Only this time, no dead sailors! So, you know, no harm, no foul.
(h/t Dave Price)
Meanwhile, in less important breaking news, “Troops cleared in Iraqi deaths is Ishaqi”:
A U.S. military probe has exonerated U.S. troops in the deaths of Iraqi civilians in the town of Ishaqi in March, finding American forces followed standard procedures and committed no misconduct, defense officials said on Friday.
The Ishaqi incident was one of a handful involving civilian deaths being investigated by the U.S. military, including the deaths of 24 civilians in the town of Haditha last November.
Police in Ishaqi, 60 miles north of Baghdad, have said six adults and five children were shot dead in a U.S. military raid on a home on March 15.
The U.S. military maintains there were four dead in the incident, including a guerrilla, two women and a child, and said they died after troops were fired upon from the house as they arrived to arrest an al Qaeda suspect.
The defense officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said an investigation found no wrongdoing by U.S. forces.
The officials said a military fact-finding inquiry determined that U.S. forces followed proper procedures and that the civilian deaths were unintentional.
Not the best way to start Keith Olbermann’s weekend, I realize, but hey—sometimes things just don’t bounce your way.
But buck up, Keith. We’ll always have Haditha. Right…?
Sorry Michigan.
Ask “liberals” why they wish for bad news from Iraq.
<crickets>
How would you like spin this, Jack? You got anything? Anything at all? C’mon- I’m pretty much open to anything.
Yeah, you SAY you’re sorry. We’ve got to live with him!
I’m confused, I know of the investigation of Haditha and this one but are there others? or is Reuters equating the word “handful” with 2?
Amazing how much these guys hate America…..
“We’ll always have Haditha”
Ha, ha.
When Americans are killed, you’re full of sanctimony. When Iraqi women and children die, it’s a punchline.
Did you have a pleasant walk, Mr. Goldstein?
Oh, bullshit, Scot. Did you not see the “Right?” that follows.
I haven’t posted on Haditha because I’m waiting for the findings to come out. But let’s just say I’m not yet sold on the way it’s been presented to this point.
Nor am I the one using individual incidents to try to throw into question the entirety of the war, or tarnish the reputations of the 130K soldiers not involved, even should Haditha turn out to be a massacre.
So I believe YOU need to save the sanctimony, pal. Me, I’m just going with the flow for the time being…
ABC radio news is referring to “massacres”. You can hear the glee in their voices, too.
I misread the Right (intentionalism, correct? I’m working on it)
In any case, I’m with you on waiting to see how the Haditha incident concludes.
That was big of you Scot. Not that it matters to you, probably, but I really respect you for that follow-up.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2006/06/the_two_minutes.html
^ seen this yet?
Scot,
Let me summarize my position. I think many here might agree with me, at least in part.
1) Atrocities are unacceptable (I don’t use a more fraught word; that one is sufficient.) People who commit atrocities should be found out and punished.
2) The United States does not pretend that all its citizens, or all its soldiers, are angels. Americans misbehave (again, a semi-neutral word) from time to time. When that happens they should be found out and punished, but it is arrogant stupidity to pretend that it does not or cannot happen.
3) I do not believe in identity politics or corporate punishment. Evildoers should be punished, but great effort should be made to avoid tarring the innocent with the same brush simply because they are members of some group. That is equally true of Marines and Muslims.
4) Much of the response to evildoing by Americans has been overwrought and political, violating clause (3) in an attempt to widen the blame. In particular, we have in our history the events at Abu Ghraib.
Leaving aside the political hyperbole: at Abu Ghraib prison Americans committed atrocities. They were reported; they were investigated, with due attention paid to their civil rights; charges were laid against them; and they were tried, convicted, and punished. This is precisely how it should be, and is in fact a model for how a liberal democracy should treat its evildoers in general. But that’s not how the “spin” went.
