« Pivotal Tests | Main | And Another One Gone... »

March 23, 2006

Comments

Backing up slightly: "Before that, insertions had been routinely made in my copy, which I did not question."

That's a problem. I've never stood for such a thing, under any circumstances, no matter how amateur, no matter how casual.

I was, not all that long in the past, asked to be a co-blogger at a well-known group blog with an established readership vastly larger than that of my own blog. I found this happening to my posts. I didn't immediately quit, but I immediately, within five minutes of seeing it happened, screamed to the founder and primary editor of the site, who was the one inserting lines and rewriting what I'd written so it was more to his taste while leaving my name on it and leaving no note that he'd changed what I'd written. I told him I wouldn't stand for it; he could ask to see my posts in advance and ask for changes, if he liked, but not a word of mine was to be changed unless I approved first.

I more recently was asked to do some guest blogging for pay at another blog; I chose to use a pseudonym, and laid down the above conditions at greater length and greater emphasis.

Anyone who doesn't do this deserves what happens. End of story in my book.

Oh, and I said the same things when I was having stuff published in other people's fanzines when I was fricking 14 years old and on; as I said before, you can't claim the benefits of starting young and then plead that you deserve to get off for having been young when you did something stupid; pick one.

Hm, I thought I had been banned from RedState a while back, but apparently they're asleep at the History Eraser Button.

I would never ask anyone to click on an RS link, so here's my snark:

Way to go, Ben! By: Anderson

I knew you would step up and take responsibility for your actions, rather than blame others without admitting any misdeeds yourself. Lefties can always pretend nothing's their fault and pass the buck, but if "conservative" means anything ethically, surely it means unflinching honesty and willingness to confront our own errors.

I doubt this will fly under the radar, but if that German kid could land in Red Square, maybe I can sneak into RedState ...

Weren't those pieces which he alleges were tampered with listed on his resume? Can anyone back me up on this?

Because if so, that alone makes his defense ridiculous. Who would put pieces they know have plagiarized elements on their CV?

"The truth is, no conservative could write for the Post without being subject to the gauntlet of the liberal attack machine."

Gantlet, Ben. Gantlet.

If the WaPo or any other publications wants to examine my public writings since age 12, they're welcome to do so. They'll find some stupid stuff, and in early days, particularly, much badly written stuff. I'll take the job (if the hours are low enough for me to be able to keep them at my present level of not-such-great health, which is a huge factor, alas), and welcome the scrutiny.

Thomas, from the Mea Culpa thread:

Should the entire American Left fall over dead tomorrow, I would rejoice, and order pizza to celebrate. They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human.


CB, von - do you really want to be associated with this?

I doubt this will fly under the radar, but if that German kid could land in Red Square, maybe I can sneak into RedState .

I specifically noticed that comment and thought to myself, "that's gotta be a lefty making a subtle but brilliant dig at Domenech's completely shameless blame-shifting in this post."

If I noticed it, count on the Redstaters noticing it, particularly since Domenech linked to this very thread in that post.

Gantlet, Ben. Gantlet.

American Heritage allows both, Gary. As does the Shorter OED.

Thomas, from the Mea Culpa thread

I saw that myself, and thought about pointing it out, but figured I've highlighted enough written filth for one day, and already need a shower.

They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human.

GOOD. LORD.

But you're so much *smarter*, Catsy!

Ben should try the 'Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote' defense. Though his writing may coincide, word for word, with the work of others it is actually an achievement superior to all the originals. He was able to create in his mind the exact conditions necessary to faithfully replicate all the articles he is accused of plagiarizing, as if each were being written for the first time. Seems as plausible as any other excuse.

not a word of mine was to be changed unless I approved first

My experience of publishing is limited, but I'd be surprised if there are many publications, especially weekly or daily ones, where an ordinary writer could impose such restrictions and be published. Were you actually making a living as a writer, Gary?

f one bothers to read it, I believe it stands as a welcome addition to the opinion debate.

"And if one doesn't, then I don't!"

The Left has also accused me of foisting Sen. Frist quotes and some descriptive material from the Washington Post for a New York Press article on the Capitol Shooter.

I think you mean "hoisting."

Whatta maroon. This guy is supposed to be some great writer? Spare me.

"Because if so, that alone makes his defense ridiculous. Who would put pieces they know have plagiarized elements on their CV?"

