucking hypocrite he is.

    Hey, Jeff! Nice to see you! Yeah, this’ll be fun, huh?

    It’s good to know everything I tell you is going straight to him. Anything I say to Pablo goes straight to Jeff Goldstein.

    OK:

    FUCK YOU, JEFF.

    P

    On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 5:03 AM, Patterico wrote:

    Hey, look. He’s saying the word “nuclear” is mine!

    Funny, I put that word into my Gmail search engine and I come back with the e-mail to you.

    So whadja do, forward the whole thing to him? Read it to him?

    That’s why he put up the Richard Pryor video — to make the point that threats of cockslapping are a joke.

    I know they are, Jeff. (Hi Jeff! Since Pablo will be sharing everything with you directly — something I still do not approve of, but apparently cannot stop, given his lack of ethics — I might as well speak to you directly.) But not all of your threats have been obvious jokes like that.

    Again, this will be carefully documented with facts and links. Tonight I ran some of the facts by a decently known blogger who had previously taken your side on this, Jeff, and he saw where you had behaved badly. I think others will feel the same way. Here I was going to let it go, and then Pablo had to go sharing an e-mail I sent in confidence. An e-mail that I reconsidered five minutes later and had forgotten about.

    But then it was brought to my attention that it had been shared with you, Jeff, and I knew Pablo was a turncoat. Someone who shares private e-mails with others.

    Both of you should apologize for what you’ve done. But you won’t. Fine. So be it.

    You think I’m the type who rolls over, obviously. Apparently you don’t know me that well.

    You think I don’t know anyone and can’t fight back. Apparently you don’t know me that well.

    You know no strategy other than eternal escalation. Fine. Two can play that game.

    P

    P.S. Thanks for turning over the contents of my private e-mails, Pablo! Real respectable thing to do there.

    (Pablo notes: How ya like me now, jackass?)

    On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Pablo wrote

    Sorry, Pat. I’ve been away from the computer for most of the weekend.

    I was on the phone with Jeff until 1:30 yesterday morning. I asked him to call me and he did. I’d never spoken to him before either, but having seen your email about what you were considering doing, I decided I ought to talk to him too and I told him that things could potentially escalate, specifically mentioning that you were considering a post to DESTROY HIS REPUTATION!!!!! Because that’s what he did to you. In your opinion.

    Personally, I think the two of you need to walk this back because there are no winners in this. I expect that’s come across in what I’ve said to both of you. This is not a fight worth having beyond the ideas. That very valuable argument has unfortunately fueled all of this personal bullshit that doesn’t benefit anyone but people who hate you both.

    IMHO, everyone would be best served if all of the accusatory posts were removed. Arguments aside, this is bad for everyone, and it will be bad for a long time. Because, you know, Google.

    And Pat, aside from losing the argument on the merits, you’re being an asshole. I haven’t sent any of your emails to anyone, and in my conversation with Jeff concerning you I shared what I thought your position to be. If you think I’ve violated some sacred trust between us, you’re out of your fucking head. I’ve spoken to both you and Jeff exactly once, and if you think I have some obligation to keep every nuance of any offline discussion out of any communication I might have with someone else, you’re mistaken. I don’t do that with people I love. Why would I do that for you? And why would you assume that I would?

    You’ll notice that I’ve deleted everything that was in this email window when I hit Reply. That’s because I’m cc’ing Jeff on to this and I’d agreed that I wouldn’t share our emails. Going forward, assume that anything you send me will not be held in confidence, because I’d hate to be accused of breaking your trust. And if I wouldn’t do it for my own sainted mother… Well, then again, she wouldn’t ask.

    Pablo

    On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Pablo wrote

    (Pablo notes: This is in response to Pat’s 5:03 AM email)

    This is a great email, Pat. I’m really enjoyed reading this. I can’t wait for the next one. Just delightful, really.

    On Sun, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Patterico wrote:

    I’m thinking about what to do. I suggest you stay out of it.

    P

    On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Pablo wrote

    Don’t mind if I do, though I can’t help but notice that you put me in it. And that you’re most recently dragging me further into it.

    On Sun, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Patterico wrote:

    Here’s two quotes from your e-mails.

    Quote 1: “And yes, this is a private conversation and will be kept as such.”

    Quote 2: “and if you think I have some obligation to keep every nuance of any offline discussion out of any communication I might have with someone else, you’re mistaken. I don’t do that with people I love. Why would I do that for you? And why would you assume that I would?”

    Jeff was quoting the word “nuclear” as a description of my post. A word I had used only with you. Real “private” that.

    “And Pat, aside from losing the argument on the merits, you’re being an asshole.”

    Shall I call you Joe? Because it appears that you’re hellbent to make it clear to me why I should continue with this thing. Funny thing, when people know the facts, they change their mind. Yet I consider de-escalation as an alternative, and you come along to throw fuel on the fire and discourage me.

    Let me say this as clearly as I can. You lied to me. Read your quote above. You told me it was a private conversation, and then you went and told Jeff something — not a fucking “nuance” — but a key part of our exchange.

    Stay out of it. I didn’t drag you into it. You dragged yourself into it by breaking your word.

    P

    On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Pablo wrote

    OK, this is where you shouldn’t bother emailing me anymore.

    On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Patterico wrote:

    “I’m sorry I told you I’d keep our conversation private and then didn’t.”

    You know it’s the right thing to say, Pablo. Even though you’re angry, you know it’s what you should say.

    Set an example for other people who are having a hard time saying the right thing because of anger.

    P

    On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Pablo wrote

    1. Those were two different conversations.

    2. I wasn’t aware that agreeing to keep one conversation private meant you’d think that everything you ever said to me was sacrosanct, every tittle and jot. What on earth would make you think it would be? And why on Earth would you even send me that “I’m thinking about slagging off on Jeff” email?

    3. If I should just stay out of it, why are you still digging here? Don’t you have more important things to do?

    On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Pablo wrote

    Oh, and if I said I was sorry about anything, I’d be lying. You don’t want me to lie, do you?

    “Set an example for other people who are having a hard time saying the right thing because of anger.”

    If I did, would you follow it?
    Posted by Pablo @ 4:47 am
    | Trackback
    Share This

  36. That was a trip down memory lane. I was here for all of it, and even tried to engage some of the detractors in the comments during the height of it, but my patience never lasted since they had reached their decisions via emotion rather than reason. One always holds onto those harder. I know I do.

    I was also one of those fortunate enough (as in, I asked to be included) to be allowed to write here, and that was a heady experience.

    I still don’t understand why certain people made it their mission in life to marginalize PW, beyond the notion that they refuse to have their assertions questioned or are unable to defend them.

  37. Human nature, Cranky-d.

    Yesh. Even if all the allegations were true + Jeff ate babies on his spare time, it still wouldn’t be a good reason to sabotage one of the internet’s strongest voices. I mean, call the police about the baby eating, but not shrink the opinion pool. Jeff could blog from prision.

    But here we are.

  38. Box wine… the hidden menace of the innertubes.

    I actually had to take a break from commenting anywhere during that whole “Brett Kimberland is going to kill me” circle jerk because I, quite frankly, don’t believe any of it coming from a certain box-wine drinking prosecutor.

    And as I’ve said before, there’s a lot of assholes out there.

  39. Yeah, I made the mistake of going over to the Jury Box and trying to explain to them, using small words and simple concepts, exactly what it was Jeff was doing. For my trouble, I got nothing but insult and noise. After that, I determined that Pat & his legal monkeys were no different from the others who proclaim their nuanced, reality-based thinking.