The American military does not condone atrocity, let alone promote it. In fact, a substantial portion of the training American military people receive is in the Laws of War and correct behavior under them—and the American military has a policy of behaving better than the Laws of War allow when it is possible. If American soldiers, Marines, sailors, or airmen commit atrocities every effort will be made to discover that and to punish them—paying all due attention to their civil rights as accused wrongdoers. But we have absolutely no confidence that that set of facts will be admitted to exist, let alone acknowledged or published. On the contrary, we expect with some confidence that the incidents will be used to generate hysterical overreaction.
Note that, like all overreaction, the actual result (as opposed to its notional intent) of the reactions to Abu Ghraib was perverse. Around the world torturers go to work with a light heart, confident in the assurance of the World Left that beheading, genital mutilation, burning, branding, and the other delicate arts of abusive questioning as a civil servant, expecting a regular salary and a pension later, is morally identical to being punished severely for procedures they would consider overly delicate and excessively kind. Jeff expects (as do I) that the “coverage” of the Haditha incident (and others) will have a similar total effect. He thus expresses irony.
Regards,
Ric
tw: based. The reality-based community has gotten too far into the FOA for reliable communications with base.
Jeff,
I’m afraid the fever is going to infect the rationality of the populace. I don’t know the story of Haditah and I’m trying to refrain from reading too much about it until the official reports come out. I would like to see the evidence of what happened rather than the conjecture or just one (biased) side.
But there has already been screams of cover up out there, although the Corps was investigating prior to the Time report. I’m haveing trouble not equating the Haditha incident with the Duke case. Seems to be a lot of parrallels there with the “rush to prejudge”.
Also kudos to you Scott. Welcome.
Shit, Ric….how come you always steal my thunder….and make it louder and better than I can?
(rls slinks away, tail dutifully between his legs)
No, the Pentagon is not Israel’s Gurkha regiment.
Israel doesn’t need one.
They get about 3 billion dollars a year in American foreign aid.
Every year.
Given, by the way, with little or no debate.
So powerful is the Israeli lobby in the US, such aid is not even debatable.
Which means the Israelis can do anything they want to the Palestinians, and they do.
Time to cut the Israelis loose. So far as I can see they do a pretty good job of defending themselves.
The Israelis have historically treated the Palestinians like dirt and as long as they have unqualified American support, they will continue to do so.
Carl,
And the problem is…..??????
Y’know, Carl, your attitude is more insulting than your posts.
You have, at one time or another, bloviated that the United States is controlled by the Zionist lobby, as here, and that it is controlled under the table by the Saudis acting through corrupt politicians.
If either one is true the other cannot be; they are mutually exclusive assertions. Clearly you don’t expect us to remember anything, so you can spit your non-sequiturs in the confident expectation that they fall on virgin ground. P* on that. If you’re going to be taken seriously as a moonbat conspiracist, pick a conspiracy and run with it instead of bouncing all over the damn place.
Oh, and f* you and your Noble White Steed with your Gleaming Sword of Justice, OK?
Regards,
Ric
You know Carl, sometimes you actually make sense and other times (like now) you are just a “talking points repeater”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If the Palestinians would unilaterally disarm, there would be an end to violence. If the Israeli’s would unilaterally disarm, there would be an end to Israel.
Now, based on that statement, who controls how the Palestinians are being treated?
Besides that, Israel is the <b>onlyM/b> country in the ME that even gives a shit about the Palestinians. The Arabs treat them like dirt.
How does Carl’s post even fit into this topic?
Just out of curiousity, how much US aid is going to the PA, Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab/islamic countries?
TW: BECAUSE OF THE BROWN PEOPLE!!!
Why would they say that? Oh well. One day Iraq will be sovereign, and they’ll decide these truths, not some foreign force.
I guess that’s progress.
It doesn’t, Master Tang. But that’s Carl.
It is impressive, mind you, that Carl has heard of the Gurkhas. I once shared a trans-Atlantic flight with a retired Brit non-com who had spent most of his service attached to one of the few Gurkha regiments still in existence, and the stories he had to tell were awe-inspiring. Even better than those in Byron Farwell’s book.