I certainly haven't seen Domenech's resume (is it still "risumi"?; I don't keep up with the fashions), but I find the idea that he listed all the individual pieces he's ever had published to be extremely unlikely.

Many Fundamentalist Mormons practicing polygamy and having sex with under age women are social conservatives.

Any depraved degenerate can claim to be a social conservative.

Have you been to Redstate and Daily Pundit?

Social conservatives believe The Law is reserved for others.

"BTW, to me this is Redstate's darkest day. Since Ben's name is still on the "masthead", answers are still needed for the benefit of the site.

On another note, I hope WA Post hires another conservative blogger as soon as they are able."

Ditto. Partisan snark is the name of the game, and I hold none of what Domenech said in his apologia against him. Believe it or not, my sincere sympathies go to Ben Domenech and his friends at RedState. There has been real hurt and damage done today, and none was inflicted on me. Deserved or undeserved, the pain is real. And they be humans over there. I regret this, if Domenech were to be damaged, I would have preferred it to have been with the usual weapons partisans allow each other.

I'll get back to hating them all Monday. Let them grieve and vent in peace.

Ah, they waxed it. The History Eraser Button still works.

I wonder which sentiment I expressed that was inconsistent with true conservative principles?

I wonder how many emails are wending their way to P.J. O'Rourke at this minute.

I uspect the liberal use of invective in his explanation just means he knows his audience better at redstate.

Great comment, bob.

Uh-oh.

A MESSAGE TO OUR READERS [The Editors]

As the previous links mention, at least one of the pieces Ben Domenech is accused of having plagiarized was a movie review for National Review Online. A side-by-side comparison to another review of the same film speaks for itself. There is no excuse for plagiarism and we apologize to our readers and to Steve Murray of the Cox News Service from whose piece the language was lifted. With some evidence of possible problems with other pieces, we're also looking into other articles he wrote for NRO.

"Were you actually making a living as a writer, Gary?"

Nope. Didn't say I was.

If one is writing for a publication with a professional copyeditor (which I have done -- been a professional copyeditor, that is), certainly one expects professional copy-editing type changes; that's not what I was talking about.

I'd like to see exactly where any liberal blog said they'd like to rape Ben's sister. If some unhinged shithead emailed that to Ben, it's one thing. But he linked here, saying it was the only blog that didn't advocate the raping of his sister. Is he hallucinating, or did I miss something?

Gary. my point was only that writing for someone's zine might be rather different from writing for a magazine or newpaper. I have also been a professional copyeditor, but only for books and journals. My understanding is that copyeditors for newspapers and magazines often make significantly more changes without the authors having any chance to see them before the article appears in print. One hopes that the editing doesn't introduce errors, but copyeditors are human as well and not all are as skilled as you and I are.

"I don't suppose you'd be interested in writing for wapo.com? I'd sure back you as a candidate."

Lol. I'd love to. I think. That would be fun though I wouldn't want to poach on Sullivan's "gay conservative" rights too much. :)

dn't wnt t rp Bn's sstr. Bt f sh ws ht, wldn't mnd plyng hr wth lchl s sh'd lwr hr nhbtns nd gv BJ. Thn jst bfr blw m ld, 'd sht, "Chmcl chnc! Chmcl chnc!" Crtnsts ht tht.

[Disemvowelled by The Management (hlzy)]

Unsurprisingly, many of the Redstaters are Slow:

I do not know you, like some of the diarists here might, but it is clear to me that you have arrived at this decision to resign with the best of intentions. That said, I wish you would not have done so. Maybe it is easy to say when you are not the subject of threatening e-mails and phone calls, but the only way to prevent mobs of enraged and deranged critics from bringing down the next person in your position is to fight against them and expose them for what they are.

Please understand that I am not criticizing you, but would it have been possible to produce the editor of The Flat Hat, or contact P.J. O'Rourke?

They evidentally read this part of Domenech's post:
But while the folks at washingtonpost.com understand my position and are convinced by my arguments on many of these issues, they also feel that the firestorm here will only serve to damage us all, and that there is no way this blog can continue without being permanently tagged to this firestorm. Therefore, I have resigned this position with washingtonpost.com.
And didn't understand that this means "and I was fired, but allowed to say I 'resigned.'"

Thinking he had a choice: nice continued wishful thinking.

Charles,

A little late, but I applaud you.

"But he linked here, saying it was the only blog that didn't advocate the raping of his sister. Is he hallucinating, or did I miss something?"

