« Dumb Letter to the Editor |
| Interesting Potential Primary »
Spank That Donkey is back and has some thoughts on the blog world fall out this week.
UPDATE: The blogosphere's newest RINO responds. :)
December 29, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b13369e200d834d8681553ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A different perspective:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
December 29, 2006 at 10:33 AM
Here's what I think-we all the democratic bloggers) put up pics, go out together, and have no problem providing our identities. They, on the other hand, all hide. So, I now think, and will continue to post as such, that every single one of those people that likes to stick together and hang out as the "dog" points out, ARE ALL ONE AND THE SAME PERSON. Swac, Elle, the Dog, John, and the rest. If you read, all they do is link back to one another and pat each other on the back. Swac stalked me and my site and started some psychopathic war with me, but then let John Maxfield come after me instead when I questioned the tactics. Elle is brand new, and talks just the STD. I just don't think it's rocket science; so one Republican blogger has a lot of time on his/her hands I guess. Oh well.
Again, who cares?
December 29, 2006 at 10:43 AM
You are so thinned skinned about a little parody that GGD did on you, that you had your 'daddy' NLS, drop by GGD's comments page to accuse me of being GGD, and ask us to stop!! whaaaaa...
STD is a psyud I use for levity... You know what that means? Apparently not.
To set the record straight, all of this started with foul language left on SWAC Girls, site.
I guess your disgust of psyeds applies to jaded JD and John Behan too.. (among others)
Grow Up! Your Macaca of of Virgil was derailed, and now you have to defend Islamofascists... have fun with that...
Caroline County Justice has even adjusted his BS meter for your silly dribble :-)
Spank That Donkey |
December 29, 2006 at 10:55 AM
See what I mean?
No, I have no problem with jaded JD and John Behan and some others. I think some of the Repuclican bloggers deserve appluase and a pat on the back for doing a wonderful job; you and your clan just aren't in that category. And every time you try to bait me with clicking one of your silly links, it doesn't work. I could care less that some other pseudonym thinks I am bullshitting. All I know is that I struck a nerve with all of you, and now my detailed site meter shows many of you obsessed with me. So, yay me, I guess.
December 29, 2006 at 11:01 AM
Thanks for proving you have nothing but a foul mouth! How about cen$oring your words one time...
You guys act like you are the paragons of the internet... Hah!!
Spank That Donkey |
December 29, 2006 at 11:40 AM
This group of "unwashed" bloggers has completely changed the face of the debate.
The simple fact that JC went to great lengths to "out" Maxwell tells me that he was starting to touch a nerve with some of you lefties.
I'm not affiliated with that group of rag tag bloggers. I don't know who they are but I can tell you from the vantage point of a casual observer that they have been dancing circles around all of you lately.
December 29, 2006 at 11:44 AM
Jaime - I think you have folks hiding behind anonymous and pennames on both sides, and many do it to do and say as they please without any fear of recourse. Then there are those who are professional about it but understand the impact on their professional life. Then there are those who use their real names and again do whatever they please. So there is no broad brush for either side, really.
December 29, 2006 at 11:45 AM
Great, awesome, who cares. Point of the story-they are all the same person in my eyes, they aren't good at what they do, and they have rec'd enough attention from all of us. Keep giving them what they want if you wish to, but I for one am done. You want to think you all "won" a round, then so be it; you think what you want to think anyway, so nothing is new. I guarantee the second we all go back to paying them no mind they will be silence once again.
December 29, 2006 at 01:04 PM
Whether the come back or not is irrelevant. There are larger issues and larger lessons at play here.
They changed the focus of the debate. Pure and simple.
Others will follow in their steps. The issues may change but I suspect that you'll see another clash or two in the future.
I, for one, am greatly amused by it all. Where is Doug, lately?
We could use a good dose of his humor.
December 29, 2006 at 01:13 PM
One, if I was inclined to come up with a dumb name for a blog, I'd probably try to at least make sure it didn't acronym to STD.
Two, I'm susprised an attorney like Rowhey so voiciferously defends a guy who was impersonating an attorney.
Not Ben |
December 29, 2006 at 01:18 PM
Ugh, it's actually a huge disappointment. Turns out there are a lot less of us on both sides than I thought. Too bad.
I'm going shopping and to lunch with Thadd. We are both real live people, in case anyone wnats to know. ;)
O/T, but can anyone clue me in as to why there are no BYOB restaurants in VA? Coming back from being able to do that in NJ is such a letdown; you save a bundle.
December 29, 2006 at 01:18 PM
First I'll answer your question why no BYOB restaurants in Virginia.
I'm not sure of the particulars because a lot of legal issues associated with liquor by the drink predates my 21st birthday -- by many years.
But, I think that certain laws and regs were set forth as part of a compromise in allowing Virginia restaurants to offer "liquor by the drink."