Carl,
You complain about $3 billion/year in US aid to Israel? Are you even aware that the amount is set by treaty?
Perhaps you remember one Jimmah Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work is “creating” peace in the ME. Part of the Camp David Accords, signed by Sadat, Begin and Carter, called for 20% of all US foreign aid to be split between Egypt and Israel, in effect paying a “ransom” to these two belligerants to stop warring on each other.
Of course, for his efforts, Sadat was soon assisinated by radical islamists within his own armed forces.
So, before you bemoan the “aid” we lavish
‘without question or debate’ upon Israel, get the facts and learn the history. To cut off Israel would effectively aborgate an international treaty
we entered into, ratified by Congress. Aborgation of the financial committment would also free Egypt to enter into open warfare with Israel and establish that America’s treaties mean nothing in the region.
You people are pathetic.
Even if the alleged massacre at Haditha didn’t happen, we’re still saddled with a war launched on bogus pretenses against a country that had noting to do with the 9/11 attacks. Tell me, are you more concerned about the truth about Haditha, or are you more concerned about distracting the rest of us from the “Rah Rah! Rah!” attitude many of you displayed in the run-up to that bullcrap invasion?
Yes, that’s a rhetorical question…
Yes, I’m trying to distract us from the “Rah Rah! Rah!†attitude we displayed in the run-up to the bullcrap invasion.
Is it working?
Jeebus. Is there no fucking end to these leftist shitheads staggering into this joint and dropping the same, tired, steaming load of leftist turd talking points into these comment threads like that shit is, in any way, fresh?
Asked and answered, Mimus. Rhetorical or not, asked and answered. A long time ago.
That was pretty good, Mimus, but we’re gonna have to dock you a few points for not using some form of the phrase “no WMDs” and for leaving out the word “neocon” entirely.
Thanks for playing.
Isn’t is amazing that in a post that discusses findings which exonerate US troops, no less than 3 people have jumped into the thread to change the subject away from Ishaqi. And even Haditha.
How does that debating rule go? “Losers always change the subject”. Or something like that.
Even if the alleged massacre at Haditha didn’t happen, we’re still saddled with a war launched on bogus pretenses against a country that had noting to do with the 9/11 attacks.
Mimus,
This is why it’s a waste of time to listen to you and your ilk about these matters. You only care about this incident to the extent that it furthers your narrative about the war.
Ah, yes, another person who thinks murdering 30K people per year, torturing tens of thousands more, destroying wetlands in order to disposses people, and stealing food from children to build palaces was a wonderful thing; that Saddam, such a great guy, we should have left him alone. After all, he wasn’t doing it to us, and we weren’t doing it, so it’s just Culture, and Those People Over There understand the Culture and go along with it.
Oh, and by the way, Mimus is from the Left. Mimus is compassionate.
Of course the whole effort is useless, because Those People will never understand Democracy or Western Life and will just go back to killing one another. They are, after all, brown, and they have a different culture which must be appreciated, not to mention left strictly alone to rot.
Oh, and by the way, Mimus is from the Left. Mimus is an egalitarian.
Regards,
Ric
Well Keith Olbermann can always go back to sports, or wherever the hell he came from, but what’s Chris Matthews going to do?
Oh the humanity. No Nuremburg with Bush and Rumsfeld in the dock.
TW: range. Rifle range. Ready on the left. Ready on the right. Shooters, take aim at your dog targets… Matthews. Olbermann. Hmm.
The way the world’s collective head explodes when American troops commit crimes must mean that we’re viewed as a superior culture whose members are expected to behave as such.
No one bats an eye when Arabs blow up, dismember, behead, rape, starve, torture, etc. Nobody cared when the French mowed down all those unarmed Ivory Coasters.
Africans, South Americans, and Central Asians? They’re free to slaughter to their hearts’ content. Pakistanis can even throw acid in womens’ faces and it’s fine.