I took that as slight exaggeration for effect, not a literal statement. And I don't doubt that he's had endless illegitimate invective on innumerable blog comments, blog posts, and e-mails, given the visibility of all this.

Of course, live by invective, die by invective, even if you yourself never went quite that far. You communist.

Walter Concrete, that's really not nice. And though it might be a lesser charge, it still falls under the category of rape.

Unsurprisingly, many of the Redstaters are Slow

I thought that comment was actually a much subtler "under the radar" attempt than mine. But at some point it's all too John LeCarre.

Walter, meet Jeff Goldstein. Jeff, meet Walter Concrete.

You two should hook up.

Jckmrmn <>nd thgh t mght b lssr chrg, t stll flls ndr th ctgr f rp. N t dsn't, nlss hs sstr s blw th stttr g. 'm vr ptnt.

[Disemvowelled by The Management (hlzy)]

"My understanding is that copyeditors for newspapers and magazines often make significantly more changes without the authors having any chance to see them before the article appears in print."

Sure, and as I said, I wasn't talking about that sort of circumstance and changes. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear about that. But the topic wasn't legitimate copyed changes for clarity.

Speaking of which, "foisting" makes sense in that context, though it should be "on" something, "hoisting" doesn't make any sense at all, and, yes, "gauntlet" can be used -- almost any usage can be pointed to as descriptively in use -- but "gantlet" is the more apt choice.

No it doesn't, unless his sister is below the statutory age.

I'm very patient.

This is my second GOOD. LORD. of the day.

Someone take Walter to the woodshed, please.

I completely agree about the need to respect moral values. If these charges are as well-founded as they seem to be, it will be interesting to see whether Ben Domenech has the guts to apply these principles to his own case, or whether he deploys morality only against other people.

Gosh, that's awfully charitable.

Breathtakingly naive may be more accurate.

The infamous Ben Domenech is a Biblical literalist. Do you really need to ask whether he is capable of applying reason or morality consistently?

Please educate yourself about the psychopathology of loud-mouthed fundamentalists like Ben Domenech.

Their behavior is as predictable as night follows day.

Spartikus

This is my second GOOD. LORD. of the day.

Someone take Walter to the woodshed, please.

Lighten up, Sparty.

Jeez, that Redstate thread is Best. Comedy. Evah.

"I don't really know what I am saying here...."

Walter: please read the posting rules. Please. And stop it. Further suggestions along these lines will get you banned.

If any of the other members of the HiveMind (or anyone else) have a view on whether these comments should be deleted, just say so.

Seconded. I want no common cause with that sort of invective.

Walter Concrete, try reading the posting rules.

Old Usenet custom is that it's wise to read a newsgroup/site for a week, or at least a few days to absorb the local customs and ambience; that custom has unfortunately not made its way far into the blogosphere, but we'd all be better off if it had.

ObWi is a site whose point is to be open to bloggers of all political persuasions, and where courtesy is a value, even if it's often honored more in the breach than in the observance.

What makes somebody think that sort of comment is okay?

I'm not sure it's right to delete it, though.

"What makes somebody think that sort of comment is okay?"

Same thinking as in that Redstate comment about the Other Side being just animals, etc. Since the Other is inhuman, one can say anything like that, and it's all just in good fun, or deserved, or whatever.

This is why I don't, as a rule, read Redstate, Kos, or the comments of pretty much any blog that's highly popular; lowest common denominator territory.

Jackmormon: that's the reason I hadn't: I don't want to go in for some sort of Stalinist retouching, etc. On the other hand, I abhor that sort of thing. -- It's the way I used to feel when people said stuff about Chelsea Clinton: there's an actual person who's being talked about here.

And I have no idea at all what would make someone think that was OK. -- I had the same puzzlement about, e.g., a bumper sticker I saw once that said, simply, F*** You Too! -- Huh? Who are these people?

I know there are some people in this world who do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that.

--Tom Lehrer, in the patter accompanying National Brotherhood Week

Well, I had to get something in and it's too late for Lobachevsky.

Same thinking as in that Redstate comment about the Other Side being just animals, etc.

Judging by Thomas's followup to Catsy, he's not referring to the entire left half of the country -- he's using the term roughly the way people here often use the term "Right", i.e. to mean the most vocal, extreme, and/or mean-spirited representatives of that political hemisphere.

ral, what does Lobachevsky have to do with this? He was just doing "research".

hilzoy, cnsdr dsmvwlmnt.