    It is truly a shame that one thin-skinned, defensive, obsessive, well-connected blogger can cause so much harm and marginalize an intellect and a creative talent so much greater than he is. What’s worse is how many decent people let themselves be fooled by him.

    Far as I’m concerned, the dude remains Saruman, with a little army of Wormtongues. Perhaps one day Allah and Michelle and the others may be freed from the poison of his words.

  40. I remember, Ernst. If you have a chance, maybe track it down and provide a link?

    I think this is one of them. (Joy’s trackbacks are useful here.)
    here’s the other.

    earlier go round
    egr, pt. 2

  41. I have no idea where this list came from so I’ll just randomly post it anyway.

    excessive sensitivity to setbacks and rebuffs;

    tendency to bear grudges persistently, i.e. refusal to forgive insults and injuries or slights;

    suspiciousness and a pervasive tendency to distort experience by misconstruing the neutral or friendly actions of others as hostile or contemptuous;

    a combative and tenacious sense of personal rights out of keeping with the actual situation;

    recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding sexual fidelity of spouse or sexual partner;

    tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a persistent self-referential attitude;

    preoccupation with unsubstantiated “conspiratorial” explanations of events both immediate to the patient and in the world at large.

    You have just described addicts and alcoholics to a “tee”, di.

  42. Thanks, Ernst.

  43. Yes, I remember the contretemps of Christmas 2009 quite well. I was still actively blogging back then and did a couple of roundup posts on the controversy. Also, that was when I stopped reading the prosecutor’s blog.

    There days, PW and Stacy McCain’s blog are my only regular reads.

  44. You have just described addicts and alcoholics to a “tee”, di.

    The actual textbook definition of “paranoid personality disorder,” which isn’t about tin-foil hats so much as being extremely vindictive over very small slights.

  45. Can an insult really be construed as “a threat of violence” if it’s so damn funny you wet your pants reading it?

    I’m going with no.

  46. Ok, I may be mistaken and perhaps waaaayyyy off base and whether I am or not my thoughts may be misunderstood, but here goes.

    This reminds me somewhat of Lenny Bruce talking about his court cases.

    I hope you aren’t waiting for anyone to admit they were wrong and welcome you back. Not going to happen. Someday, maybe but not now and never publicly. If they ever welcome you back it will be because they have to because of your audience or because they someday wake up and forget why they shunned you to begin with — which won’t happen if you keep rubbing their noses in it.

    There is no ombudsman to sort this out. You have to decide how you want to spend your time and energy. If you spend it tilting against windmills, then aren’t you giving them (him?) what they (he?) want(s)? Do you want to be successful or do you want to be vindicated? I doubt that all of the above is an available option.

    Being right has its advantages, but it’s not always enough. As I counseled another friend about ten years ago who got really screwed professionally and personally over something that happened in his life, the best revenge is living well. He reminded me of that long ago conversation a couple years ago and said it was good advice. I offer it again freely now, and it’s worth every cent your paying for it.

  47. I still don’t understand why certain people made it their mission in life to marginalize PW, beyond the notion that they refuse to have their assertions questioned or are unable to defend them.

    Wolz rule.

  48. Speaking of mental instability, what ever became of nishi?

  49. From “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post, 2009/12/19 at 10:52 AM

    Hey, was that the one where I posted all those “Little-Known Facts about Jeff Goldstein” comments? That’s gotta be my second-best Internet moment EVAR.

    The first being a comment at LGF (now deleted)—after a kerfuffle about a kid in the UK who deeply offended his Muslim classmates by having the temerity to put a paper bag with a HAM SAMMICH in it—wherein I quipped: “So will the Grand Jury finally have the chance to indict that ham sandwich?”

    I peaked too early.

  50. Posts like this are why I continue to lurk in the corners, only coming out to say random things that I think might pass for humor or sensible thought.

    While I admit to sometimes thinking you’re over the top or maybe down certain rabbit holes and perhaps lacking perspective, I’ve always respected your intellect, ideas and insights and there is alway something to take away and examine.

  51. My blog got one page view last month, I joined Facebook and got five “freinds” (all people who know my wife) and quit Twitter only to be followed by forty Eurasian sex bots.

    I peaked too early… then those Eurasian bitches made off with my Mastercard… what? I was sleepy.

  52. If they ever welcome you back it will be because they have to because of your audience or because they someday wake up and forget why they shunned you to begin with — which won’t happen if you keep rubbing their noses in it.

    *sigh*

    They’ll forgive you for being wrong but not for being right.

    and

    It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.

    Although I’ll admit that my first instinct in such a case would be to try to set the record straight, to try to explain myself to the people who have been lied to about me.

    Then again, sometimes you have to cut your losses and move on. Glenn Beck left FoxNews when they told him to lay off George Soros (he knew they didn’t have his back), and now just over a year later he’s got his own cable channel.

    And spoke to the Knesset.

    Make your own damn videos and hope for new blood. That’s all I can think of.

  53. PW Dec. 2009 is pretty much missing. Ain’t linked in the archive and no direct links show up (as for instance those links in Attila’s post that month Ernst linked above). There was a heap of stuff happened that month.

  54. No, Charles, I’m not waiting for vindication or admissions or welcomes. I realize those boats have sailed, and even were there one left with stowaway passage room, I think this post tossed that bad boy’s anchor out to sea.

    I get the Lenny Bruce comparison. But this isn’t that, because I don’t plan to make it my entire act. Nor will I let in consume me. Though I can’t promise I won’t end up strung out and dead on a bathroom floor.

    This post was, as I said in essay, an unburdening. I feel better having noted it all publicly rather than always fretting about it privately. All this hit home for me yesterday. This post is the result of that treatment — and all that had come before it.

    My plan moving forward is to be more like Reagan with respect to the press he was confronted with. I will go over, around, or right through the fuckers.

    Most people suck. My goal from now on is to find only the better ones to hang with.

  55. Yes, nishi.

    nishi was like a piece of free style leftist performance art and train wreck combined.

    I couldn’t stop looking.

  56. I don’t drink box wine! Can I hang?

  57. Actually, I can’t afford box wine just now. Can I hang anyway?

  58. This is a rather large post so I hope you’ll forgive me if I comment as I read it.

    “Some folks on Twitter”

    Did you know that Dan Collins was fired from Michelle’s Twitchy (twitter based) site.
    Personally, I think that twitter is primarily for people that can’t write a full paragraph or don’t have enough of substance to warrant my attention. Sure it might be trendy but the smart folks recognize other smart folks and hang out where the smart talk is.

    Ya dig? ;^)

  59. We can’t seem to get it brought over from the old server, sdferr. Contacted Pixy Misa about it a number of times. The file is so large or something that it keeps timing out as it copies over.

  60. The actual textbook definition of “paranoid personality disorder,” which isn’t about tin-foil hats so much as being extremely vindictive over very small slights.

    True enough. Dual diagnoses, perhaps.

    However, it is best to look for horses rather than zebras.

  61. “The best revenge is living well.”

    I gave someone close to me similar advice when she was going through a particularly nasty bout of attempted professional character assassination. Hopefully it’s good advice.

    The degree to which people can be petty, bitchy, and altogether terrible boggles the mind. I’ve been reading and lurking since late 05 – this is probably the only site I’m still reading that I read then. Think that says something.

  62. “I have been marginalized and blacklisted in some sort of way,”

    Agreed; however,

    1. See my last sentance (not the ya dig)
    2. Some of them have thin skin and don’t like it when you expose their pieces that contain irrelevant points or faulty reasoning
    and
    3. Wasn’t that your mug on a Chris Muir mural?