The only ones expected to behave like human beings are Israelis and Americans, so the world must see as as the best of the best.
I know I do.
Must see us as the best of the best, I meant to write.
Present company excepted, natch, Robert Godwin has to be the greatest mind in the blogosphere. (“One Cosmos”)
While I simplistically rant about the clear, inherent mental disorder of leftism as evidenced by the willfully irresponsible driveby moonbats in this thread, Godwin, a psychologist, condenses the entire universe of leftard psychosis, pathologies, and flat lies into some of the most elegant, methodical, and clinically astute insights on group disorder for the layman I’ve ever read. Brisk, clear, penetrating, and wholely objective.
And when he’s horsing around he’s got a fabulous sense of humor:
tw: The Left is past ridiculous.
One more snippet from Godwin that may explain Jeff’s drive by moonbats. They’re simply whacked:
tw: The Hard Left.
Ric, you are hot tonight. Bang on, man.
TW: needs, as in needs to give trols an ass whipping
– As I said in an earlier post, the Left HAS to follow an all-out assualt on the entire WOT program, or face yet another round of loses if they can’t marginalize things, (because of an enherent tendency for the electorate to resist party changes in the middle of any conflict).
– As things stand, so far they just look weak, with the cut and run memes of their various leaders. A Bad situation they’ll try to remedy by stepping up the rhetoric to a fevor pitch. Pretty transparent, and not nearly as effective as in the past, prior to the advent of the internet, and high speed communications.
– With this desperate need of trashing the WOT, coupled with zero plan they can share with the public, (“All Socialism, All the time”, gets kicked to the curb in American elections), I give them 1 chance in 10. Not good odds.
– A lie is followed right out the door by the truth these days, instead of lies leading by miles and days. Perceptions still count, but lies/propaganda can only mimic truth for a very short time, unfortunately for the left, so they tend to not carry the day anymore.
– In a world of hard facts, the left is in a alien landscape, and a world of hurt.
Mimus alleges that Bush used “bogus pretexts” to justify the liberation of Iraq: this is both a Freudian slip and a textbook case of the rhetorical figure of litotes. To say that Bush’s “pretexts” were “bogus” is much the same as saying that his reasons were (and are) falsely alleged to be false, which is to say they are for the most part true. Poor Mimus is a neocon without even knowing it.
Ten years ago the Left had massive preemptive momentum in the MSM and among PC conventional wisdom. Attack-press and a smug academic establishment molded the entire nation.
Today’s Left is increasingly brittle, hysterical, enraged, and transparent. What was once a trendy little game of political selfcenteredness and stereotypical villians got a little too real. The Internet, like call-in radio, didn’t help: People asked questions.
That and apparently bullshit has karma.
– They need the WOT off the table by the time 2008 rolls around, or they know they’re toast. If a really excellant statesman, generally widely popular Conservative figure wins the next one, two terms is almost assured. That’s 10 more years they face before they’re even back in the game. Any wonder anything goes?
Good one on the Godwin links, 6Gun. I especially liked this one:
Diversity is the philosophy that treasures neo-Marxists of all skin colors and sexual deviations.
And once again, Master Tang bows in deep respect to Ric. He is the true opposite of gnorwdab.
Nothing I said was meant to indicate I have any confidence in the ostensible Right winning again any time soon, BBH. They blew ‘94 and they blew ‘00. I’d bet dinner at your local watering hole the Dems take the Oval Office in ‘08. I don’t see either a eloquent conservative on the horizon or tolerance in this country for anything to the right of left-moderate.
Chronic want of a conservative candidate coupled with either Gore’s relatively docile character or Hilary’s sheer madness means hard times ahead for the Republicans, wooden dolts and capitulators that they historically are. I have zero trust in this country’s ability to reason through either a Gore or Clinton candidacy.