Walter, your mouth is talking. You might want to look to that. Your statement not only dumb, it was misogynistic and creepy. Beyond that, it wasn't funny, it shows you to be an immature [deleted], and basically, unfortunately, proves Ben's point--about you, at least. In short, shut the [deleted] up.

rilkefan: YES!! Thanks. Will do, pronto.

And I'm sorry that one of my first posts here was discourteous.

Please read the posting rules, RL. Thanks.

I'm editing your post for profanity; better that than deletion, methinks.

Sorry, hilzoy. You now have the con.

Slarti: what's the con?

The controls. To the blog. For dsmvwllmnt, if you so choose.

Ah, forget it. It always sounds so much more commanding when Captain Picard says it.

I was logged in as Moe, is what I'm trying to say, and I dunno if Typepad is schizoid enough to let us both be logged in as Moe.

Proof positive that I'm not as funny as I think I am: I have to explain myself a lot.

"Captain Picard says it."

Qu'est-ce qu'il dit? Vraiment?

Ah, Slarti, but since I was the one who wrote this post, I can edit stuff without even being Moe. So I didn't trip over you.

Good to know that it wasn't con as in: pro and con, con job, or any of the other cons that leapt to mind and were dismissed as making no sense whatsoever.

Good to know I was making no sense in a completely unpredictable way, at least.

On the other hand, I abhor that sort of thing. -- It's the way I used to feel when people said stuff about Chelsea Clinton: there's an actual person who's being talked about here.

Hmmm. So what standards did our righteous subject du jour Ben Domenech apply when he crafted his own rhetoric?

Pretty darn low. And he was serious.

I'm not -- obviously.

Let's see, who else abused rhetoric and lowered the standards of our country's discourse a great many times over the past 8 years? How about George Bush? Remember him? Ben's idol?

George was serious too. Ask the thousands of Iraqis who lost family members or limbs to US bombs.

Please don't sit and slap yourselves on the back congratulating yourself on how "civil" you all are. Anyone who isn't out there calling out scumbags like Ben Domenech and his ignoble heroes doesn't deserve my respect, however "civil" they pretend to be.

Rumblelizard

Beyond that, it wasn't funny, it shows you to be an immature [deleted], and basically, unfortunately, proves Ben's point

Ben Domenech is an fundamentalist moron. He doesn't have a "point" to prove.

People like me who think Ben is the lowest form of human scum in America today have good reasons to feel the way the do.

Contrast with people like Ben who feel the way they do because their preachers tell them how to feel.

Religious fundamentalism is a disease which affects nations. Ben is just the latest in a long list of visible symptoms.

Please don't sit and slap yourselves on the back congratulating yourself on how "civil" you all are. Anyone who isn't out there calling out scumbags like Ben Domenech and his ignoble heroes doesn't deserve my respect, however "civil" they pretend to be.

Not to contribute to the incivility, but someone who 'jokes' about rape (yes, rape, full f**king stop - getting someone intentionally drunk with the motive of taking advantage of them sexually is rape) doesn't deserve my respect, however "righteous" they claim to be.

Misogynists are not on my side, civil or otherwise.

matttbastard speaks for me.

Your quarrel is with Ben, Walter. Leave his sister out of it.

matttbastard speaks for me.

And me. See? Walter's a uniter, not a divider.

Me 2.

I don't really see many people on this thread rallying to the defense of Ben Domenech, or even being in any way ambivalent. They just managed to express their disapproval without mentioning raping his sister. Difficult, I know, but somehow they managed.

Just wanted to post this as it was at Atrios, from one of Domenech's former editors at W&M:

Hi --

This all seems to have happened really fast. I hadn't really checked the news til midday today when I saw all of this happened. It might be kind of moot now, but I was Domenech's editor at The Flat Hat when he was writing the reviews. Four people, including me, would have handled his copy, the others being my assistant section editor, the managing editor and the editor.

This should seem obvious, but no one on the editorial staff was going into Salon (or wherever) and pasting whole sections into his reviews. We were more concerned about getting the paper done so we could get home at 2 in the morning instead of 5. We may have put additional words in the story, but it would never have been completely foreign content. It was just editing.


http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_03_19_atrios_archive.html#114323067041235652

He should've just confessed. This is going to take an ugly turn if more former associates come forward to defend their own integrity.

Walter, you completely miss my point. You can call out BD all you like, you can call him whatever you like. However, his sister has nothing to do with it.