Virginia is a quirky state with respect to booze. In the old days, you had to go to the ABC store and order a "package" by a certain number or letter. Item "A" for Jim Beam fifth, etc.
The old ABC stores looked like pharmacies instead of liquor stores.
Very quirky. Very southern.
December 29, 2006 at 01:27 PM
New subject PJ, Why change up now?
Spank That Donkey |
December 29, 2006 at 01:39 PM
and on using a psyd.. It installs levity and self deprecation... into the conversation?
Wasn't Jaded JD like an ex-patriot living in Arizona or something, don't remember what occupation he claimed..
Maybe Maxfield wanted to protect his identity so he wouldn't be harrass? Saying he was a lawyer, can get people off track pretty quick...
None of this matters to Left of Center psyds though.. I mean who is going after them?
Spank That Donkey |
December 29, 2006 at 01:43 PM
Huh. That is pretty interesting, Rowhey. In NJ, you cannot buy a drop in a grocery store or gas station or 7-11, like we can in VA. There are liquor stores that sell all the alcohol, big and small stores.
STD-I don't believe for one second that you all had a master plan to change topics and detract from Virgil Goode. Never in a million years would you and your 4 other personalities be that smart. You realized you lost, and now this is your argument. People can buy it if they want, I don't.
But in the spirit of the new year, perhaps we can all be more reponsible and better bloggers. It's about politics, not attacking one another. I'm willing to give it a try. I'll wait and see what happens on your end.
December 29, 2006 at 01:45 PM
Now, I am going to lunch, so bye.
December 29, 2006 at 01:46 PM
You ask a good question and I'll tell you that I am less offended by the antics of Mr. Maxfield than I the efforts of someone who blantantly called him a "felon" -- when the statute proscribing the practice of law without a license as a Class One misdemeanor. And, I never saw his actions as one that came even close to violating the statute.
Maxfield (or, whatever name he/she now professes) is a first-class provocateur. Frankly, I could tell that he wasn't an attorney from day one. However, I thought his trial vignettes were hilarious.
I could tell immediately that he wasn't an attorney. Yet, there were folks over at RK and here who were getting their panties in a bunch over whether this Maxfield had a listing on Martindale Hubbell.
I suppose some of those folks wanted him to do the perp walk since they didn't get one with Karl Rove.
On a broader level, I am greatly troubled by what I see as a continuing pattern of "outing" and "one-upmanship" here on these blogs. People use pseuds. It allows them to speak more freely without fear reprisal.
There are many who disagree with me but I see "outing" as a form of intimidation and harassment. It certainly isn't done with any good will and cheer, is it?
"Outing" is an attempt to silence that poster. Pure and simple.
I'm sure that JC realizes that he acted in haste and under the effects of the anger that gripped him. That's how mistakes happen.
And, Virginia has certainly had its share of political operatives who paid a heavy price for acting without looking at the consequences.. Some of them came from the GOP and some of them are Dems.
We need to learn from their mistakes.
Outing has to stop.
December 29, 2006 at 01:57 PM
Agreed, and the 'outing' is further proof (as you stated that JM, GGD were quite effective...
I will drop a hint, and fact, there are separate people to each blog. The blending had to do with bringing the court room to Waldo's Aggregator...
I am glad you enjoyed the humor, I wish it were mine! & I wish the Lefty crowd had a sense of humor too, especially Waldo...
Atleast, Ben gets the jokes!
Spank That Donkey |
December 29, 2006 at 02:06 PM
Humor is the most effective weapon. It is why Rush Limbaugh has been so effective...and so villified by the left.
December 29, 2006 at 02:14 PM
"I wish the Lefty crowd had a sense of humor"
Boo! It's a man with a severed head. Get it? No, it's funny. It's a joke. Look, the terrorists just cut it off. He's holding his own head in his lap. How comical.
Why aren't you laughing? Yeah, you lefties just have no sense of humor.
Harry Landers |
December 29, 2006 at 03:08 PM
No, unfortunately, this whole incident isn't proof that a clever righty blogger was "getting to" the lefties by posting a tasteless, over the top picture of a decapitated American.
It's simply proof of intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
An American decaptiated by a terrorist is not an argument for defending Virgil Goode's bigoted remarks about the right of an elected official to be sworn in on the Koran.
Anybody, left or right, who thinks that GGD's post was an effective defense needs to seriously take a class somewhere in rethoric and the art of debate.
The implication that all Muslims are terrorists so therefore Virgil was right is a logical fallacy, and also a cognitive disorder, called overgeneralization. Bigots are particularly prone to this logical fallacy.
All Muslims are terrorists to the exact same degree that all Christians are anti-semitic because a few, like Mel Gibson, are. Or because Torquemada was when he ran the Spanish Inquisition. Every Christian that I personally know would be rightly insulted if somebody made such a ridiculous argument and they'd also be right to be outraged. Likewise, all Southerners aren't bigots because David Duke is one. Are any of you actually detecting a pattern here?