Regardless who wins, it wouldn’t surprise me one iota if the consensus surrounding the winner was that Gore still wasn’t radical enough. And while he’s enough of an egotist not to visibly commit unless presented a complete set of keys to 1600 Pennsylvania 8 months ahead of time, I think he’s still the Left’s smartest choice.
Which is fine. Nothing builds national character like a crisis. And that’s next on the menu if the Democrats sweep anything above the floor of a latrine.
Leftist bullshit is outing itself 24/7. But you can always fool enough people enough of the time to perpetuate our 100-year slide left to apathy, socialism, bread-throwing, and a general American loathing of will and principle.
– Agreed Six, with this priviso. A person with real “star power”, like a Guiliano for instance, could walk away with it all, because I’m feeling a certain weariness with the whole Left/Right thing from a lot of the people I know. Rudy’s got just enough Reaganese in him, and that Clinton type of automatic Likable charm, it could happen. I think people would go for someone they felt they could trust and really like.
– Baring something like that, I second your general assessment, again providing the left can pull it together, and not self destruct from over the top in-fighting between the “new Left” and the Clintonista’s. But I don’t think “we’re not Bush” has a chance. Especially against a new Face with a good history.
– You put up a ticket of Giuliani/Rice, you could really box the Left into a corner. They can’t afford to lose ANY of their Black voter base. If they hammered Rice openly they’re caught.
Also agreed, BBH. Your variables include political fatigue and atypical candidates and/or combinations of candidates. Mine did not. The former is almost palpable, albeit nowhere near critical mass; the latter is a potential answer to it. Wouldn’t that be something?
My point is that among the usual leftard suspects and their crawling hive of maggots, algore is a surprisingly attractive choice. I’m going to go shoot myself in the head now.
Or…perhaps it’s time to break the mold entirely. I’d pay to see that too.
tw: England. Jeez, we’re surrounded.
– Yes, and yes. But I’d put that “faces and aces” combo up against the Gore man any day of the week, if for no other reason than I’m sure at some point he’d do a Deaniac meltdown that, coupled with the “throw the rascals out, fresh face” angle, would cast the die.
BBH,
Ain’t gonna happen.
I’ve been in love (unrequited, long-distance) with Ms. Rice since I first saw her picture, but she’s never held elective office or had any interest in running for one. National Security Advisor to an ‘08 Republican, maybe, but from watching the news I think Condi’s found her element at State. This is a good thing; the last time we had effective diplomacy in this country we were still depending on people with unspellable names and East European accents. (“Effective” is not synonymous with “good”.)
Giuliani? Maybe, but I don’t think so. Giuliani would be a credible 1964 Democrat; a 2008 Republican? Nah, we haven’t drifted that far left in a mere forty years. I’d vote for Condi with a light heart. Rudy… is a much tougher sell. I don’t own guns, a personal decision, but my friends and neighbors who do are extremely suspicious of the guy.
Of course, I personally am a blue dog (negative of a yellow one, that is). If Hilairity runs I’ll vote for somebody else, and if Osama bin Laden wants to be President of the U.S. he should move here and try for the Republican nomination against H. Clinton. I won’t say he’d win, but it would be a nail-biter.
Regards,
Ric
Heh – Ric you uncharacteristically left me an opening. Rudy’s percular combination of “elastic” left/rightness could upset the balance and polarity, something neither side would be able to bank on, but a very real possibility. All he’d have to do is offset right losses with left gains, and he’d capture Bush’s margins.
– And Rice – heh. Rice as Veep, would be as close to an elected official as you can get without really being one, and its a slam dunk she’d get at least some minority swing vote. /smirkle off
So the consensus is no miracle tickets. Can’t say that isn’t eminently logical; it hasn’t happened before, why would ‘08 be different?
So back we go to the creeps known as late-nineties Democrats on the batshit side of the aisle, all of whom have been burnishing their Bushco-hating creds in one fashion or another as of late. Them we have with us always.
Which leaves a vacuum on the Right. Such as it is.