My point was that if you use misogynistic constructions like the one you did, it makes you look like a creep. It makes you look like the type who would fantasize about expressing his rage at one person by sexually degrading and humiliating another person, a woman, who had nothing to do with the situation at all.

It reflects badly on you rather than on the subject of your ire. It shows that you need to check yourself and figure out why you seem to think that being misogynistic is funny, or appropriate.

Are you getting it, or do I need to explain further?

And me. See? Walter's a uniter, not a divider.

Yeah, well, comments like Concrete's are why I stopped reading Kos and Atrios comments. Eliminationist rhetoric is inherently disturbing to me, regardless of ideological grounding.

The Washington Post got well and truly burned in this incident. My question: Did they learn a lesson? My answer: Probably not. Expect right-wing pandering mode to continue.

"Kos and Atrios comments."

I don't get the Kos part (I don't read Atrios's comments) - the commentariat is vigorous, but hate speech gets suppressed quickly.

Since people are playing the ditto game, let me belatedly add my voice to those saying good on Charles for taking an iconoclastic stand over at RedState.

PS: PS: <3 the ObWi big tent.

Slartibartfast, for some reason, that word is spelled "conn".

I don't get the Kos part (I don't read Atrios's comments) - the commentariat is vigorous, but hate speech gets suppressed quickly.

Perhaps 'eliminationist' is a bit over the top re: Kos, but the contentious relationship with feminists/pro-choice absolutists - culminating in last year's so-called 'pie fight' - turned me off the site.

Essentially telling women to shut up, smile and look pretty while the menfolk decide what's 'important' didn't exactly endear me to the Kossack commetariat.

Slartibartfast, for some reason, that word is spelled "conn".

Once upon a time, I knew that.

"I'm editing your post for profanity; better that than deletion, methinks."

See, the problem with that is that it's not in any way clear that an editor changed things; the only possible way to know that is to read other comments. This is exactly why that's a bad practice, in my view.

I read that comment, and thought "well done." Now it turns out I was wrong, that what was posted by the commenter wasn't posted by the commenter. What if I'd not been someone who happened to read further?

I guess it's perhaps clearer what are and are not good editing practices with more experience as an editor.

And if I ever lose control, please delete my entire comment and if you want to ask me to rewrite it, that's fine. Do not change my words without attribution. If you ever want me to comment here again.

Gary: since I disemvowelled the comments in question before Slarti could get to them, there's no reason to assume that he wouldn't have noted what he did.

By the way: I am sad to say that we are about to break our all-time one day visits record. The previous record was somewhere around where we are now (I don't actually keep track of these things, but some things just drive a girl to look at Sitemeter), on the first day after the Terri Schiavo post. That this, of all things, should lead to more hits is sad. I wish it had happened about, say, my post on Quarantine.

Walter: "Anyone who isn't out there calling out scumbags like Ben Domenech and his ignoble heroes doesn't deserve my respect, however 'civil' they pretend to be."

You're entitled to your opinion. And you're entitled to express it as you wish, at your own blog, and to set the rules for your own blog.

Meanwhile, there are rules for this blog. I'm just another commenter, just like yourself, but do keep in mind that if you repeatedly violate the rules, you'll be banned.

And most people will observe that you apparently believe you're one of those Special People who believes that rules are for other people, and apparently that ends justify means, and that two wrongs make a right, and all the other excuses there are for being particularly self-righteous; to be sure, those are all not unpopular views.

But slapping yourself on your own back for self-considered bravery might possibly be unbecoming, and you're not exactly Courageously Speaking Truth To Power when addressing people here.

I'd thought that the [deleted] in brackets might have been a dead giveaway. So as to avoid offending Gary, though, I shall endeavor to edit profanity out in a way that's less confusing.

Gary, if you've got any hints to that effect, please share.

(yes, rape, full f**king stop - getting someone intentionally drunk with the motive of taking advantage of them sexually is rape)

Is this "civil discourse"? Let's ignore the potty mouth for a moment and ask a simple question: is the author trying to be honest?

The answer: clear no.

News flash: buying someone a drink in the hopes that their inhibitions will be lowered (a well-known effect of alcohol) so that the person will be more inclined to engage in sexual relations with you is not rape.

And women and men all across the United States are grateful of that fact.

As for this:

It makes you look like the type who would fantasize about expressing his rage at one person by sexually degrading and humiliating another person, a woman, who had nothing to do with the situation at all

Let me remind you that I did not bring Ben's sister into this discussion.