    Tu Quoque anyone? ;^)

  63. Jeff, there is no job more important to fair Truth than the preservation of meaning and intent in our expressions. When I read your defense of Truth’s loveliest features, I get it. I know that I’m seeing something importantly beautiful. Truth is tedious, but it’s a joyful work to pursue her.

    Your defense of intellectual dialogue in the true and classical regard has won true and classical hearts. Fuck the rest of ‘em for their myopia. I’m here for the armadillo, anyway.

    “May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.”

  64. ot

    your hot air piece has 197 views on pwtv. time for some new content! seriously.

  65. “including one where I publicly…”

    What were you thinking?

    PLEASE DON”T DO THAT AGAIN!

  66. ot
    it might be fun to goof on whoopi’s “rape-rape” vs akin’s “legitimate rape”

  67. OT: I left the teevee on mute (that’s the only way I would see this), and Rove is on O’Reilly. Clown noses on.

  68. Geoffb found and passed along a handy-dandy entry to 12/2009 via the Wayback Machine. It works navigating the links at the bottom as well as internal to each post.

    Well done’r, Geoffb.

  69. ot
    @cranky

    i see karl preibus is toeing the rove party line per akin

    But many key Republicans groups are still likely to sit out the race, leery of attracting blistering attacks by the media if they cozy up to Akin. The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus, told ABC News on Sunday that “We’re not going to play in Missouri with Todd Akin. I can tell you that.” The National Republican Senatorial Committee and Crossroads GPS have both vowed not to spend any money to promote an Akin candidacy. “Focus groups found that women were identifying the Republican party with Akin’s comments on rape and that it was dragging down the whole ticket,” Crossroads adviser Karl Rove told me.

    link

  70. For the most part, I’ve given up explaining myself to people. Mostly because the way my mind works, what makes perfect sense to me makes absolutely no sense to anyone else. Either that, or those that I try to explain myself to are deliberately trying not to understand.

    Could go either way.

    I heartily agree with Danger’s point 2.

  71. Thank you, Jeff, for taking the time to fill-in a lot of gaps in my knowledge.

    You came to my direct attention when Stacy McCain was under attack from Patterico. I was one of those who were much impressed with the way you fought back against this supposed ‘man of honor’. It was clear he was not one, but it was also clear that you were one, as it was that Stacy was one.

    Obviously, the forces arrayed against you have achieved a certain amount of success. But it will, in the long-run, be an empty victory for them because all they have done is feed the Leftist Beast and give it the fuel to continue it’s pillaging of America.

    Take satisfaction that there are many of us who stand with you and who admire the depth of your intelligence and of your courage.

    You are a modern Burke, a reincarnation of John Adams [crankiness and all].

    If we are to stand a chance of restoring our freedoms and liberties, if we are to have a hope of crushing the cancers known collectively as ‘Leftist Thinking’, it will be because men like you were willing to speak uncomfortable Truths no matter what the personal cost.

    To Hell with those who believe the vile calumnies hurled at you. Know that there are those of us who will not be fooled or deceived by the Philistines and Sophists. Know that you are not alone.

    Nil Desperandum.

    Outlaw!

  72. Being right has its advantages, but it’s not always enough. As I counseled another friend about ten years ago who got really screwed professionally and personally over something that happened in his life, the best revenge is living well.

    If I may, we live in a culture that thinks it values the appearances-centric, “never let them see you sweat” denial. I think that shining everything on because it looks bad when you work at getting justice is wrong. Surely in this sorry culture we abhor folks who hold to their guns. We prefer they validate our own superficial comfort by not looking all sweaty and bloody around us.

    Not saying that’s what you meant, charlesaustin, and especially I mean no friendly fire in a thread like this, but at some point you tend to stop giving a shit and start expecting folks act like adults regardless of what it looks like.

    Justice is the best revenge. It’s worth, in some folks rather honorable minds, a very high price. This is because it’s as essential and indispensable as liberty.

    On a tangent to that, karma always works, albeit slowly and silently, which is a validation not of denial, but of justice. Something about that being how the whole place works all the way down at the atomic level. If we’re graceful, sometimes we can see it happen even.

  73. What JHoward said.

  74. Darn you sdferr :-)

  75. Well you lifted the freakin’ lid up and found out the game is fixed so you’re anathema to these groveling simps who think their calling and election is made sure by parroting the right opinions and scripts. No one of them are discussing anything real.

  76. December 18, 2009 [Originally posted by Pablo on the Pub, which was hacked and is not currently retrievable. Reposted here as written – jg]

    Right, as the Pub was lost in the hack. The Wayback Machine has it, though. The comments are not to be missed.

    Say, when was that hack, again? Before or after the BB/Frey chats? Oh, several months after. That’s weird.

    PS – I never sent you the emails, except the last ones you were cc’d you on. But we did discuss me posting them and I was happy to do it, because if I’m going to be accused and convicted of doing something I haven’t done, then dammit, I’m gonna do it. That it exposed a deranged person attacking a friend of mine for winning an argument with him was all gravy.

  77. “so you can skip it, de-friend me, de-link me, taunt me on Twitter, burn me in effigy…”

    You trying to run me off Mr.? Well you can forget it cus I’m far too dense to notice and too insensitive to care!
    (But I am drinking milk. And one of these days, Goldstein…;)

  78. DEATH THREAT!!!!

  79. alot of ad homos

    here

  80. I said it back then and I’ll say it now: the only one destroying [the prosecutor we all know and laugh at behind his back]’s reputation was [the prosecutor we all know and laugh at behind his back].

  81. i hated high school. too bad the country is run by a bunch of adolescents.

  82. NR, we don’t send page views to the little green men blog.

  83. If people can find them in some way back sort of way, I’d love to have … the thrashing one person did on the Pub exposing the base “editorial” tactics and double standards of the prosecutor.

    Oh, that was Ishmael. Two excellent posts.

  84. Pablo,

    Nice find with the wayback machine!
    I was surprised how timeless this little piece was.

    Reminiscing can be fun sometimes.

  85. The actual textbook definition of “paranoid personality disorder,” which isn’t about tin-foil hats so much as being extremely vindictive over very small slights.

    Monomania may serve well people in certain professions such as the mucking through the tedium that is the criminal legal world, but socially it can be a liability when it leads to creepy, fairly alarming behavior.

  86. At my peril, I read every word.
    Thank you, Jeff.
    To paraphrase Charles in Austin, the best revenge is living well.
    Or, the measure of a man is how he deals with adversary.
    God bless.

  87. i think mr. g upset an “honourable” member of the lawyer’s guild. they are the ultimate gov’t welfare queens.

  88. NR, we don’t send page views to the little green men blog.

    i went there for the stalin show trial. “the trial” as written on twitter

  89. The last post at Hot Air in which Jeff is mentioned.

    The last post at Michelle Malkin’s site in which Jeff is mentioned.

    Your task: List the things common to both posts.

  90. Ok, I skipped ahead a little but I couldn’t help it when I scrolled back up and saw Barrett Brown’s name

    Barret Fuckin Brown?

    That little douchebag cum Hunter S. Thompson wannabe?

    Are you freaking kidding me?

    So let me get this straight The great L.A. prosecuter though it was a good idea to wrestle with a pig in the mud? HAHAHAHAHA HAHA!
    Please stop my sides are hurting!