I mean Jeb Bush?! McCain?
tw: Somebody name somebody. Quick.
– The silence is deafening…. throw two shells in that pistola partner….
TW: shot …If I were you Turing twit, I’d put a cork in it, or it might be three shells….
Apply the mentality of today’s appeaseniks to WWII and you get: “Let he who is without sin liberate Auschwitz.”
Okay, I can’t name anyone. But for the first time since I’ve been lurking here, I have to disagree with Ric. Osama would be perfectly happy with Kerry or Gore, as he proved in the 2004 election.
And I really hate to say it, but I would consider voting for Jeb before I’d back the straight-jacket express job.
I do agree Condi probably won’t run. Too bad. And what’s up with Newt?
Before I forget, I have to say, Ric, it’s great when you sign “Regards” to the bowed and bloodied trolls you treat to your vorpel blade.
Knew I’d forget something. OBL would also wanna run on Hillary’s ticket if he got a chance.
TW: knew
I’d forget. But remembered to admit it.
– What, and leave no room for Zarqawi? Besides, then the Left would have to “out” the real name of its Party: The Whahbicrats (Jihad ticket)
Make that Wahhabicrats …. whatever…
Looks as though N.Todd is now polluting the Valve with his vulgar progressive thoughts. Christ, how liberating it must be to blog semi-anonymously!
Writes Mr N. Todd Pritzky:
Well, I’m not sure who “Dogtown” is, but as you seem to be making a veiled threat, I’ll just let him know that, should he wish to contact you, I know where YOU live and work, and I’m glad to provide him with the information should he feel threatened.
You have made this way too personal.
Oh, and if you are recently singled (as your site says), you might want to update your bio. Love the picture, though! Such a winning smile!
Tell you Jeff… the more I see of that gutter pigs posts, the more I’d bet hes the source of “The Post”….
Fuck him. He’s a mountain bike riding faux hippie IT geek. Who is into to “nonviolence.”
Which, ever notice how these non-violence folks are some of the most vile writers on the web?
I think the dude should just come out here to Colorado and hit me a couple times. Might do him some good.
just not in the face okay?
Keith Olbermann, he was better when he said “Put the bisket in the basket” on ESPN and left the news Dan Rather.
AHHH, MY FACE!!!
whiskeyashes.blogspot.com is Thersites’ (now just “Thers”) new digs.
I suspect that his employer read his old site and told him he was an embarassing dick, and had to take it down.
That’s Dr Andrew Haggerty to you, you paste-eating wanker fucktard moron drug abuser who is so stupid that you make me want to stomp my feet.
Whiskyashes, eh? Must be what they call the pub near the Community College.
I’ve heard them called “High school with ashtrays.”
Frankly I’m glad they’re around. Else my little brother would still be a dropout waiting tables, rather than slowly getting his act together via tha AB, BA, and now MBA route.
I’m glad they’re around too. Just a shame that at least one of them is stocked with a pair of venom-spitting dolts who are probably teaching night students that language demands of them that they vote for Howard Dean.
Withal…
Using my brother as an example, they’re impervious to that sort of stuff.
Why does online integrity still link to you?
Well, I suppose it’s because I didn’t “out” anyone.
And in fact, had not N Todd Pritzky not pressed the issue, all of Andrew and Mary’s info would have remained redacted.
But hell if I’m going to let somebody suggest I was even partially responsible for “threats against their family,” or for the vile shit said about their kids. Sorry, but if you are going to slander me, than put your name behind it.
Keep pressing your luck, actus.
I see that over the last few days actard has been engaged around here as if s/he has finally earned the normal discourse folks grant honest individuals.
If any of the communications during this incident have been actionable, I expect that the repeated assertion that JG has threatened Thersites family and violated his privacy, both criminal acts, are the more likely candidates.