Do you remember who did?

hilzoy

They just managed to express their disapproval without mentioning raping his sister. Difficult, I know, but somehow they managed.

Oh, the irony.

Glad I could help y'all see just how depraved and sick our boy Ben really is.

Why is it that the people most offended by extremists are so…

…extreme?

Look, Walter, you're grossing me out, and I have to get offline now, so I'm not going to reply any further than to say that "plying her with alcohol" and "buying her a drink" are very different in tone and criminal intention. If we see you around these parts again, I hope you have congenial and substantive things to say.

"My question: Did they learn a lesson? My answer: Probably not."

I think Jim Brady's statement to Kurtz, which I posted in the other thread, suggests at least a bit of otherwise, though we'll see. But he said clearly that they intended to look for someone with more "traditional journalistic background." Though it was Domenech's journalism, not his blogging, that got him into trouble here.

I've said I think it would be wise to have a "Blue America" blogger who is a partisan to go with a "Red America" partisan, but it's possible they'll just pull back from having people be clearly partisan; I'm not sure that's the best lesson, altogether.

"Gary: since I disemvowelled the comments in question before Slarti could get to them, there's no reason to assume that he wouldn't have noted what he did."

Huh?

Oh, cripes, they've been changed again. Well, at least this time the editing has been attributed, which makes a huge difference.

I still don't understand the above comment, though. Slart added words and removed words on someone's blog with no attribution whatever that an editor had done so. I've, myself, often written comments in which I've said things like "I think that's [DELETED] awesome." I've written such comments on this blog a number of times.

"I'd thought that the [deleted] in brackets might have been a dead giveaway."

Absolutely not. As it happens, there are bracket keys on my own [deleted] keyboard.

See, I guess you edited the above paragraph. It's a dead giveaway that you did that, right?

No. You didn't write [deleted by blog-owner] or [deleted by Slartibartfast] or [DELETED -- editor], and even if you had, we still couldn't tell the commenter hadn't been making a joke.

Absent using a special font only available to blogowners, or some other graphic tool only available to a blogowner, text is text is text. And attributions are necessary if one is going to edit someone else's words, and expect it to be clear that only one of the site-owners made those changes.

Otherwise you're expecting people to be mind-readers.

Slartibartfast, it's possible that Gary thought that you had changed RL's comment to read "And I'm sorry that one of my first posts here was discourteous." I only mention that because your comment about editing comes right after that one, and somehow the first time I read it (when reloading after reading RL's offensive comment), I thought for a moment that that's what had happened.

Walter: Please don't sit and slap yourselves on the back congratulating yourself on how "civil" you all are.

I'm late to this party, but who is this unpleasant person, and why is he still here? As this whole situation seems to be bringing a lot of the worst out in people of both left and the right (I've been over to RedState for the first time in months, and it's way worse than usual), it makes me especially ill when someone supposedly on my side of the political fence starts to spray on the furniture.

Then again...

I'm not going to reply any further than to say that "plying her with alcohol" and "buying her a drink" are very different in tone and criminal intention.

Have you considered working in Washington DC? You'd make an excellent lawyer for corrupt politicians.

doubplusungood

it makes me especially ill when someone supposedly on my side of the political fence starts to spray on the furniture.

Who was the first to bring up Ben's sister?

Anyone remember?

"Slart added words and removed words on someone's blog with no attribution whatever that an editor had done so."

That should have been "blog comment," not "blog." Sorry.

So as to avoid offending Gary, though, I shall endeavor to edit profanity out in a way that's less confusing.

Gary, if you've got any hints to that effect, please share.

As I said anyway, but to respond directly, absent using some graphic device not available to mere commenters, I don't know that there's any absolutely clear way, thought if you at least sign and attribute changes, you're at least indicating that's who made them, although there's nothing stopping any commenter from acheiving the same effect.

It's because I don't know of any way for you to make changes that are clearly changes made by you -- absent stuff about the software here I don't know about that would allow for graphic uniqueness -- that it's clearly a bad practice, in my view.

For the record, I don't think much of Jeff Goldstein's practice of breaking into other people's comments to respond to them, either, although that's a lesser offense, and it's again something I concluded when I was 12 and saw fanzine editors doing it by abusing their privilege of being the person typing the letter-writer's letter of comment onto the mimeo stencil/ditto master.