  91. ot

    mr. g. could you do a pw spoof using apple’s 1984 commercial. there’s viral stuff there in the next month. how do you insert baracky’s face on the screen?

    link

  92. Found this in one of the old threads geoff B dug up. Mentioned by Pablo, attributed to the prosecutor who was later to talk to people he knows. Like a man who’s facing federal indictment and was believed by the prosecutor to be tied to an infamous criminal hacking group:

    I’m going to draw out this punishment. Linger over it. Try to bring the maximum pain. I know people, you see. Goldstein thinks he’ll ever be able to publish a book? We’ll see about that. I’ll call in favors to keep that from happening. I’ll blacken his name so that he’s untouchable.

    Guess he did know people. Hope they’re proud of how they were turned into useful idiots.

    I’d forgotten most of this stuff. It’s truly surreal.

  93. Your task

    march 9 is before march 20?

  94. Goldstein thinks he’ll ever be able to publish a book? We’ll see about that. I’ll call in favors to keep that from happening. I’ll blacken his name so that he’s untouchable.

    the chitown way meets eliot ness

  95. Part of the surreality is that a basic county DDA somehow has the “connections” to stop a book from being published

    Really? How’s that go?

  96. oh and baracky’s a “good” thug

  97. I’ve been gone a lot more than normal from pw because of my work and now a new thing starting up that’s requiring a ton of research. (I’ve been pretty shitty by email as well for awhile now.)

    Felt like popping up for a moment to toss out some support, Jeff.

    Okay, support tossed out, back to my hole.

  98. is that a basic county DDA somehow has the “connections” to stop a book from being published

    public officials making shit up about private citizens is all the rage these days. enjoy your koch.

  99. I remember much of this occurring in “real time” over the past few years; your unburdening has filled in a few blanks for me at least.

    Since I follow you on twitter as well, I’m curious Jeff; did you ever converse with Ed Morrisey by e-mail about any of this? He seems like a pretty straightforward fellow that wouldn’t duck, dodge, or lie to you…

    Anyway, for what it’s worth, despite my long absence over that last year, you can count me as one who is in your corner, so to speak, and like many others amongst the PW commentariat choose to spend what time they have reading your posts instead of hanging out at the sites that are shunning you.

    And I still can’t fathom how you do all this while simultaneously taking care of two children; I only have one and have virually no time for adult thoughts these days, let alone pursuits.

    My regards to you and all the PW crew.

  100. Hope you and the family are doing well, Bob.

    Youngest is a bit of a fusser sometimes. And my wife is out of town for the next two days. It isn’t easy, you’re right. But then, it’s the very kind of women’s work that allows me to stay at home plotting to destroy people.

    Not sure if that came from the left or right, that jab. I just know that the two share the same embedded mindset, regardless of what bullshit they have to say about public policy.

  101. As for Ed, I Tweeted him. Next time, I’ll email him.

    I don’t think he has any involvement whatever in any of this, though. When I met him at BlogCon we got along very well, and he was quite friendly.

  102. Just reread that entire thread from ’09. Puts it in better context than the above. PF was/is a nutcase.
    Great to see many of the old names still here.
    Having said that, Jeff, get to work kicking ass again. From adversity comes great shit. Or something like that.

  103. Oh, and one other thing. I know you’re not particularly “godbothery” but today I can’t help but think of a snippet from one of the old testament prophets; Isaiah 54:17

    no weapon forged against you will prevail,
    and you will refute every tongue that accuses you…

    I know it seems like there’s a lot of prevailing going on right now, but one can’t always know the Almighty’s timeline. And for what it’s worth, this post in particular seems a lot like a refutation to me ;)

    You’ve enjoyed a lot of success in life despite all that’s gone down. My advice is to stay in faith, and wait for your time to come.

  104. Toooweeeet,

    Rocketman….
    Ariving!

    What’s up Bob, been awhile, Mr!

    I know having a kid is time consuming but I was worried ya forgot your internet kids.

  105. you could have some fun
    is there a way to transform the sledge hammer the woman is wielding into birth control pills or condoms? can the armadillo be pieced in? you should go peoples cube at this point. let’s get some funny baracky stuff going and leave them at comments in the “establishment’s” blogs. not you but blog effort. i got the channel need content.

  106. Early chauffer duties tomorrow so I’ll try to digest and offer something of value for the rest of the post tomorrow.

    Til then…

    KEEP FIRING PEOPLE!!!

  107. see here

    San Jose Cops Rush Disability Retirement as Rules Tighten
    By Alison Vekshin on September 05, 2012

    Police officers and firefighters in San Jose, California, are rushing to join a program that lets them claim disability and retire in their 30s and 40s — and that allows them to get tax-free pensions while taking new jobs elsewhere.

    link

    we could have so much fun

    Do You Know the Way to San Jose by Dionne Warwick

    We shall go on to the end, we shall mock them fight in France, we shall mock them fight on the seas and oceans, we shall mock them fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall mock them fight on the beaches, we shall mock them fight on the landing grounds, we shall mock them fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall mock them fight in the hills; we shall never surrender

  108. JHoward, not to distract from the real issues here, but that’s not what I meant at all. I’m just trying to note that there are some things beyond our control and you can spend your life trying to fight battles you can never win (hence the Quixote reference) or you can choose to spend it in more productive ways. In no way do I suggest giving up or putting forward a false face. I’m certainly not asking Jeff to not fight back however hard he chooses.

    Justice, or at least the justice being sought, isn’t mine to dispense in this case, so don’t seek it from me. I and everyone who reads all of this can agree completely with Jeff, but what will that change? I can’t change the past and I doubt anyone is going to ask me about any of this in the future — and even if they did I’m not sure I have the capability to be an effective advocate.

    By his own words he wants Jeff to be miserable. Maybe I’m a little to deep into pop psychology here, but I don’t think he wants to “beat” Jeff as much as have him feel beaten. That’s why I concluded with the comment about living well. There is more than one way to defeat him.

  109. mr. g it might be fun to film your oldest child building sumthing then scream at him about not building it with support from baracky. don’t dwell in the past let’s kick butt in the next 40 days.

  110. The only way to fight a lawyer is with another lawyer. A damned shame you can’t sue his ass.

    I’ll bet some Obama Cheese that the only time he behaves correctly is under duress in in a courtroom trial, with an imperious Judge watching his every move. I’ll wager that if he tried these sorts of prosecutorial stunts in any courtroom he’d be slapped down to his briefs.

    It’d be interesting to sit in on one of his courtroom performances, to see if he does act with overreach. But it’s obvious he’s spoiled by easy slam-dunk prosecutions; how hard can it be, convicting simple-minded gangland kids who are likely represented by drooling court-appointed near-interns? Probably he has his way for the most part. Which is why he took it so hard and personally when you gave him a major ‘professional’ setback.

    With no Judge to keep his nose clean, he played dirty. As is his natural character.

    Yes, he deserves a school of virtual swordfish tapping on his back door. Say, can we term that school of not-Charlie-tunas a ‘karma’? or, perhaps a ‘kimberlin’ ?

  111. As an aside, I should add here — hell, may as well, right? Why hold back? — that my dispute with Scott Jacobs is, at least from my end, settled to my satisfaction.

    I met him at BlogCon when it was in Denver. As some of you recall, he taunted me on Twitter before I arrived. And that pissed me off. So I did exactly what I’ve always maintained I’d do if I ever met him: I walked right up to him and asked him if he was ready to talk, or if there was anything he wanted to say to me. I did this twice over the few days. Turns out he didn’t have anything pressing to tell me.

    Violent psychopathic behavior averted! As promised.

    I’m not a cop or a DDA. So I don’t run to lawyers or shield myself with a badge. But I do believe in peace through strength. Very Reagan of me, I know, but you’d be surprised at the number of potentially troubling confrontations you can avoid merely by looking like you can break stuff, and by having the people around you convinced that, should you need to, you are prepared to do it.

    Why that is troubling to some, or why it signifies some kind of derangement or sociopathology I can only imagine. Oprah is still my best guess. And maybe penny loafers with no socks.

  112. nr —

    I have an Obama campaign office up the street from me. My wife has already agreed to film me asking them to sell me on Obama. They’ll be some funny shit in it, too. But I don’t want to give the game away.

    Right now she’s out of town, and we are normally swamped from morning to evening. But I’ll make the time.

    On a more long-term note, a couple of folks here have reached out to me about doing a project on language / intentionalism / and its connection to classical liberalism. We’re to talk about that more specifically here soon.

  113. That sounds vaguely RAAAAACIST! Me, I’ve always relied on projecting “This fucker might be crazy.” Saves the trouble of getting all kinds of muscular.

  114. Time for me to a get a drink. The boys are down, the coffee’s readied for the morning, school lunch is packed, the dogs have gotten their pills… Got that Dreams from my REAL father DVD today. Think I’ll pop it in and “relax.”

  115. All this because he lost an argument. He could have said “yeah you’re right Jeff” and moved on, but his pride as a prosecutor just can’t let a “stay at home dad” beat his ass in front of the whole blogosphere. The emails back and forth with Pablo are really illuminating. I lost the rest of what little respect I had of the prosecutor when he posted that passive aggressive post about RSM. That was truly below the belt. RSM has since forgiven the prosecutor, I haven’t.
    PS. Jeff you are still one of the best reads on teh nets, even though my mental tongue gets twisted into knots while reading some of your prose. : )

  116. I’ll bet some Obama Cheese that the only time he behaves correctly is under duress in in a courtroom trial, with an imperious Judge watching his every move.

    He’s one of those types who is perfectly charming and gracious to those he deems his equals or betters, but to those he deems as inferiors, he’s a real pendejo.

    Jeff made him lose face, made him lose social status. That can’t stand.

    The prosecutor is a lot like the Muslims in that way.

  117. You could up the blood pressure with The Project instead.

    We’re entirely fucked. Unless God. It’s down to that, sadly.

  118. Oops. Have a Sons of Anarchy to watch. The movie will have to wait.

  119. Beyond good on this community to have read all this and commented. You guys are truly the best of the best. I can barely read Ace’s “Comedy is like this, let me go on and on about it,” but here everyone’s committed to read whatever it takes to parse the truth.

  120. “Groundhog Day: This Time, It’s Structural”: a dicentra guest post

    There it is! Thanks sdferr and geoffb!

    I’ve committed it to a word processing doc just in case it vanishes again. And no, it’s not the one with the “Little Known Facts about Jeff Goldstein.” Those start here: http://web.archive.org/web/20100103133732/http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15611#comment-829255

    Also, here are the LMA posts:

    http://littlemissattila.com/?p=11826

    http://littlemissattila.com/?p=11908

  121. Also, it is a shame with what has happened to Malkin and yourself. The first time I had heard of your site was from a link she provided in one of her long ranting posts, that she used to be famous for, when she first started blogging.

  122. That won’t be uplifting. It’s almost like Kurt Sutter is trying to top Breaking Bad. It’s certainly gritty.

  123. In other news some little p’tach stole the number to my HSA card and charged up $600 before Wells Fargo detected it and shut ‘em down.

    Oh, that’s right. The Project ran tonight.

    Time to start burying gold in the backyard, I guess.

  124. Bury silver, Dicentra. They’ll never suspect.

  125. …And I just got the Yom Kippur reference in the original post.

    I’m the worst Catholic ever.

  126. nr –

    I have an Obama campaign office up the street from me.

    that apple commercial with birth control being flung over baracky’s face out is a parody in waiting

  127. the baracky bros.

    link

    mix that with the apple commercial

  128. Part of the surreality is that a basic county DDA somehow has the “connections” to stop a book from being published

    Really? How’s that go?

    Darleen, it pretty much goes the same way that an unknown county DA from Montgomery AL knocked programming off of satellite back in the early 80s.

    You see, all a DA (or DDA) has to do is get a grand jury to indict the celebrity ham sandwich…. or refrain. The term is “lawfare”, where some bureaucrat decides who gets the law enforced against them and who doesn’t. I lived in Montgomery at the time, and worked for the local B Dalton. The manager got a call from this DA and was told if he didn’t pull Playboy magazine the DA would have him and the assistant manager arrested for distributing obscene materials. When he reminded said DA that the Supreme Court had already ruled that Playboy wasn’t obscene, the DA’s response was “So? You and her will still be sitting in jail.” The magazine was pulled.

    This is especially possible when said DDA works in a jurisdiction that includes LA and Hollywood. Lots of authors, publishers, etc. there to make arrangements with.

  129. Jeff, I think you are a hell of a blogger and writer.

  130. Candor and clarity of thought are no longer fashionable.

  131. For what it’s worth, Protein Wisdom is one of my daily reads.

    OK. I’m lying.

    It’s one of my several-times-a-day reads. Where else can you get the same combination of erudition, classical liberalism, and armadillo?

    Billy Jack dialogs are just gravy.

    It may not seem this way, but you are being heard, Jeff. Keep at it.

  132. Cock slap envy. That’s all they got.

    Keep it up, big guy.

  133. I’d forgotten most of this stuff. It’s truly surreal.

    It’s my guess that much of this was fueled by alcohol. Ego and alcohol.

    It was all so very strange.

  134. I recall all of this quite well. None of this is remotely surprising, in my 20/20 hindsight:

    – Scott Jacobs is just another Internet badass that learned that it’s a little tougher to be that badass in person. It’s a realization that (fortunately) I was able to make for myself a while back, well in advance of any in-person confrontations.

    – Patrick Frey is a lawyer. Lawyers will, absent a judge to rein them in, say or do nearly anything to win. As evidenced by Barrett Brown’s jaw-dropping admission on dKos a while back. Unfortunately for him, strategies that look smart at the time are mighty stupid when the whole world gets to see them.

  135. Bury silver, Dicentra. They’ll never suspect.

    Probably a good idea. Question is when the banksters will lose at chicken and metal will seek its natural level.

  136. A lot of the new media, just like the old media, is completely (and superficially) process oriented —who’s up, who’s down, what’s “trending,” who’s parlayed what advantage out of the political news item du jour, etc.

    When a rare bird of a blog like Jeff’s comes along to enquire into the process, rather than accepting it as a completely natural and inalterable environment, I think a lot of other new media types don’t know what to do with it.

    Or maybe they just don’t want to put in the work necessary to understand the deeper structures. Because OUTRAGE and #winning! bring the hits, and it’s everyman his own William Randolph Hearst these days.

    If Jeff really wanted to fluster the right while confounding the left, he could start all his intentionalist analyses of the latest media outrage with “It is no accident that…”

  137. Just wanted to chime in with support for Jeff the cockroach. While not an insider or a frequent poster here, I’ve been reading (and showing others) this blog for years before it went off the reservation, and found this post illuminating on matters that I only sketchily understood before.

  138. More on metals flash-crashing.

    Just as criticisms of capitalism don’t take into account their entirely faulty definitions of capitalism, don’t ever think that what looks like a free market is.

    The banksters are integrated into the political system to the point that they own it.

    There are no free markets. Manipulated fake money from afar and atop is Keynesian Socialism’s very best friend.