Web authors are not immune from libel laws.
http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c01p01.html
From Haggerty’s new
spew pitblog:Translation: “I got well and truly b-u-s-t-e-d, lying about a chimerical ‘threatening post’ made earlier. Jeff Goldstein pwned me more savagely and thoroughly than Micah Ian Wright and Jessie Macbeth put together. I am, in the final analysis, nothing more than a simple, sniveling, paste-eating man-beeyotch.”
Heh.
Oh, he said he would comment on eschalon about it. And, he has his toadies bringing it up in every other comment on any blog they can find. In some bizarre self-paradoy, they refer to us as the petit bourgiose. lol!
He and Mary really would be better served to let the whole thing go.
Seriously. His toadies (and what is he, a guru? Who the fuck follows a community college prof with an expertise in Irish lit as read through Foucault?) are doing more to keep this alive than anything I’ve done.
In fact, I keep forgetting all about it, when suddenly some new bag of shit decides to reignite the issue.
This will end soon enough.
Yeah, it’s getting really annoying.
If it doesn’t end soon, someone might start posting links to Broome Community College in each of their comments on any sites where these accusations appear. Because if you post Broome Community College links in this way, when someone at Broome Community College searches the school’s name, most of the initial entries will be about how Andrew is dragging Broome Community College’s name through the mud.
Even a student at Broome Community College would realize that it’s time to let it go.
– The Five Top Reasons For Attending Broome Community College :
5. You get automatic enroolment at Broome Community College if you’re a registered Democrat.
4. At Broome Community College , we don’t believe in course structure or metriculation. We just “wing-it”.
3. Broome Community College teaches you all you’ll need to know about the difference between chicken legs and penise’s, by hands on, and oral experience.
2. Broome Community College is co-located to many fine local “watering holes”, where co-eds get “half-off”, on all navel shots.
– And the #1 reason:
1. By the time you graduate from Broome Community College, we’ll have you screaming like Dean, swearing like a sailor, and begging to vote a straight Liberal ticket.
– Remember our school motto:
”Broome Community College , where the “Elite” meet the street.”
Ms. Jean-Phillipe is such a pretty young lady. Too bad that she is a Liberal Arts Major at Broome Community College.
You mean like this?
Well yes Pot…. But you forgot the Public service to the Broome Community College , by omitting the link.
Community colleges like Broome Community College , need all the free publicity they can get.
Broome Community College: ”The Post-High School High School!”
No, PKB, like the hundreds of turds all over the blogosphere Andrew Haggerty’s toadies been dropping. As usual, the leftwads whine when the shit they fling splashes back on them.
FUCKING BROOME COMMUNITY COLLEGE!, YOU FUCKING PASTE-EATERS!
”Broome Community College President Dr. Spraggs Larry To Reassign Inanities Professor to Lectern Duty This Friday Evening – While 1,053 Students Graduate As 2006 Semester Concludes.”
I don’t think that’s the standard that Online Integrity uses. I don’t think they take the same view of privacy and anonymity as, say, the fourth amendment. Their standard isn’t about what you have kept from third parties. Its about your “wishes.” To me it looks much stronger than the 4th. But who knows if that was their intent.
But you didn’t out. You just asked for some information about him, hosted his identity, and then repeated it. That seems to be not in tune with:
“No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted.” and “Persons seeking anonymity or pseudonymity online should have their wishes in this regard respected as much as is reasonable.”
Perhaps Online Integrity’s undoing is that its statement is quite strong. Stronger than some of our own feelings of our own integrity.
I think you mean libel, one which may just get 1st amendment protection. To me it makes it less believable that it has no name behind it. But thats just because i’m a believer in anonymity. And his suggestion was quite weak. And due to this weakness, not quite misleading.
Every word spewed by actus is either in the furtherance of an outright lie or is determinded to obfuscate, hide or distract from whatever the primary message of a post is. He’s smart enough, clearly, to actually contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way, and yet chooses not to.
It’s sad, and it’s becoming annoying.
Well, I mean libel when its written, slander when they talk amongst themselves.
But note that the Online Integrity Pledge talks about “as much as is reasonable.”
And to me, if you are going to hide behind your academic bona fides in what is ostensibly an academic argument while denigrating the professional training of your opponent, you should expect that those credentials be examined—particularly if they are publicly available.
Perhaps you should be concentrating on those who didn’t sign the Pledge, actus—particularly on their idea that because they didn’t sign it, they have free rein to write whatever they want to about the people who have.
Even now, this crew of largely anonymous pissants is spreading a story they know to be false; and you know what? I’m just not going to sit back and watch someone take shots at my reputation while hiding behind an identity shield. Pledge or no pledge.
I’m not really sure what determinded means, but since as it’s author, I am now freed from any responsibility from the words meaning, use it as you like.
Jeff… seriously: pull the trigger. Please.
– I’m pretty sure Jeff, that when a protagonist intentionally, and without provocation, broaches the boundries of decency, civility, and capricious slander,you are relieved of any constraints, within the law of course, to honor any self-imposed “higher minded guidelines”, particularly when said grievances, and repeated slanders continue apace.
– I think what started as a simple link whoring excersize, to pump up site hits, turned into something quite a bit different, manifestly ugly, and out of control. Leftist leaders, even small peanut local ones like Andrew, lack the experience needed when trying these pony tricks, most especially when your gaggle is a pack of howling, anger driven, moonbats, already suffering deep resentment over a series of humiliating defeats.
– His inglorious exit was most likely participated from a sudden fear of potential backlash in his professional setting, and the obvious truth he’d lost control of the unruly mob. Even now they continue, desperately trying to regain and prop-up, their badly dented ego’s.
To all of which I say, if you can’t do the time, then don’t do the crime.
And such backlash, were it to happen, would likely be the result of the buckets of bile and childish invective with which the metacomments blog was built. It would be silly to expect to be taken seriously by anyone who has read that blog and isn’t a raving moonbat. Thirsty knows this, hence the deletion of the blog.
You’d think that the cognitive dissonance would come home to roost. But then, you’d think that after these connections were made in the course of his Althouse affair, Thirsty would refrain from attacking high profile bloggers. You’d think.
You can’t fix stupid.
Thats the thing, to me, if you’re anonymous, you don’t have academic bona fides, and thats the end of that. Thats a price of anonymity. But again, I think you’re taking a view of public availability different than OnlineIntegrity’s.
Well, in the past you erased my comments on Malkin’s actions. So I think I should avoid bringing her up again.
More power to you. But that’s why I’m wondering why you’re still there. Because your attitude to it is “pledge or no pledge.”
On Another topic, I found another example of “back of the bus” language for you:
Who said bush doesn’t like black people? Its the gay-hate right he doesn’t like.
Haggerty, ranting at Althouse’s blog:
“I think if Althouse goes bananas and tries to smear innocent people, her commenters would cheer her on no matter what the actual facts of the incident would happen to be.”
Now, there’s irony for you!
Kent, this is also priceless:
I wonder if Thirsty got the IP address of that one.
Let’s hope that this is the last of them.
from NTodd:
.. I’ll hold my BCC links ‘til I see more of the same instigating behavior.
Jeff,
I do appreciate that.
I’d say you deserve credit for standing your ground in the infamous Paste exchanges. You laid out your position clearly. The other guy didn’t. That’s not saying I agree with your conclusions. And I’m still a bit unclear on how intentionalism informs your politics.
But, hey, I really enjoyed your notes on literary theory.
Yeah, like no one knows his name is Andrew Haggerty. And how did I learn it? Not from any links here but from information posted by ntodd on ntodd’s blog. How’s that for irony. lol!
Scot:
If you’re comment is directed towards mine – I’m not Jeff.
But thanks anyway
BCC, I was answering something higher up on the thread.
Ann Althouse has a post on the kerfluffle.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/06/blind-item.html
Well I’m glad to know that Ann’s moved on