Overgeneralization and prejudice are inaccurate ways to view the world. And so falling prey to overgeneralization does not strengthen an argument. Neither does a tasteless picture that proves little except that some Muslims are dangerous terrorists. We all knew that. Many of us also know that not all Muslims fit that category.
On the other hand, anonymous bloggers were attacking Waldo for removing that post from his aggregator.
It's fair to disagree with his decision. Not everybody agrees on matters of taste. But to call it censorship is to confuse terminology.
An example of censorship would be if somebody - usually a government official - comes to your home with a warrant to arrest you for what you've said or written. Or if they shut down your website, confiscate your newspaper, pull the plug on your radio or television station, or physically harm you to prevent you from speaking or publishing.
Waldo didn't do that. All he did was exercise his right to pick and choose what went on his aggregator.
Newspapers, television stations, and even art galleries do the same thing all the time. They decide what they will publish or display. If you submit an article to a magazine and get a rejection slip, that is not censorship. Nobody is stopping you from submitting it elsewhere, or starting your own magazine. And even more so, websites can be had for free, so Waldo was most definitely not censoring GGD. He was exercising his judgment about what went on his own site.
As for this kid masquerading as a lawyer and harrassing others, there are consequences for doing things like that.
Generally, bloggers should not be outed if they choose to be pseudononymous. But all bloggers, whether they give their real name or a penname, have a responsibility to report facts accurately and to refrain from harrassing or threatening others.
You can't just take potshots under the cover of anonymity. Even if you are anonymous, if you have a site, you are subject to libel laws and to laws against harrassment and other activities that cross the line into illegal behavior. And it seems GGD might have crossed that line.
Waldo had a right to boot the offending blog off his aggregator. GGD should not have posed as a lawyer and attemted to intimidate Waldo by insinuating that he was going to bring a law suit against him. JC probably didn't need to out him by name, but GGD did have it coming that he got exposed as a high school kid not a lawyer.
And this whole kerfuffle has lowered the level of debate across the blogosphere.
And Ben, I'm sorry to be long winded on your site. But there was a lot of points to cover in this complex controversy, which is spinning faster than a tornado over a trailor park.
Anonymous Is A Woman |
December 29, 2006 at 05:30 PM
Clearly, SPD only learns history through Mel Gibson movies.
December 29, 2006 at 11:26 PM
Rohwey has an unhealthy interest in this liar. If he were FLA Congressman Mark Foley, we'd be checking on the IM archive.
"Outing" someone for an irrelevant personal fact is mean. If a blogger (or a partygoer, for that matter) claims credibility based on an achievement that does not exist, they have no businesses whining that they got caught in the lie.
I thought Republicans were the Party of Accountability. I guess they only want to hold 5-year-olds accountable for their parents inability to feed them breakfast before school. They don't want to hold themselves accountable for anything like when their own get caught in drug addiction, corporate cheating, or this guy's lying.
December 30, 2006 at 12:37 AM
If Maxfield had declared he were a Chef, would Waldo have been threatened by his ability to make a better Caesar Salad?
Your epistle was quite, long, and enlightening...
Oh, Dear Lord poor Waldo had to undergo, what two or three tastefully done photo shop parodies, Oh the Horror!!!
Next time you have to 'gut' a deer, please don't post the pictures on the net.. that reality would be a little to disturbing also... would it not?
Talk about overkill.... Do you people believe half the crap you type?
Spank That Donkey |
December 30, 2006 at 12:41 AM
Spank That Donkey,
If you see no qualitative difference between a dead deer and a beheaded American, I'm afraid there's nothing to discuss. Your writings have become irrelevant and embarrassing. Enjoy your life in the wilderness.
Harry Landers |
December 30, 2006 at 10:06 AM
Can't argue with Harry on that retort to STD.
However, STD also reveals, once again, that he can't make a logical argument.
If Maxfield had claimed to be a chef, it would have been irrelevant to anything else he did or said in relation to this particular controversy.
What he claimed was to be a lawyer. And he began to throw around threats and harrassment about bringing a lawsuit. Very different.
On the other hand, if Maxfield had gone on a cooking blog and claimed to be a chef, and had he given advice on how to make a Caesar salad and I tried it and it turned out lousy, then I might challenge his credentials as a chef. And if he turned out to be a fraud, yes I'd expose it on the cooking blog. Because then the claim would be relevant.
But comparing a fraudulent claim about being a chef to one about being a lawyer, in this case, was comparing apples and oranges. Neither of which belong in a Caesar salad by the way.
Anonymous Is A Woman |
December 30, 2006 at 12:46 PM
You don't cook a Caesar Salad. That's why you can get Salmonella from it.
I'm Not Emeril |
January 02, 2007 at 05:26 AM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
(URLs automatically linked.)
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address