  139. You know, it need not be personal. Maybe the linking stopped because you are just too hard to parse. You are writing for your peers in literacy, and your writing is way over the heads of most readers I know. On top of that, though I haven’t checked your site with a ‘family friendly’ filter turned on, I suspect you would get flagged.

    How else can I put it? One way to get past a reputation problem is to out-class the detractors. That means tarting yourself up in the markers that others define as classy. But that kind of conformity is the thing you are particularly not about.

    Why do people link, anyway? It is to raise the value of their own site, first and foremost. Jeff, I enjoy your writing, and get your point. But, when reading your stuff I can’t imagine sharing it with most of the people I know. The vulgarity, the pugilism, the surrealism: Most of them would not get it.

  140. The vulgarity, the pugilism, the surrealism: Most of them would not get it.

    Not unlike the American Revolution.

    Them not getting it is the focus, not the bug.

    “Outlaw.”

    Actually I take that back. The left not getting it is the focus.

  141. JHoward:

    That link is interesting, but I need a translator. I’m entirely self-educated in financial markets, so any explanation you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks!

  142. Maybe the linking stopped because you are just too hard to parse.

    Were that the case, the shunning wouldn’t have been so abrupt. And in fact, the popularity would never have been at all.

  143. Oh, and if I could add to the general supportive vibes, Jeff: the truth doesn’t always win out, but it always matters.

    If, at the end of the day, you can point to your work with pride and kick back in front of your hearth with your loved ones content and provided for, you’re a success.

  144. Dale, concentrated holdings — think: Wall Street — can machine-trade their paper metals against the market, manipulating the short-term price and influencing other holdings, at least for a time. This happens by policy, whether at the end of a quarter, end of a contract, or for market effect.

    It’s a way to tailor the inevitable rise in physical metal’s prices over the time the Pneumatic Bernancke Dollar takes to auger in and die.

    I’m an amateur too but this stuff has become so overt we’re all starting to see it for what it is.

  145. “Maybe the linking stopped because you are just too hard to parse.”

    Were that the case, the shunning wouldn’t have been so abrupt. And in fact, the popularity would never have been at all.

    What Pablo said. No links after early ’09? It’s not like Jeff all the sudden started blogging in Esperanto, or pulled a WWE-ish flip job like Little Green Goofball.

  146. JHoward: thanks! That’s the key I needed.

  147. Offered FWIW, Dale. Maybe some money bigs reading this can elaborate…

  148. also: that “How I stopped worrying and learned to love the f-bomb” post is, together with a long-ago post from Stephen den Beste, the only blog post I keep in hard copy to show to those types (mostly olds, friends of my dad) who still like to get their information from the printed page.

  149. But, when reading your stuff I can’t imagine sharing it with most of the people I know. The vulgarity, the pugilism, the surrealism: Most of them would not get it.

    That might explain why you would stop linking. We’re talking about a handful of high-profile sites with very rough-and-tumble readership. They might not get a lot from long discourses about language and interpretation, but they certainly aren’t scared off by a vulgar panzer rat or a handful of pills found in the sofa cushions.

    Jeff’s “crime” is that he vociferously points out when our allies are wrong. He does it because he wants them to stop being wrong; to stop reinforcing the methods our opponents use to marginalize us. Unfortunately, he embarrassed a monomaniacal prosecutor who had a large enough rolodex and a complete lack of scruples when it came to launching his whisper campaign. The evidence is there: the prosecutor and his co-conspirator are both on the record claiming what they plan to do and what they have done.

    Jeff’s best hope of being re-introduced to the ranks of the socially acceptable is if those who were the recipients of the whisper campaign realize what they have done, decide they no longer want to be part of it, and start including their old friend back into their circle. This won’t happen if Jeff or any of us get in their faces about it; that just drives them to get defensive. My hope is that now that the evidence is out in the open, and those who’ve participated in the shunning campaign realize just how awful it is, they’ll come around on their own after they’ve had some time to adjust their mindsets.

    And it probably surprises nobody when I say that when the links and trackbacks start picking up again, I shall take great pleasure at imagining the frustration of the one who tried to drive our friend out of the blogosphere.

  150. JHoward:

    Understood. I just needed an introduction into the mechanics of the manipulation in question. Now it’s clearer, and I know which follow-ups to ask.

  151. Bury silver, Dicentra. They’ll never suspect.

    Trouble with precious metals is that you can’t eat ‘em, can’t burn ‘em for fuel, can’t put ‘em in your pipe and smoke ‘em.

    Foodstuffs, propane tanks, toilet paper, and sturdy locks on the doors.

  152. Well, on a postive note, thanks to your rant hitting memeorandum I read your long post, like your style, and plan to make your website a regular stopover.

  153. Pingback: Jeff Goldstein: Outlaw! | Daily Pundit

  154. Read the whole thing.

    Too many commas and periods and not enough semi-colons.

    Keep up the good work.

  155. Maybe the linking stopped because you are just too hard to parse. You are writing for your peers in literacy, and your writing is way over the heads of most readers I know.

    Whenever I’ve done tech writing, I’ve used fleisch/kincade metrics to rewrite/adjust the reading level of the text to a 9th grade level after my initial draft, which often tends to be about college sophomore/junior level. That was for manuals targeted at college grads and people with graduate degrees.

    Most people aren’t willing to invest the time or brain power to read something written at a much higher level. They MEGO and wander off…

    Yea, it means avoiding a significant amount of vocabulary, and writing a lot of short’ish simple sentences, or at most the occasional parenthetical phrase.

    Writing for the masses, even the educated ones, is difficult.

  156. I’m glad you’ve found some relief by venting Jeff. At the risk of pissing in the punch bowl, I feel I must bring you back down to earth.

    What you got here, and I hate to tell you, is a nasty case of herpes DDA simplex virus. There is no cure.

  157. Maybe the linking stopped because you are just too hard to parse. You are writing for your peers in literacy, and your writing is way over the heads of most readers I know.

    I was writing in the same complex prose back when I was in the top 5-15 blogs on the right.

    I suppose one could make the case that the readership of blogs has changed a bit. Maybe people come looking for Snooki posts and leave disappointed. Who knows?

    For now,though, I think I’ve presented compelling evidence that there are some orchestrated efforts to cull my readership.

  158. If Patterico carried on a vendetta against you after you supported him in the SWATting matter, that’s f*cked up. If he conspired with Barrett Brown to sic Anonymous on you, that’s beyond f*cked up.

    I can’t read these tea leaves, though. I don’t know what people ignoring other people means. I do know that I have a finite fund of attention to expend online, and that there are a lot of bloggers that I’d like to be able to visit more often than I do, and that there are certainly online friends that I’ve neglected. And for that, I am sorry.

    I do see a lot of people bogged down in quarrels with other people who are supposed to be “on their side,” for a variety of reasons, some truly expressed, others rationalized to the point of monstrosity. Like most people, I find all the unpleasantness unpleasant, and I avoid it when I can, because I get fed up. I believe there is such a thing as “the truth” and I know that getting to it requires a lot of focus, but I’m distracted by too many other issues to follow anything more than the general outlines of the fighting that goes on online.

    Do I think that intentionality is important? Very, and given the behavior of the press/commentariat toward the candidates, never more so. Do I think that you’ve been groundbreaking on this score, Jeff? Yeah, I do. Do I think that you deserve more attention from the rest of the right blogosphere? Yes. Do I think that there’s some semi-organized blackballing that you’ve been subjected to? I don’t know, but I don’t think so. I think that it’s just the usual carking and backbiting and coalition-building politics that goes on in any society, and that people generally are a lot less fair and selfless and caring and conscientious and justified than they think they are, and that there’s a very great likelihood that I am among the guilty.

    When Breitbart emerged, he not only assumed a space of attention that had been occupied by others; like any other great figure, however ephemeral, he created space that hadn’t been there before. Glenn Beck decided that it was to his advantage to recreate himself in opposition to Andrew when he was preparing to leave Fox. Undoubtedly, there were other folks who felt themselves put out. Since Andrew’s been gone, there have been a lot of people vying to assume one or another scrap of the mantle. They all want attention. Dinesh D’Souza has made a successful claim, but unlike most of the contenders, it has been because he has deserved it through his labors.

    Pam Geller has been as deliberately, programmatically marginalized as anyone on the right, but she just keeps on keeping on. Dennis the Peasant got screwed over and packed it in. Bryan Preston left to run campaigns and then returned. There are a lot of different ways of dealing with marginalization, and those reactions likely have as much to do with personal circumstances (such as finances) as they do with what we like broadly to call character.

    Michelle Malkin has been attacked as much as any figure on the right. Whether one likes Twitchy or not, she’s staying in the game the best way she knows how, and her calculations are her own and her husband’s. PJMedia hosts Reynolds and Fernandez, and some other talented writers. I seldom visit Townhall, but there are competent writers there, and The DC has done some good stuff, and The Blaze has done some good stuff, and Breitbart’s properties continue to do some good stuff. There has been crap at all those syndicates, too. What the internal politics are, I don’t know and really don’t much care. I think that it’s true that a lot of views have been stifled in the search for ‘legitimacy,’ and I think that that’s a shame, and a by-product of consolidation. On the other hand, there has been a lot of butthurt arising from injured egos in the scrum, and a lot of it has gone out of its way to find cover for its own legitimacy by projecting nasty motives onto others, who are guilty mostly of the sin of neglect. It’s so hard to tease out that most of us simply cannot bother.

    Thus, the candid get lumped in with the whiny.

    Many times, I’ve been asked to go down rabbit holes. Often, the requester becomes an insister, who claims that if I don’t go down that rabbit hole to investigate the truth of what he says (and this rabbit hole may be 2000 miles away), that that demonstrates that I have no regard for the truth and am a Very Bad Person. On occasion, I do go down the rabbit hole, as I did regarding Rauhauser and crew, and find there is something there. Other times, I go down the rabbit hole and find that I have been given a set of unstrung data points held together with suppositions that are supposed all to tend in the direction of the desired interpretation, but I just don’t find it. That may or may not be because my discretion is compromised. Often, I am met with fury or scorn when I report that I don’t see what is manifestly apparent to the insister upon re-emerging.

    It is arduous work going down the rabbit holes and searching the warrens. Some of the people who insist I go have very slender claims on my efforts. They might say, for example, that in the hypothetical case that I’d asked them to do the same, they would have gone, and furthermore that they would have seen what I’d asked them to see, and they would have reported it. I am obligated. Honestly, their ‘gratitude’ isn’t worth that much to me. Generally speaking, because I have seen many of the things that Jeff has reported, I am much more inclined to go down such a rabbit hole for him, or for others whose observations I have confirmed repeatedly to my satisfaction. There are many people who regard themselves as terribly observant whose observations I cannot confirm, or who are unable to grok my own. I am going down no rabbit holes for them.

    So, they will say, I am prejudiced. And? They are supermen who practice no deference toward anyone based on ties of affinity, unlike such perjured people as I am.

    Ahem. Be that as it may, I’m going to reread this post and the comments again when I’ve got the time.

  159. Do I think that there’s some semi-organized blackballing that you’ve been subjected to? I don’t know, but I don’t think so. I think that it’s just the usual carking and backbiting and coalition-building politics that goes on in any society, and that people generally are a lot less fair and selfless and caring and conscientious and justified than they think they are, and that there’s a very great likelihood that I am among the guilty.

    Well, you may disagree. But I’ve seen the emails, I’ve seen the chats, and I’ve had emails long returned suddenly ignored.

    I think you understimate the lengths to which certain types of people will go.

    But you’re entitled to your opinion. I wish it were mine. As it stands, though — and either way — I feel better for having posted what it is I know. Had you watched over the last two years Malkin very pointedly ignore me, either through email or on Twitter, you’d perhaps have a different opinion.

    Nonetheless, as I say in the post, it was an unburdening. And freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose. Kris K. taught me that. Words to live by.

  160. On the other hand, there has been a lot of butthurt arising from injured egos in the scrum, and a lot of it has gone out of its way to find cover for its own legitimacy by projecting nasty motives onto others, who are guilty mostly of the sin of neglect. It’s so hard to tease out that most of us simply cannot bother.

    Why project when you have others’ motives written down for you by those very others?

    I’m going to draw out this punishment. Linger over it. Try to bring the maximum pain. I know people, you see. Goldstein thinks he’ll ever be able to publish a book? We’ll see about that. I’ll call in favors to keep that from happening. I’ll blacken his name so that he’s untouchable.

    To borrow a hackneyed phrase, given what I now know, I question the timing.

    YMMV.

  161. Jeff’s “crime” is that he vociferously….

    That, too.

    Gangnam Style is at 292,000,000 views and climbing because it is fun. Vociferousity is not fun. Fun is hard. Harder than math, even. Fun is way harder than being correct, clever, entertaining, or snarky.

    If you really want to get the word out be Fun, Concise and Iconic. And be on youtube. Then the links and non-links won’t matter.

  162. For now,though, I think I’ve presented compelling evidence that there are some orchestrated efforts to cull my readership.

    Being right matters less than being seen to be playing defense.

  163. Jeff, in my long 41 year life of silly rubbish I have NEVER known of anyone to successfully overthrow a clique policy, even one that the clique’s membership regrets. It only ever happens in teen comedy movies about high school.

    A herd is a herd is a herd and the shepherd leads the dominant rams who lead the rest of the flock and make sure that the old and the weak are on the outside where the predators (the ones that the shepherd fears) can get at them while the flock runs away.

    The only thing that ever works is the Revenge of the Nerds approach where you build your own parallel clique or alliance and unleash it on the world and out compete the old clique which causes them to come to you hat in hand for a chance to kick your ring or ass or whatever it is you want kissed.

    Then you have guys like Instapundit who are above the clique and think in terms of the industry instead of the players in that industry.

    You have no place in the old flock so become a shepherd and find some decent rams and let the those rams lead a big flock for you. And if you want to make a point of treating those rams and the new flock better than you were treated in the old flock then good on you.

  164. Also, auto-complete? It SUCKS!…BAD!

  165. ” Had you watched over the last two years Malkin very pointedly ignore me, either through email or on Twitter, you’d perhaps have a different opinion.”

    I noticed that the whole ” islamofascism ” topic in a number of blogs has thinned WAY OUT in a couple of years. And on Fox. I think Stacy McCain mentioned that several blog-meisters, having consolidated into a pseudo syndicate like quasi-organization of “respectable bloggers” were being told to tone it down lest hits and various forms of sponsorship and links all start to decline.

    I wonder if this ties in with Glenn Beck’s assertions that our media, charity networks, public outreach sector, NGO, political parties, and governments, have all been influenced and somewhat subverted by money from a network of Egyptian Brotherhood operatives.

  166. Could be, palaeomerus. Though I hardly would consider this particular site overly saturated with mideast stuff on a regular basis. Generally, it’s just when shit gets blown up and stuff.

  167. DC goes down JG’s rabbit hole.

    Developing…

  168. become a shepherd Amen to that.

    Or if not a shepherd, a curator. Think of the twelve ideas you would most like to implant in the public conscousness. Then write them up concisely, and set aside a place for them. Invite comment and criticism. When you find a better/simpler/clearer way to express the idea make the improvements.

    Give yourself a schedule, say once a month, so that you have ‘events’ that can be referred to, announced as news items, etc. Do proper PR for the artifacts you create and curate.

    In short, give your ideas an online presence and a life of their own.

  169. Being right matters less than being seen to be playing defense.

    To whom?

    And I’m not playing defense. I’m free. And now quite very dangerous, I suspect. Though not in the bullshit way some prosecutor tried to paint me.

    Let the pants shitting commence.

  170. ujee0Oot —

    Why do you read here? I’m getting the sense I’m not to your tastes.

    I’m not looking for the kinds of page views garnered by sites dissimilar to mine. I’m wondering why the sudden freeze out. That was the point of the post. It was an unburdening, and I’m happy its out there. Hopefully, no more hospital trips for chest pains.

    Blogwise, I don’t need fixing. I’m not looking for solutions to traffic (I don’t even have a sitemeter). I’m making an observation and trying to figure out precisely how the broadside against me was done. Why someone who supposedly has had such a profound influence on the new conservative message is kept out of conference, panel discussions, CPAC, etc. And I think I’ve found it. Simple as that.

    Beyond that, I’m beyond that.

  171. Also remember that you can self publish almost ANYTHING on a PDF or via Amazon as an e-book. Frank J. Fleming has put out quite a bit of stuff that way for free. And having read some of it, I can see WHY it’s free.

  172. was writing in the same complex prose back when I was in the top 5-15 blogs on the right.

    I suppose one could make the case that the readership of blogs has changed a bit. Maybe people come looking for Snooki posts and leave disappointed. Who knows?

    Well, of course when blogging started, you could put the argument forward that there was a more sophisticated audience. The more popular it became, the dumber it was “forced” to be.

  173. I’m … now quite very dangerous

    Oh, please. If nobody is reading you, you are irrelevant.

    I’m getting the sense I’m not to your tastes.

    You are mistaken about that.

    I’m not looking for solutions to traffic.

    I thought your rant was more about not being heard than about traffic. Traffic just happens when your message gets out.

    ..trying to figure out precisely how the broadside against me was done.

    An interesting question. Again, I took ‘not being heard’ as the root of it. Now that you have an answer, so what?

    Anyway, four posts in a thread is plenty, and I’m over that already. I’m happy your happy.

  174. s/your/you’re/ where appropriate.

  175. Oh, please. If nobody is reading you, you are irrelevant.

    Which is why I’m moving in a different direction. And one can be relevant based on what one’s managed to sneak into the conversation, even if it isn’t attributed to him or her.

    And I didn’t “rant.” I laid out my case soberly and carefully. I’d say concisely, but apparently what’s deemed “concise” is now decided solely on length of text and complexity of sentence structure. So I won’t bother claiming that.

  176. An interesting question. Again, I took ‘not being heard’ as the root of it. Now that you have an answer, so what?

    That’s your mistake. It’s not about being heard or not, it’s about why the black-balling. That you dismiss the black-balling as irrelevant is troubling.

    Especially as it’s a metaphor for everything Jeff teaches…

  177. Gangnam Style is at 292,000,000 views and climbing because it is fun. Vociferousity is not fun. Fun is hard. Harder than math, even. Fun is way harder than being correct, clever, entertaining, or snarky.

    Careful. Mr. Goldstein tends to take these sorts of things as challenges, but not in the way you or I would take it as a challenge. I fear an upcoming post from the Protein Wisdom Conceptual Series.

    Did I say “fear?” I meant “request.”

  178. If we’re making requests, maybe us with guest-posting privileges who have a gift (or even just a habit of borrowing without asking) for satire could help by writing some of our own stuff.

    Might get Jeff’s competitive streak going. He’ll blow us all out of the water and we’ll all be the better off for it.

  179. I wonder if this ties in with Glenn Beck’s assertions that our media, charity networks, public outreach sector, NGO, political parties, and governments, have all been influenced and somewhat subverted by money from a network of Egyptian Brotherhood operatives.

    It wouldn’t have to be the “respectables” who were compromised so much as the are cowed and intimidated into conformity by those who ARE compromised by the MB.

    I would also like to point out that Glenn Beck isn’t making the assertions: his sources are. He’s just the megaphone.

  180. Ujee0Oot wrote: You know, it need not be personal. Maybe the linking stopped because you are just too hard to parse. You are writing for your peers in literacy, and your writing is way over the heads of most readers I know….

    Jeff: I think part of the problem is that too many on the Right are, deep-down, really pragmitists. An example: Since the early 1990’s, I’ve been trying to warn my fellow Right Wingers of the danger of the Leftist style of thinking that has taken hold in all of our brains – the only differences being in the degrees of infection. The usual response if for them to say something like: ‘What does any of that have to do with fighting for a reduction in the tax rates or building up the Navy?’

    The modern man/woman of the Right seems to think debating the kind of things The Founders and you discuss are not relevant. This showcases their profound willful ignorance of what animated The Founding and that there would have been no Declarartion or Constitution without the contemplation of such ‘non-relevant’ matters.

    It will do us no good whatsoever is we secure any restoration of our freedoms and liberties, it will not be a long-lasting success, if we don’t purge the cancer of Leftist Thinking from all of our souls.

    We’re Doomed.

  181. Jeff, palaeomerus: That capo di tutti capi of Dhimmis, Grover Norquist, and others of his Useful Idiot ilk have seen to it that many conservative and libertarian organizations have accepted funding from Muslims.

    Look at your post on Morsi from today: it’s full of truth and righteous anger, and it’s just the kind of thing many on the Right shudder at reading and denounce, either because they don’t want to upset their donors or because they don’t want to accept the real danger Islam poses to Western Culture.

  182. You have no place in the old flock so become a shepherd and find some decent rams and let the those rams lead a big flock for you.

    This would be a good time for the “As one shepherd said to the other shepherd, ‘let’s get the flock out of here!’ ” line.

  183. The only thing that ever works is the Revenge of the Nerds approach where you build your own parallel clique or alliance and unleash it on the world and out compete the old clique which causes them to come to you hat in hand for a chance to kick your ring or ass or whatever it is you want kissed.

    I like a slightly different movie.

  184. Seeing all of that shit in real time was a real wild time. I don’t visit the DDA’s abode anymore. Same with LGF. Got banned there shortly after I was less than complementary here in some comment.

    Stacy and Glenn and Legal Insurrection and here are daily reads. Commenting from work is hard though. And they frown on it. But I’m still reading.

  185. Curiously, none of the blogs Jeff mentions are in my bookmarks anymore. Some of them were dumped even before the “good man” incident. That bullshit only confirmed what I already suspected.

    That was a fine “unburdening”, Jeff.

  186. I’ve been reading since the deb frisch days.

    Patterico is a f-ing scumbag, and I have no respect for Michelle malkin either, if she is willing to cut an excellent thinker and friend to death over a whisper campaign.

    I was banned from the green site many years ago, I don’t look at HotAir much anymore, and I’m down to ONE political blog for regular consumption – this one.

    All of this coincides with my divorce from the Republican party after the last election, and my refusal to vote this year.

    You will have to lead the outlaws Jeff. We’re the only one who will survive the collapse anyway.

Leave a Reply