Basically speaking, just because one has the power to change the words of others doesn't mean one should use it. The most basic lesson of being an editor is knowing when not to edit.

Mind, of course I think you had nothing but good intentions, Slart. I think you generally have [DELETED] good intentions.

:-)

I've said I think it would be wise to have a "Blue America" blogger who is a partisan to go with a "Red America" partisan, but it's possible they'll just pull back from having people be clearly partisan; I'm not sure that's the best lesson, altogether.

How about more journalists who report the facts and draw reasonable conclusions from them, instead of hacks trying to spin bullcrap to the rubes?

Remember truth and honesty?

Bonehead Brady forgot those values when he hired Ben Domenech, who was on the record as saying something truly bizarre: that he believed that a myth about the creation of Salmonella was literally true and that "evolution ... is a crock."

People who say such things -- and profess to be educated about the subject of which they are speaking -- are liars of a particularly vile sort.

Brady was unable to recognize this aspect of Ben Domenech's deranged personality.

Brady isn't alone.

It's time to wake up, folks. Playtime is over.

Spidey-sense tingling......

Who was the first to bring up Ben's sister?

On this website? Rumblefish, with this comment:

I'd like to see exactly where any liberal blog said they'd like to rape Ben's sister.

On other websites? Well, Rumblefish asked a question which hasn't been answered.

Walter: Who was the first to bring up Ben's sister?

Actually, Walter, that has nothing to with that, at least as far as I'm concerned. It has to do with your unpleasant attitude and rudeness about the posters here, and you snarky attitude since then that degrads discussion.

The admins here of both the left and right are both tolerate and kind regarding newcomers who are ignorant of the posting culture here and think that they are allowed to spray on the furniture until being gently corrected.

Some of the rest of us may be a bit less tolerant, and would like to protect our small bit of political reasonableness in this wild a wooly web. I think this conversation would be more fruitful if you withdrew from it, and went somewhere that was less inclined toward discourse and more toward being a verbal mosh pit.

Sorry, "Rumblelizard".

Let me remind you that I did not bring Ben's sister into this discussion.

Do you remember who did?

I brought Ben's sister into this conversation, Walter. I was asking where exactly the people fantasizing about raping his sister were that he spoke of in his post, because I hadn't seen them anywhere. I actually thought that as people, lefties (and indeed, moderates) would realize how very far out of bounds and disgusting that kind of rhetoric would be. I thought that until you showed up, that is.

Again, check yourself and figure out why exactly it is that you think this type of misogynistic posturing is appropriate.

And I will apologize again for using cuss words in a cuss-free zone. I was unaware that this site was cuss-free, but in my defense, I have to say that Walter's comments kind of hit one of my main cuss buttons. The site's administrators were totally within their rights, and I was in the wrong. Won't happen again.

Sorry, "Rumblelizard".

Slartibartfast, it's possible that Gary thought that you had changed RL's comment to read "And I'm sorry that one of my first posts here was discourteous."
I didn't. I'm referring to a comment that now no longer exists as such. And look how much less confused the discussion is as a result!

Walter: "How about more journalists who report the facts and draw reasonable conclusions from them, instead of hacks trying to spin bullcrap to the rubes?"

I think opinion columns and blogs are just fine.

"It's time to wake up, folks. Playtime is over."

Gee, I'm sure you're quite familiar with the views of regular commenters here, and thus know that you are bringing unique and never-considered insights to the masses here. Thanks for that.

I guess I should assume that you are as familiar with Domenech's ouevre as you are with that of commenters here, and are those sufficiently acquainted with him to pronounce him "deranged" from a qualified standpoint.

Way to make folks here almost defensive of him. Never under-state where over-statement is available.

"And I will apologize again for using cuss words in a cuss-free zone. I was unaware that this site was cuss-free...."

No worries, I say, again speaking for myself (as I am wont to do); anyone with experience in group or online fora knows the difference between someone who shows up and makes an innocent mistake and instantly apologizes when it's pointed out, and someone who shows up, makes a mistake, and instantly starts explaining why they were perfectly justified and it's all everybody else's fault.

The dynamics are classic; these are two classic examples, so far. (Walter still has time to make up for his initial charm and warmth, but there's something of a window there in which first impressions are made and then tend to solidify.)

Just wanted to clarify my post of 4:44...

Charles,

My applause was late, not your principled stand at RS. Sorry for any perceived slight, you have gained a great deal of respect in my eyes.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad