by hilzoy
It's nice to get definitive proof that some bloggers really don't bother to do basic research before posting something, and we got some today. Here's a scary
article from Investment Business Daily:
"It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal. (...)
Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised -- with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers."
That sounds scary! It also sounds completely implausible. So I went and looked at the
actual bill, and there that paragraph was, on p. 16, in a section defining the term "Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage". The fact that it's in a
definition might lead readers to conclude that it doesn't mean that you can't buy individual insurance after the bill takes effect, but only that you can't buy such insurance
and have it meet the bill's definition of "Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage". There is a difference.
"Grandfathered Health Insurance" is mentioned in Sec. 102, Sec. 202, and Sec. 401. Unless my search engine has melted down, these are the only mentions of "Grandfathered Health Insurance" in the bill. None of them even comes close to banning private individual insurance. Check for yourselves.
Here are some bloggers who repeated IBD's claims:
Instapundit (he updated after a reader pointed out his mistake),
Meredith Jessup at Townhall,
No Sheeples Here! (sic),
Patterico Karl at Patterico's Pontifications,
Gateway Pundit,
theblogprof (sic),
Ed Morrissey (he updates with a correction, but completely doesn't get why pooling individuals in an exchange lowers premiums. Hint: large risk pool),
Say Anything,
Michelle Malkin,
Jules Crittenden,
Right Wing News,
Maggie's Farm,
The Astute Bloggers (sic).
Since those claims are so obviously false to anyone who reads the actual bill, or even skims the relevant sections, I conclude that these bloggers did not bother to check them out before they posted. Which is to say: they didn't bother to do the most basic, rudimentary research that any blogger ought to do.
Tom Maguire, on the other hand, did, and spotted the mistake. Kudos.
This matters. One of the real mistakes many conservatives made, I think, was to dismiss people who disagreed with them. It's an easy thing to do: by definition, people who disagree with you say things that you think are false, and it's a short step from 'false' to 'obviously mendacious', 'intellectually irresponsible', 'flat-out insane', or something else that means that you just don't have to take the person in question seriously any more. If you want to keep yourself honest, you should listen to the people who disagree with you. But since life is short, it's nice to find an actual, objective test for things like intellectual irresponsibility, one that lets you just see that some people are, really and truly, intellectually irresponsible, and thus that you can dismiss them forever, and read them only for laughs, while saving your precious free time for others who deserve it more.
This is just such a test. Tom Maguire passed. The other bloggers I listed failed. That's useful information.
It seems my comments aren't going through, but in case it does, I'll add that Instapundit uses IBS's "screw up" (or mendaciousness) to suggest that all this complicated stuff being rammed through is making him nervous and that it should be slowed. Nice racket, Insty.
Posted by: Pinko Punko | July 17, 2009 at 01:04 AM
i think i need to go read a good book after reading the comments on some of those linked sites. jesus.
Posted by: john b | July 17, 2009 at 01:04 AM
Nice racket, Insty.
Hey, it's not his fault he found out there was a paying market for loudly and publicly declaring his own stupidity. If I got a dollar every time I hit myself on the head with a foam mallet and said "durr," I'd be raking in the bucks!
Posted by: mightygodking | July 17, 2009 at 01:06 AM
"It's nice to get definitive proof that some bloggers really don't bother to do basic research before posting something"
I confess to using a shortcut on this particular story; I'm familiar with the history of the nutbar who writes the editorials for the IBD, and he's always wrong about lunatic stuff like this. So I didn't even feel a need to check his facts, because I knew others would, and if it turned out that he wasn't misrepresenting and misunderstanding the bill, I'd have eaten a physical copy of IBD.
This is, to be sure, absolutely not a technique that I advise anyone, including myself, to rely on very often, but it does work in carefully limited fashion, with carefully limited individuals, on carefully limited subjects.
Sadly, though unsurprisingly, Glenn Reynolds' response to the correction is not to write anything about the possible unreliability of IBD, or not fact-checking for himself (I recall quite well when the whole slogan of the crowd was "bloggers: we fact-check your ass!"), but instead to conclude "Hmm. We should have more time for all this stuff to be sorted out. Instead they’re ramming it through as quickly as possible. That makes me suspicious."
Yes, of course it does. And heaven knows that we haven't had enough time to consider how to do national health care, given that it was Harry Truman who first failed at the attempt. We really should consider it more for another few decades.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 17, 2009 at 01:45 AM
"We really should consider it more for another few decades."
Or maybe, after decades. we don't have to get it done in the next two weeks. This is why, from todays AP report on Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf's report :
Democrats' health care bills would not meet President Barack Obama's goal of slowing the ruinous rise of medical costs, Congress' budget arbitrator warned Thursday, giving weight to critics who say the legislation could break the national bank.
"Asked by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a Democrat, whether the evolving legislation would bend the cost curve, the budget director responded that, as things stand now, "the curve is being raised."
Explained Elmendorf: "In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."
Posted by: Marty | July 17, 2009 at 02:04 AM
The fact that it's in a definition might lead readers to conclude that it doesn't mean that you can't buy individual insurance after the bill takes effect, but only that you can't buy such insurance and have it meet the bill's definition of "Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage". There is a difference.
Yes: the difference between the lightning and the lightning-bug, as Mark Twain once put it.
There's a difference between "no eavesdropping" and "no eavesdropping without a warrant", too. There's a difference between "tax rate" and "marginal tax rate". There's a difference between "terrorists" and "suspected terrorists". Ignoring a certain kind of difference seems to be a specialty, for some people.
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | July 17, 2009 at 02:05 AM
Well, that's progress...for a nimrod that doesn't RTFM.
Posted by: gwangung | July 17, 2009 at 02:06 AM
Marty, re: Elmendorf's quote, TPM has a bit more of the story:
Should I be surprised that I saw the conservative-congenial side of the story before I saw a more-complete account? Probably not. Mark Twain had something to say about this phenomenon, too: a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth gets its trousers on.
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | July 17, 2009 at 02:42 AM
I'm just curious to know who will be the first to say something to the effect of, "Well, this particular claim may not be true, but the very fact that anybody could take it seriously is further proof of how crazy bad this bill really is!"
Posted by: Dave C (the uppity newcomer) | July 17, 2009 at 03:17 AM
It really is shocking to see a law professor like Instapundit make this elementary mistake--it's hard to see how anyone familiar with reading statutes could do this in good faith. It's not rocket science.
Posted by: rea | July 17, 2009 at 08:21 AM
it's hard to see how anyone familiar with reading statutes could do this in good faith
ding ding ding
Posted by: cleek | July 17, 2009 at 09:28 AM
Is it irresponsible to repeat false claims without verifying them? I submit that it would be trresponsible not to!
Posted by: Mike Schilling | July 17, 2009 at 09:35 AM
"This is true, but it's also more complicated than that. First of all, the CBO has analyzed two bills so far: The Senate HELP Committee's bill and the House's so-called tri-committee bill. But, crucially, the HELP Committee doesn't have jurisdiction over Medicare and Medicaid where many of these savings can--and likely will--be found. And, just as crucially, the CBO hasn't scored those parts of the House bill either.
Should I be surprised that I saw the conservative-congenial side of the story before I saw a more-complete account? Probably not. Mark Twain had something to say about this phenomenon, too: a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth gets its trousers on."
At my last reading of the CBO estimates they hadn't included implementation costs either.
I think that the CBO telling the Democratic leadership that the bill is too expensive and doesn't cut costs in the out years is significant.
I also believe it points out that this bill is not HealthCare reform, it's universal coverage and should be renamed such.
Then you can do away with the false premise of saving healthcare costs and just ask the Congress to approve raising taxes to pay for it. At least that would be honest.
Then promise reform somewhere else, wait 20 years or so and have a deadline for when we can't cover anyone because the 1.5 trillion has become some number of trillions per year and is as ingrained as Social Security.
I'm just saying, we like to call people on being dishonest here, let's do it both ways.
Posted by: Marty | July 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM
"But that doesn't mean either the House or the Senate is working on legislation that will maximize the reduction in federal health care spending. As Ezra Klein notes, many of the hypothetical provisions that would work dramatically on that score have been eschewed for political reasons."
From the same TPM article that Tony P linked to. I guess it's not surprissing we didn't get this part.
Posted by: Marty | July 17, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Let me underscore Cleek's point.
I want to listen to people I disagree with. I should listen to people I disagree with. But only if I think that they are dealing in good faith.
I've long ago given up on the notion that movement conservatives (including neocons, theocons, or moneycons) ever deal in good faith. The only voices on the right I listen to any more are the libertarians.
This habit is going to hurt the left-center in about a dozen years, unless either a strong real left develops, or we develop a less mendacious conservatism.
Posted by: Joe S. | July 17, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Lo! The Argument From Authority!
Posted by: hilzoy | July 17, 2009 at 11:01 AM
The Argument From Authority!
even worse, it's the Argument From Popularity:
Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) IS a credible and objective source. In fact, according to the Tax Prof Blog which is a member of The Law Professor Blog Network, Professor Reynolds ranks No.1 among the Top 35 blogs edited by law professors. In the period from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009, Instapundit’s blog received 120,920,620 visits.
respect mah popularatah!
Posted by: cleek | July 17, 2009 at 11:28 AM
"But that doesn't mean either the House or the Senate is working on legislation that will maximize the reduction in federal health care spending. As Ezra Klein notes, many of the hypothetical provisions that would work dramatically on that score have been eschewed for political reasons."
From the same TPM article that Tony P linked to. I guess it's not surprissing we didn't get this part.
Of course, us liberals would like to see those parts passed. The "political reasons" why they are getting cut is because the same people that are complaining that the bill costs too much are fighting to prevent the measures that would really save money from being included. So, Marty, do you want to see the savings included, or not?
Posted by: J. Michael Neal | July 17, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Lo! The Argument From Authority!
The amazing thing is that whoever wrote that post didn't even address the error Hilzoy pointed out. Not at all, even a little, despite it's being written clearly and in English, readily available to copy and paste. WTF?
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | July 17, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Well, "The Hopuse Ways and Means Committee", which in this context probably means one Republican staffer*, said the IBD was right, so why bother?
(* I'm assuming that the entire committee probably didn't get together to address IBD's question. That being the case, it wasn't "the committee", but someone who is part of or associated with it. My best guess: a staffer: this wouldn't be worth an actual member's time.)
Posted by: hilzoy | July 17, 2009 at 11:43 AM
House. Not Hopuse. Sigh ...
Posted by: hilzoy | July 17, 2009 at 11:43 AM
"Of course, us liberals would like to see those parts passed. The "political reasons" why they are getting cut is because the same people that are complaining that the bill costs too much are fighting to prevent the measures that would really save money from being included. So, Marty, do you want to see the savings included, or not?"
No, the political reasons are that they negatively impact the Obama base. They certainly would not eschew them if their base was on board.
No i don't want services cut to the 250M Americans already receiving them. Raise taxes, reform the system, I won't vote for it but it is something I can live with. Don't cut Medicare and Medicaid, it's counter productive, etc.
Posted by: Marty | July 17, 2009 at 11:44 AM
I think that the CBO telling the Democratic leadership that the bill is too expensive and doesn't cut costs in the out years is significant.
It's not the CBO's job to say whether a bill is "too expensive". That's for Congress to judge. Also for Marty, or me, or any random citizen. CBO sticks to scoring, not judging.
And they base their scores on the text of the legislation before them. If the legislation contains no "ATM patch" they score it as if the ATM will remain unchanged even though everybody knows Congress will, in fact, patch the ATM. If the legislation does not yet contain Medicare and Medicaid cost reductions, the CBO score is based on ZERO change to Medicare or Medicaid.
That changes to M&M which would "maximize" the reduction in federal health care spending are not in the works is probably true. That the CBO, scoring "the bill" based on no changes to M&M at all, explicitly said "it's too expensive" is probably not.
I also believe it points out that this bill is not HealthCare reform, it's universal coverage and should be renamed such.
Everybody says "health care" when they mean "health insurance". Dems do it, Reps do it, even educated bloggers do it. That's part of the trouble in this discussion.
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | July 17, 2009 at 12:05 PM
d'd'dave, a frequent commenter here, also made the mistake. Actually brought it up in a completely unrelated thread, he was so excited.
Posted by: Justin | July 17, 2009 at 12:32 PM
"I also believe it points out that this bill is not HealthCare reform, it's universal coverage and should be renamed such.
Everybody says "health care" when they mean "health insurance". Dems do it, Reps do it, even educated bloggers do it. That's part of the trouble in this discussion"
Except that the idea was to reform healthcare so we could afford to cover everyone. Now we are going to cover everyone and then try to do reform later, if at all.
"And they base their scores on the text of the legislation before them. If the legislation contains no "ATM patch" they score it as if the ATM will remain unchanged even though everybody knows Congress will, in fact, patch the ATM. If the legislation does not yet contain Medicare and Medicaid cost reductions, the CBO score is based on ZERO change to Medicare or Medicaid.
That changes to M&M which would "maximize" the reduction in federal health care spending are not in the works is probably true. That the CBO, scoring "the bill" based on no changes to M&M at all, explicitly said "it's too expensive" is probably not."
The problem is the proponents are counting those savings already, but none are available to score. "Too expensive", you are correct,is not the CBO's job. "It doesn't achieve the stated goal of reducing the ramp up in healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP or actual dollars" is their job.
Posted by: Marty | July 17, 2009 at 12:49 PM
"No, the political reasons are that they negatively impact the Obama base. They certainly would not eschew them if their base was on board."
I'd ask you for cites on this, but every bit of reporting on the bill contradicts it. It's the Blue Dogs who don't want the savings. I'll give you twenty more cites on these facts, if you like. Please now give your cites for your currently unsupported claim. Thanks.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 17, 2009 at 12:55 PM
"I'd ask you for cites on this, but every bit of reporting on the bill contradicts it. It's the Blue Dogs who don't want the savings. I'll give you twenty more cites on these facts, if you like. Please now give your cites for your currently unsupported claim. Thanks."
Why would I need more than your concurrence? The Blue Dog Dems are part of his constituency unless I don't understand the Dems part correctly, or how he built his ruling coalition of 60 votes.
Posted by: Marty | July 17, 2009 at 01:03 PM
A different issue with the Healthcare Reform Bill
http://overlawyered.com/2009/07/medicare-qui-tam-a-health-care-bill-surprise/
Posted by: Madrocketscientist | July 17, 2009 at 01:26 PM
I see two possibilities here:
1) You don't understand anything about the Democratic Party, or
2) You're being deliberately disingenuous.
Posted by: J. Michael Neal | July 17, 2009 at 01:27 PM
Ironically, this very post has a research failure of its own: it accuses me of making a mistake, and as proof links a post that clearly states (in three separate places) that it was written by someone else.
Posted by: Patterico | July 18, 2009 at 11:44 PM
"...a post that clearly states (in three separate places) that it was written by someone else."
A post which clearly states "UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Name of the publication corrected to 'Investor’s Business Daily.'"
You read the post, it's on your blog, which is entitled "Patterico's Pontifications," not "Patterico's Pontifications and Those Of A Bunch Of Other People,", and you read the post, checked it for accuracy, made a correction, but didn't, in fact, do what Hilzoy said you didn't do, which is fact-check the essential claim. Hilzoy's claim: "Here are some bloggers who repeated IBD's claims...."
Your blog repeated IBD's claim. And you evaluated that post, and made a correction you felt warranted.
Perhaps this is all someone else's responsibility: who would that be, in your opinion, whom we should look to for who is responsible for that which is posted on your blog, and for the facts which are asserted on blog posts you yourself have read and made corrections upon?
Also on the post, following your "UPDATE BY PATTERICO" is another "update/clarification," which doesn't make quite clear whom the writer is, which states "Patterico flagged this post from Tom Maguire, noting that existing policies are grandfathered and that all new qualified privately offered plans must meet certain guidelines to which a grandfathered plan will not be subject."
I'm guessing from the referring to you in the third person that "k" means it's written by someone else, the person name "Karl," whose name is attached to the post, whomever he might be (I have no idea, myself; why should I? Is the blog entitled "Patterico and Karl's Pontifications"?) but since that's not stated, it's merely a guess; you can't expect other people to decipher your personal coding practices, if you don't believe in having updates signed as clearly as you did the first time, with "UPDATE BY PATTERICO," which is perfectly clear. So you are capable of being perfectly clear as to attributions.
You also have no time-stamps on any of these updates, making it completely impossible to know what information you had, at what time, and therefore to what degree you might be further aware of other input.
I suggest perhaps reconsidering all these practices, if you wish to avoid future confusion, and wish to claim no responsibility for that which is posted on the blog entitled "Patterico's Pontifications."
Including, perhaps, a name-change.
If you might like to consider that I might be guilty of hypocrisy in any of this, incidentally, I've been blogging since 2001, and have never had a guest blogger, thus avoiding the need to disclaim responsibility for that which is posted on my own blog. Neither have I ever not time-stamped an update, or had updates made by multiple people. Any mistakes on my blog, I take 100% responsibility for. YMMV.
To be sure, everyone has their own ways, and you're entitled to yours. If you wish to maintain that none of these are mistakes, fine. Others are entitled to respond.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 12:03 AM
And, incidentally, nice tu quoque as your sole response.
When did conservatives stop believing in accepting personal responsibility?
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 12:06 AM
"you read the post, checked it for accuracy . . ."
Gary Farber,
No, I did not. A reader (as it happens, an IBD editor) wrote me to alert me that Karl (like hilzoy in this post, as it happens!) had inaccurately referred to his publication. I made the correction based entirely on his e-mail.
So, your comment makes an inaccurate assumption. It is not the only one you make; let's read on:
"I suggest perhaps reconsidering all these practices, if you wish to avoid future confusion, and wish to claim no responsibility for that which is posted on the blog entitled "Patterico's Pontifications."
That is not my position. In fact, I have posted on this, here. And I do not take the position that you accuse me of taking. That is a second inaccurate assumption in your comment.
"I've been blogging since 2001, and have never had a guest blogger, thus avoiding the need to disclaim responsibility for that which is posted on my own blog. Neither have I ever not time-stamped an update, or had updates made by multiple people."
Because this is the Internet, you can't see me giving you a standing ovation.
You and I are differently situated in terms of the time we have available to devote to the Internet.
With all that time, you might consider carving out a few minutes to reviewing your comments for inaccurate assumptions.
Posted by: Patterico | July 19, 2009 at 12:19 AM
"but didn't, in fact, do what Hilzoy said you didn't do, which is fact-check the essential claim. Hilzoy's claim: "Here are some bloggers who repeated IBD's claims....""
Gary Farber, there is a distinct difference between "repeating" something and "failing to fact-check" something. hilzoy's claim was false. I recognize that you're not going to acknowledge that, because she's on your team, and you don't acknowledge errors by people on your team. However, to the intellectually honest, the distinction is quite clear.
Posted by: Patterico | July 19, 2009 at 12:39 AM
"(he updates with a correction, but completely doesn't get why pooling individuals in an exchange lowers premiums. Hint: large risk pool)"
hilzoy - The above seems to be some of the sloppy research or assumptions you are tarring conservative bloggers with in your post. While I am sure it is the wet dream of every progressive blogger to have the exchanges lower premiums by virtue of having a larger number of participants, the community rating features and inability to differentiate on price by risk are significant features of Obamacare which offset the numbers gain effect. To state that premiums will go down requires do many far fetched assumptions at this point that it's a complete asspull, as the experts would say. Sloppy research.
Posted by: daleyrocks | July 19, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Gary - Were you actually trying to address Patterico's point or just groovin' on a self-aggrandizement trip?
Posted by: daleyrocks | July 19, 2009 at 12:54 AM
"So, your comment makes an inaccurate assumption."
Ah; I was incorrect in assuming you read posts on your own blogs, and might reasonably take responsibility for them when you first show up to make comments on those posts on other blogs, in which you respond with tu quoque.
You do not, you now make clear, fact-check statements made in posts on your blog, until after they've been posted. You do not, in your first comments engaging in tu quoque, take responsibility for what's posted in your own blog. You only do that in follow-up comments.
My mistake in getting all of this wrong; my apologies. Instead of fact-checking yourself, you wait for readers to send you corrections. Then you accuse other bloggers of getting wrong facts about your blog methodology that they couldn't be aware of absent mind-reading, because the post you now direct our attention to in which you explain your methods is written in response to Hilzoy's post.
So Hilzoy made an error in not reading your explanation before you wrote it. And you do not respond to the point being made that you are engaging in the fallacy of tu quoque.
You write in the post you direct us to:
But criticizing you for what's posted on your post, before you've explained all this, is wrong, because people should just know these things, and if they don't, it's their fault for not doing research into your future explanations.As a separate issue, though I'm sure you've made this clear at some point to your regular readers, being that I'm not one of them, might you care to explain who the heck "Karl" is?
I've looked at your blog sidebar, and I see no indication whatever that you credit any other contributing bloggers. I see no indication that you have "guest bloggers." Could you please point out where you explain these things on your sidebar? Thanks!
Incidentally, your link on your sidebar to "Frequently Unasked Questions (FUQs)" goes to a 404 error. Your link to your "Profile" goes to a 404 error.
Your sidebar, however, does state, and I quote exactly and entirely: "The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author."
You seem to now be contradicting this. Do I misunderstand the above claim in some way? If so, could you elucidate, please? Thanks!
You further write in that post that "This is not a minor issue. If I leveled a broadside against hilzoy, and cited as evidence a post written by, say, publius, I think hilzoy would be offended."
And yet on this blog, the sidebar clearly states at the top:
The equivalent on your blog sidebar listing the multiple contributors is, where, exactly?Thanks otherwise for the clarifications, which are indeed enlightening. And thank you for your own charitable approach.
By the way, what do you think of that whole "tu quoque" thing? Does that often work for you? Do you recommend its use to others?
And, incidentally, "You and I are differently situated in terms of the time we have available to devote to the Internet" seems to contain some assumptions of its own. I'm inclined to stipulate that it may be, overall, true, but I'm somewhat doubtful that you are aware of what limitations I do work under. To be sure, if you wish to assert that your position as a -- last I looked it was a professional prosecutor in Los Angeles, but I haven't updated on this in quite some time, so please do correct me if I have this wrong -- leaves me with some sort of unfair advantage over you in blogging, I shall do my best to be yet more charitable to the hardships you work under that I do not share.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 01:11 AM
"...and you don't acknowledge errors by people on your team"
Oh, yes, I've never corrected Hilzoy, Publius, Eric, or any poster to this blog, on any matters of fact, opinion, or style. The same goes for liberal bloggers in general. I simply don't criticize them, and I never state that they're in error. I've never said "I'm afraid you're wrong about that" to any of them. Spot-on.
Neither do I ever criticize Democrats, and neither have I ever posted criticizing President Obama.
Aside from, you know, those hundreds of times I've done that here to each and every one of them, and to plenty of other liberal bloggers. Do you need a multitude of links, or would the word of Paul Bird, Sebastian Holsclaw, and von do? Or possibly the past words on the sidebar of my blog from conservatives and libertarians do?
Or might you consider withdrawing this unsupportable accusation? If so, thanks.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 01:19 AM
"You do not, you now make clear, fact-check statements made in posts on your blog, until after they've been posted."
You misstate what I have said. I have said I do not fact-check post by others on my blog, unless errors are brought to my attention. You falsly imply that I said that I do not fact-check my own posts.
"So Hilzoy made an error in not reading your explanation before you wrote it."
Uh, no. That would not be her error. Her error, as you well know, is that she falsely claimed I had "repeated" something that I hadn't "repeated."
As I said, I do not have endless time to sit around tap-tap-tapping on the Internet. Perhaps you do. I think I have demonstrated that you are prone to making false statements about me, so I caution readers not to accept any future claims Farber makes about me, whether or not I have time to come here and demonstrate their false nature, as I have done tonight with virtually everything he has said about me.
Posted by: Patterico | July 19, 2009 at 01:26 AM
"Gary - Were you actually trying to address Patterico's point or just groovin' on a self-aggrandizement trip?"
The answer to that question is clear.
Posted by: Patterico | July 19, 2009 at 01:27 AM
"Or might you consider withdrawing this unsupportable accusation? If so, thanks."
Prove it. So far all you did was direct me to your sidebar, where I saw something about your being underemployed, but no evidence that you correct factual errors by people on your team. Meanwhile, we have current and clear evidence that you don't. Namely, hilzoy accused me of "repeating" something that I didn't "repeat" -- and rather than correcting her, you're tapping out lengthy comments that avoid the issue.
Did I "repeat" IBD's claims, Gary Farber? It's a simple and straightforward question; I will enjoy watching you try to avoid answering it.
Posted by: Patterico | July 19, 2009 at 01:49 AM
"You falsly imply that I said that I do not fact-check my own posts."
By my writing "until after they've been posted."
Check. Which part of this is false, and a misstatement, again?
"...I caution readers not to accept any future claims Farber makes about me...."
I could be well forgetting something, but I have no recollection of ever mentioning you at any time, anywhere, on the internet, other than the last couple of times you showed up at this blog to comment, and I responded. I have no recollection of having otherwise, in eight years of blogging, having ever made any other "claims" about you. If you can offer a single link to a single such past "claim" I've ever made about other that was not a comment on this blog responding to a comment of yours on this blog, I would welcome any such correction.
I have, however, placed a link to this conversation here. Since you average thousands of readers a day, and unless I'm linked by a major blogger, I'm lucky to average a few hundred readers a day, these days, you need have little fear of the ill-effects of my link overwhelming your reputation because of my massive readership.
A Blogger search shows that that's the first and so far only time I've ever mentioned you on my blog.
But, really, "virtually everything he has said about me" here is of a "false nature"?
Gosh, that's pretty talented of me. However, my hypnotic control over people's interpretations of exchanges here doesn't work well at all, so we'll just have to wait and see what conclusions others come to on their own. I'm sure much of the internet will be in suspense.
By the way, how's that whole "tu quoque" thing working out for you? Do you find ignoring inquiries about that technique useful? Do you advise it for others?
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 01:57 AM
"Check. Which part of this is false, and a misstatement, again?"
I check my own posts before they are posted. You implied that I admitted I do not. That was false.
"I could be well forgetting something, but I have no recollection of ever mentioning you at any time, anywhere, on the internet, other than the last couple of times you showed up at this blog to comment, and I responded."
Your numerous false statements about me in this thread alone are sufficient to support my comment that you have made numerous false statements about me.
"[W]e'll just have to wait and see what conclusions others come to on their own."
Shockingly, I think most regular readers here will say negative things about me, and most regular readers at my site will say negative things about you.
Posted by: Patterico | July 19, 2009 at 02:06 AM
By the way:
Patterico:
Gary Farber:
You're 1 for 1. Keep it up!
Posted by: Patterico | July 19, 2009 at 02:08 AM
"As I said, I do not have endless time to sit around tap-tap-tapping on the Internet."
Or time, it seems, to respond to questions about your blog, possible errors you've made, facts you've left out, details you haven't explained, or any points of substance at all.
I'm happy for you that you have such a busy and productive life.
"Prove it."
You wish me to find links to the numerous times I've said Hilzoy, publius, and Eric, are in error?
"So far all you did was direct me to your sidebar, where I saw something about your being underemployed, but no evidence that you correct factual errors by people on your team."
I really do hope that as a lawyer, your research is better than this.
Quotes from my sidebar, which I directed to you, where there you can find links to the original statements in each and every case (I've left out quotes from liberals, as I doubt you'd find them credible, and I've left out quotes from Jim Henley, since his libertarianism is quite possibly of a nature you'd find suspicious):
As for the dozens and dozens and dozens of times I've called out Hilzoy, Eric, and Publius for errors, I really don't feel a need to start doing your homework for you. You may consider me a liar, if you wish. I'll consider giving you some links, if it turns out that I do want to spend some of what you imagine is limitlessly available time on my part giving you evidence that is plentifully available, which the conservative posters here will, I am sure, testify to, and which you demand I "prove" to you, when, as it turns out, I am not in fact your dancing monkey, and when you have chosen to not respond to a single substantive point I've made to you or question I've asked of you.Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 02:10 AM
Zero evidence of you calling out people on your team for errors, weighed against your clear refusal to do so here. Verdict: my accusation has merit; your defense is meritless. Thanks for playing!
Oh, before I forget:
Patterico:
Gary Farber:
You're 2 for 2. Nothing if not utterly predicable.
Posted by: Patterico | July 19, 2009 at 02:15 AM
"Namely, hilzoy accused me of "repeating" something that I didn't "repeat" -- and rather than correcting her, you're tapping out lengthy comments that avoid the issue."
You've made clear that you did not, in fact, write the original comment that Hilzoy attributed to you; I have no problem whatever acknowledging that, and I'm sure Hilzoy, should she read this, will have no problem acknowledging that error.
In turn, you have made no responses whatever to the points I've made about how obscure you've made it on your blog to discern that you have guest bloggers, since there is no apparent acknowledgment of that anywhere in the title or sidebar or front page, and you specifically state in your sidebar that "The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author."
So is that statement of yours, in fact, true, or false? And did I indeed miss the explanations on your sidebar that you have guest bloggers? And did I indeed miss your response to my pointing out that tu quoque is a fallacy when engaged in?
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 02:15 AM
I'll take that as a very precious and wordy "no."
Once I become underemployed, I'll worry about my sidebar. Right now I'm a little busy.
Posted by: Patterico | July 19, 2009 at 02:20 AM
"You've made clear that you did not, in fact, write the original comment that Hilzoy attributed to you; I have no problem whatever acknowledging that . . ."
That's the first quasi-acknowledgement of the error in about 10,000 precious words.
Posted by: Patterico | July 19, 2009 at 02:23 AM
I knew I was onto something with the self-aggrandizement comment.
Plus, he likes writing comments for his own delectation. Nobody else is going to read Gary's garbage.
Posted by: daleyrocks | July 19, 2009 at 02:23 AM
For Heaven's sake, Gary Farber, blogging is not like meeting with the Queen for tea. There are many different, acceptable ways to get one's point across. Patterico has found a system that works for him and his blog; anyone who reads a post can clearly see the author.
Oddly, one of the few internet conventions (if there are such things) is that blogs with multiple posters will list the author of the post immediately before the text or after the text. One can hardly claim that, since Patterico's Pontifications does both, that is is somehow unclear or not in conformity with Standard Blogging Protocol.
Anyone with at least half a brain can read PP and figure out who wrote what.
Posted by: bridget | July 19, 2009 at 02:26 AM
Gary Farber says:
From my post, which I linked above for the convenience of Gary Farber:
That's real obscure, Gary Farber.
Posted by: Patterico | July 19, 2009 at 02:32 AM
Further, I'm perplexed by the idea that Obsidian Wings is more clear about the identify of its post authors than is Patterico's Pontifications. The only difference between their labeling systems is in PP's use of time stamps.
This post, for example, is labeled,
Patterico's response post is labeled
Lest you argue that there is the difference between Patterico's guest posts and his own posts are too subtle to be noticed, here is the most recent guest post, for comparison:
Mr. Farber, I really must say that I've never crossed paths with an individual who is so flummoxed by time stamps that he cannot figure out who authored a post.
Posted by: bridget | July 19, 2009 at 02:36 AM
Farber is pretending, bridget, for rhetorical effect. Unfortunately for him, there are a couple of observers here willing to point out how clearly dishonest his rhetoric is. I don't think he's used to that.
Posted by: Patterico | July 19, 2009 at 02:38 AM
kthxbai
Posted by: Patterico | July 19, 2009 at 02:42 AM
I forgot also to mention Slartibartfast as another former frontpage blogger here, and still very frequent commenter, whose hat I will eat, if he has a hat, if he won't vouch for the fact that I have innumerable times told Hilzoy, Eric, and publius, that they were wrong about something.
But let's start with some of those examples you demanded I "prove" to you:
Here I engage in an extremely lengthy thread telling Hilzoy that she is "wrong."
Some quotes: "What Hilzoy said is, I regret to say, a load of class-based, ignorant, anti-genre, elitist, crap."
"This is seriously offensive stuff, Hilzoy. How would you feel about someone writing a rant like this about philosophy professors, and their work?"
"I don't expect Hilzoy to start issuing ukases on which pieces of bound text are and aren't worthy of being called 'books,' but this claim basically enrages me. I don't care what the adjective used in the place of 'romance' is -- it's indefensible offensive garbage, whatever content is plugged in there to make a claim that no one has the standing to make."
"It's disgusting. And it's pure ignorance. Contempt based on ignorance is always disgusting."
Later in that thread, I respond to "Liberal Japonicus," a regular commenter here of many years standing, who runs an adjunct site to this blog, and who is -- big surprise! -- a liberal, and I responded to him by saying: "Thanks, LJ, for yet another version of the Eternal Slur."
And "And, if you don't get it, the point is how stupid and ignorant these claims are."
Later, back to Hilzoy: "Your assertion doesn't seem to make any sense, Hilzoy."
"How does your claim make any sense?"
"However, I do contend that the statement [...] is factually in error. If you can find a source that verifies your statement as a fact, I shall withdraw my claim.
"This is just insupportable reasoning, which I think you'll see if you think it through."
"This claim is wrong."
"That's where you go wrong, and until you you get this point, I can't see that you'll get out of the contradictions you've placed yourself between: there's just not going to be an analogy that justifies that absolute generalization."
More me to Hilzoy: "You're making a claim that shold be falsifiable in reality. So: what are the criteria we can use to falsify your claim?If it's defensible, falsifiable claim, we can test it. So: criteria?"
"This doesn't seem to make any sense to me: could you please explain how that works? Thanks."
"It just factually isn't so."
"My only other comment in response to your perhaps final comment, Hilzoy, is that how you dug this hole doesn't matter in comparison to the ease with which you can dig yourself out
Okay, I'm getting tired of quoting myself disagreeing with Hilzoy in that one thread, although it goes on.
Let's see, conservative contributor Sebastian Holsclaw:
Here I defend conservative cartoonist Chris Muir. (There's a four link limit to comments at Typepad, or the comment won't be posted, by the way.)Here I defend Megan McCardle, which I've done more than a dozen or two times.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 02:43 AM
Again, I defend Megan against liberal critics here.
Again.
Really, there are hundreds and hundreds of examples of my defending conservatives on this blog, and saying the various liberal contributors and commenters are wrong about innumerable things.
But, fine, believe what you want.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 02:45 AM
As I said, I do not have endless time to sit around tap-tap-tapping on the Internet.
You seem to have a fair amount tonight, Patterico.
A propos of almost nothing at this point, I saw a bit of the Waxman committee mark-up of the bill, on C-Span, sometime in the last 48 hours. It's hard to follow those things, but I believe the issue raised by the IBD article came up. The Republican Congressman offering Amendment 20-something was alleging that "grandfathered" plans will not be allowed to enroll new individual members after a certain date, and this will effectively kill them off as the existing members grow older and sicker. This, claimed the Congressman (Paul Ryan, maybe?), would effectively deprive "the 18 million Americans who have these individual plans" of their right to continue having them. This claim smells fishy to me in several ways, but never mind. Fishy or not, it's a slightly different claim than the IBD article seems to making.
My only point here is this: if in fact there are actual problems in particular details of this (or any other) bill, it would help ordinary yokels like me to see "the other team's" objections if they were stated accurately, rather than hyperbolically, by "the other team".
In any case, the amendment to "fix" this "problem" failed -- that much I could understand.
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | July 19, 2009 at 02:56 AM
"Did I 'repeat' IBD's claims, Gary Farber? It's a simple and straightforward question; I will enjoy watching you try to avoid answering it."
This is the first time I've seen this question. I have been writing responses to your previous comments. No, you, yourself, did not repeat IBD's claims.
I have now answered this question immediately upon seeing it. I'll now try to catch up to the rest of the comments you've posted while I've been "proving" what I have no need to prove to you.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 02:58 AM
I'm not Patterico, and Gary Farber's allegiance to hilzoy is hardly my issue, but I would like to note something: Mr Farber's comments that he cites to show that he disagrees with hilzoy were all in reference to romance novels.
Romance novels simply aren't a conservative or liberal issue. Mr Farber, your point would have been much better made if you could show yourself disagreeing with hilzoy on an actual liberal political issue, not on an issue that isn't really an issue to anyone.
Posted by: bridget | July 19, 2009 at 02:59 AM
Ah... again, mea culpa for not putting this in the previous comment: Mr Farber's supposed defence of Meghan McArdle was to say the following:
Emphasis my own.
If it were not rather late at night, I could be more eloquent about this, but, suffice to say, if that is your form of defending someone, I hope you never ride to my internet rescue.
Posted by: bridget | July 19, 2009 at 03:03 AM
Shorter me: there is virtually no regular blogger or commenter on this blog, Patterico, regardless of their political persuasion, I have not at some time disagreed with, told them they were wrong, criticized them, or annoyed them.
You'll find, I think, as close to universal agreement with this claim amongst bloggers and commenters on this blog as is possible on any subject under the sun.
If there's one thing I do, it's critize people, and point out when I think they're wrong, without regard to our general political agreements or disagreements. Which is why I find your now many times repeated accusations of "intellectual dishonesty," "how clearly dishonest his rhetoric is," and so on, so distasteful and offensive.
I also think we've obviously been writing responses to each other that the other hasn't had a chance to read while we're writing, and it might help to slow down, take a breath, and both try being more polite, less heated, and less accusatory. If you like, I'll go first by offering an apology for my unnecessarily engaging in my frequent tendency to resort to sarcasm.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 03:05 AM
"an issue that isn't really an issue to anyone."
Yes, that's why so many hundreds of people commented, and it was linked all over the internet. I think you're confusing "isn't really an issue to me" with "isn't really an issue to anyone."
Patterico's claim is that "I recognize that you're not going to acknowledge that, because she's on your team, and you don't acknowledge errors by people on your team."
His claim was not that my politics vary significantly from Hilzoy's. In fact, they don't. This hasn't stopped me from having some minor disagreements at times with Hilzoy on political matters, but that's completely irrelevant to the accusation Patterico made of me.
Let's say that again: how much my politics differs from Hilzoys is irrelevant to how freely I disagree with her, or call her out for errors.
Patterico's accusation was that "you don't acknowledge errors by people on your team"; in fact, I do that all the time. Zillions of times. And I also don't tag my comments with "disagreement with liberal here." I've made literally tens of thousands of comments to this blog over the years. And, yea, over political issues, as well as many other issues.
And I've had a great many more political disagreements with publius, and also a few with Eric, than with Hilzoy; true fact, dat. But none of that has anything to do with whether I do or don't "acknowledge errors by people on my team" or whether or not I'm "intellectually honest."
Being generally in political agreement with someone is not intellectually dishonest, and I find it hard to believe you'd imply that it is. I prefer to believe you didn't mean to imply that it is.
Neither is this point remotely an issue of left or right, conservatism, liberalism, or libertarianism. People simply tend to have more or less political agreement or disagreement with specific other people, and that's all there is to that.
I constantly acknowledge and point out and argue about the errrors of everyone here, political or otherwise, and while I obviously can't be any more objective about how intellectually honest or not I am than anyone can be about themselves, I certainly take offense at claims that I am not intellectually honest.
If you want to move the goalposts and insist that somehow I have to prove I have major political disagreements with Hilzoy, in general, you'll just have to live with disappointment, and no doubt a continued low opinion of me.
As for Megan, I can point to a bunch more comments I've made on this blog strongly defending her from criticism I regard as illegitimate, including general attacks on her honesty and person. That I have disagreements with much of her politics is also entirely irrelevant to the question of my intellectual honesty.
You find something unreasonable in one such example of the many more defenses of Megan, or other conservatives, I could cite, that I wrote "It's not like there isn't plenty of recent stuff to perfectly legitimately disagree with her about. Fair game and go for that."
I'm unaware that there's something illegitimate, unseemly, unfair, or even at all rude, about stating that there are legitimate issues that one may disagree with someone about. If you take offense at such a claim, well, so be it.
Neither do I owe you or Patterico one darn answer for anything; I've spent hours now answering your charges against my personal honor, and I can't say I feel it's time well-spent, nor, indeed, that I feel I have to spare in life.
Have a good night, and a good weekend.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 03:31 AM
"...suffice to say, if that is your form of defending someone, I hope you never ride to my internet rescue."
Suffice to say that, if I ever seriously claimed that there are never legitimate reasons to disagree with someone, whomever that person might be, that would be being intellectually dishonest.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 03:33 AM
Romance novels simply aren't a conservative or liberal issue. Mr Farber, your point would have been much better made if you could show yourself disagreeing with hilzoy on an actual liberal political issue, not on an issue that isn't really an issue to anyone.
Sorry, but this seems like a ridiculous standard to me. The idea that one liberal has to disagree with another on some "actual liberal political issue" in order to be credible is exactly as unserious as the idea that one conservative has to disagree with another on some actual conservative political issue in order to be credible.
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | July 19, 2009 at 03:51 AM
Goalpost-moving: definition.
Posted by: Phil | July 19, 2009 at 08:54 AM
bridget, it is true you are not Patterico, and that is obvious in your writings. That being said, you are right in that the posts on Patterico's blog does make it clear that he is not the author of all the post's, including the one referenced here.
You are wrong to make the claims you make concerning Gary without any evidence to back you up, which, by the way, is the same mistake Patterico makes.
It is obvious that in this case at least, Paterrico is working on the premise that Gary is guilty until proven innocent. It is Patterico who made the accusation about Gary without any evidence to back it up and is demanding that Gary prove him wrong. Many people can play that game, and that is exactly what it is, a game without substance or meaning.
Patterico also claims that the error on his blog has been corrected as he sent Karl an e-mail and Karl added an update. It is inetyeresting to note that in the postying where he states this he not once actually points out what the error was, nor does he clarify why it was an error. He talks about the IBD article lacking nuance. That is a crock. It didn't lack nuance, it lacked the truth.
On technical grounds, Patterico may be correct about some of the things he has stated here, but in terms of intellectual honesty and accepting of personal responsibility, he is sorely lacking.
Posted by: john miller | July 19, 2009 at 09:06 AM
Hil, if you're going to name names, name the right names. You should have said Karl from Patterico, not Patterico. Frey's response to your post. It would be good to know that you made this correction.
Posted by: Charles Bird | July 19, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Thanks for that timely info, Charles, now that a) the same information was given like a million times yesterday, b) hilzoy's left for a trip, and c) she isn't blogging anymore. Good to see you're still on top of things.
Posted by: Phil | July 19, 2009 at 12:08 PM
The genesis of the debate, as far as I understand, was that Patterico accused Gary Farber of being a liberal hack. Gary attempted to refute that by citing to comments in which he criticised hilzoy. My point was very simple: those comments weren't about a substantive liberal issue (which would make them very good fodder for refutation of the "liberal hack" charge), but were rather about an inconsequential issue (i.e. romance novels).
(Neither is it goal-post moving, as Tony P. states, unless we are all to be so literal that our brains fall out. Obviously, Patterico's issue with Gary Farber was about liberal hackery, not romance novels. Obviously.)
As I said, it's not my fight. I would appreciate it, however, if those who criticise my offhand comment would at least be honest about it.
Posted by: bridget | July 19, 2009 at 03:34 PM
My claim that Gary Farber will not admit errors by people on his own team was based on the evidence of this thread, in which I made a very simple point -- that hilzoy had erred in accusing me of being a blogger who had "repeated" a claim -- the truth of which Farber repeatedly refused to acknowledge.
The evidence is now different. Now I can see that Farber is someone who will refuse to admit an error by people on his own team -- unless repeatedly pressed on the point. In that case, after initially avoiding the issue and throwing up all sorts of blatant strawmen, arguments premised on unsupported assumptions, and other torrents of meaningless, catty words, he will eventually acknowledge the error. Leading observers to wonder why he didn't simply do that to begin with.
Posted by: Patterico | July 19, 2009 at 03:49 PM
That said, I am willing to accept Gary Farber's apology for initiating the unpleasant tone of this thread with an unnecessarily sarcastic reply to my first comment.
Posted by: Patterico | July 19, 2009 at 04:14 PM
Phil, amid all of your sneering, I couldn't tell if you agreed that Hil should update her post, or not.
Posted by: Charles Bird | July 19, 2009 at 04:28 PM
I'm still unclear on why hilzoy's failure to notice the name "karl" matters. I mean, does anyone want to argue that hilzoy acted in bad faith as opposed to simply not seeing the name? Does anyone want to argue that this failure is indicative of a general deficiency in reasoning? If not, then why is this topic worth writing so much about?
Posted by: Turbulence | July 19, 2009 at 04:36 PM
Turbulence,
I do not believe that she acted in bad faith. Nor do I think her errors are indicative of a general deficiency in reasoning -- or a general lack of credibility. Writing off bloggers on the basis of one post that overlooks one fact is her shtick, not mine.
However, it matters to me when a relatively prominent blogger tells the world that I, personally, should not be taken seriously -- based on a post written by someone else. I hadn't intended to write much about it; I wrote one post at my blog and left what I assumed would be a single, fairly neutral comment here about it. Only when that comment engendered a torrent of sarcasm and strawmen did we get the rest of this thread. I'd be content with a correction and having everyone forget about it.
Posted by: Patterico | July 19, 2009 at 04:49 PM
I've commented on this on my own blog here.
"Writing off bloggers on the basis of one post that overlooks one fact is her shtick, not mine."
Patterico, I've apologized to you for sarcasm. You've apologized to me for no sarcasm whatever, no wrong whatever, nor any contributions of your own whatever, and acknowledge few, if any, in this comment thread, and haven't even responded to most of the points I made, and seem content to write me off because of -- I believe this is the second time we've had a series of comment disagreements on this blog -- please do correct me if I'm forgetting a third or any other incident.
I immediately responded to your ever-so-politely phrased direct question as soon as I saw it: "Did I 'repeat' IBD's claims, Gary Farber? It's a simple and straightforward question; I will enjoy watching you try to avoid answering it."
And I straightforwardedly answered you that, no, you did not repeat IBD's claims, without going yet again into the fact that your blog did, the blog which prominently and clearly states "The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author."
And at no time have I made any personal attacks here, or elsewhere, upon you as a person, your personal honesty or integrity, or even any tendencies as regards your writing or blogging in general. I have, while sarcastic, constrained my responses to simply pointing out what I believe to be ways in which you have contributed to the miscommunication and unnecessary heat here, and pointing out what I believe to be circumstances that make Hilzoy's minor error understandable, rather than major or malicious or overall reflecting poorly on her judgment.
You, on the other hand, have made repeated personal attacks on my person, my honor, my intellectual honesty, my integrity, and my general worth as a human being. Right from the start.
And at your own blog, you have not lacked for sarcasm of your own, from your first comment about me: "Aaaaaaand Gary Farber weighs in, with his usual good humor and charitable approach," to:
Meanwhile, among the many other personal attacks made on me in the comments on your blog thread, things such as this have been said: That's just a small sampling. And this after my very favorite comment from someone on that thread: "The interesting question is this one: why the bile and anger from that left-leaning blog?"Back to Patterico himself: "I'd be content with a correction and having everyone forget about it."
I'm sure you would. I'd like to conclude our exchange by sincerely thanking you for your own generosity of spirit in attempting to defuse this.
Perhaps some future response by you will enable me to do that.
Bridget: "The genesis of the debate, as far as I understand, was that Patterico accused Gary Farber of being a liberal hack."
That's not what Patterico wrote. Perhaps you're a better mind-reader of what he intended to write than I am. But it's not what he wrote. To boringly repeat: Patterico's accusation was that "you don't acknowledge errors by people on your team."
And that was just the start, before he got personally nasty, and personal about me as a person.
But while I'm repeating myself unnecessarily, I'll conclude by repeating again to Patterico, in the spirit of, and in honor of, Hilzoy: I'd like to conclude our exchange by sincerely thanking you for your own generosity of spirit in attempting to defuse this.
Feel free to lend a hand here.
(P.S.: I very much thank OCSteve for standing up for me at Patterico's thread.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 06:39 PM
Phil, amid all of your sneering, I couldn't tell if you agreed that Hil should update her post, or not.
Yes, Charles, I think hilzoy should cancel her trip and return to blogging just to update her post so poor Patterico doesn't get his delicate feelings hurt any further. You, meanwhile, can continue to be the fountain of promptness and usefulness you are.
Posted by: Phil | July 19, 2009 at 07:33 PM
I mean, honestly, Charles, the first time it was brought to our attention that the post that engendered all this sound and fury was not by Patterico was at 11:44pm Saturday. You chimed in with your helpful suggestion nearly exactly 12 hours later, at 11:46 am Sunday. Did it ever occur to you to RTFT before you posted? Is it not worth a sneer or two that you felt the need to post something that several thousand characters worth of text made clear that everyone already knew?
Posted by: Phil | July 19, 2009 at 07:37 PM
"I mean, honestly, Charles, the first time it was brought to our attention that the post that engendered all this sound and fury was not by Patterico was at 11:44pm Saturday. You chimed in with your helpful suggestion nearly exactly 12 hours later, at 11:46 am Sunday."
As it happens, I wrote an email addressed to, in no particular order, [okay, on second thought, on preview I'm deleting listing the people I asked, other than Charles, but altogether there were five conservatives among the eight people, with a request to forward the email to one person I don't have an email address for; most of them, after all, other than Charles and OCSteve, quite probably haven't checked their email in the last day], asking if any would, if they had the opportunity, stand up on this thread to attest to my willingness to call out "members" of "my own team" for "errors," and for my intellectual honesty in general, and I said that I particularly hoped the conservatives I was asking would.
I deeply regret having on this thread, at July 19, 2009 at 01:19 AM, gone so far as to assume Charles Bird would be willing do that.
Apparently I was wrong.
Charles has managed to surprise and disappoint me that he could find the time to make two comments on this thread, but not respond to my request. I apologize to him for my erroneous assumption. I shan't make it again.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 08:29 PM
For the record, I sent that email out at Sunday, July 19, 2009 2:55 AM.
And again I have to thanks OCSteve for being the stand-up guy we've always known so well that he is.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 08:31 PM
Neither is it goal-post moving, as Tony P. states ...
Tony P. did not "state" anything about moving goal posts. Tony P. is willing to assume that Patterico planted the goal posts, from the beginning, at: "Prove to me, Gary Farber, that you are willing to disagree with hilzoy on an actual liberal political issue."
Tony P. merely points out that this is a ridiculous goal post from the get-go. It is exactly as ridiculous as demanding: "Prove to me, Patterico, that you disagree with Ann Coulter on an actual conservative political issue."
Why should Patterico feel any obligation to disagree with Ann Coulter on an actual conservative political issue? If he does, fine. If he doesn't, what does that prove?
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | July 19, 2009 at 09:56 PM
"Shorter me: there is virtually no regular blogger or commenter on this blog, Patterico, regardless of their political persuasion, I have not at some time disagreed with, told them they were wrong, criticized them, or annoyed them.
You'll find, I think, as close to universal agreement with this claim amongst bloggers and commenters on this blog as is possible on any subject under the sun."
True, all dat. I been here day in and day out for a couple of years, Gary's statement here is true. Come hang out here day in and day out for a couple of years and then you can make whatever statement you like.
"My claim that Gary Farber will not admit errors by people on his own team was based on the evidence of this thread, in which I made a very simple point -- that hilzoy had erred in accusing me of being a blogger who had "repeated" a claim -- the truth of which Farber repeatedly refused to acknowledge.
The evidence is now different. Now I can see that Farber is someone who will refuse to admit an error by people on his own team -- unless repeatedly pressed on the point."
Feh. Nice dodge.
"However, it matters to me when a relatively prominent blogger tells the world that I, personally, should not be taken seriously"
Seriously, my suggestion is suck it up and move on.
I read the piece on your site. It was far from clear who the authors of the various "updates" to the original post were, and it remains unclear to what your position is on the substance of the issue here.
Instead of getting pissed off at Gary perhaps you'd like to answer a simple question.
Here's what IBD says:
True or false?
Answer that and I'll make up my own mind about whether you are full of crap or not.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | July 19, 2009 at 10:04 PM
My mistake: that was Phil.
Posted by: bridget | July 19, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Gary Farber:
Patterico's quote in question was:
Emphasis my own.
I do not think that it takes "mind reading" powers, as you so state, to determine that the charge is liberal hackery. Unless Obsidian Wings has frequent baseball games, with the dynamic hilzoy-Farber duo on the starting line up, we can safely agree that "your team" refers to the liberal side of the political aisle, and that the criticism about that was related to liberal subjects, not romance novels.
I mean, if I were trying to mock someone for defending against a charge of being a hack, I would probably say, "Gee, why doesn't he just say that they had a little spat about romance novels and long walks on the beach, too, while he's pointing to totally inconsequential things?". Sadly, though, you've gone down that road, so I'm just left trying to point out why it was a silly path to begin with.
Posted by: bridget | July 19, 2009 at 10:35 PM
"Tony P. is willing to assume that Patterico planted the goal posts, from the beginning, at: 'Prove to me, Gary Farber, that you are willing to disagree with hilzoy on an actual liberal political issue.'"
Wait, Patterico never made any such demand of me.
Here's the relevant part of the exchange, from July 19, 2009 at 01:19 AM above:
The relevant portion of Patterico's at July 19, 2009 at 01:49 AM reply was: I went on to show that this is nonsense.It was someone named "bridget" who, at July 19, 2009 at 02:59 AM wrote:
Which, of course I have from time to time, but relatively rarely, and finding examples of such amongst the literally tens of thousands of comments I've made here over the past six years would take god knows how long. But it's entirely besides the point, and it is entirely goal-post moving from what Patterico accused me of, and then ever-so-politely demanded of me that I "prove it."We've had further exchanges at his original thread on his blog, by the way, and I'm now done with that. If they want to set an example for how people with differing political views engage with each other, though, I daresay they could stand a touch of improvement.
Patterico's final statement to me, after concluding that he was absolutely correct in absolutely everything he said, and absolutely every personal attack upon me, and Hilzoy, was "You are full of shit."
And, unless he reconsiders, or someone else convinces him to reconsider, I guess we'll have to leave it there. Oh, well.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 10:37 PM
I haven't followed every in and out of this debate. But to the extent anyone is arguing that Gary doesn't call out errors on his "team" so to speak, I'm a living refutation of that.
Heck, if Gary doesn't criticize me about something every couple of days, I start getting worried.
But in all seriousness, I've been on the receiving end of many critiques, and expect nothing less in the future.
Posted by: publius | July 19, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Had a busy day and just getting back. FWIW, Gary has let loose his guns at me a few times. He is pretty much guaranteed to jump on anybody who is not accurate in what they say or is "sloppy" in the way they say it.
My understanding is that Patterico is an attorney. However, his grasp of the rules of evidence is rather deficient, it appears to me. He initially states, refering to Gary apparently, although in a manner which could be interpreted to mean any liberal blogger or commenter, that he will not admit to errors by members of his own team.
That, number one, is a declarative statemnent. It is not isolated to this particular instance. It accuses Gary of never admitting or acknowledging errors by members of his own team.
When challenged on this statement made without any substantial evidence to back it up, and when, infact presented with evidence it is not true, states the evidence are comments on this thread.
I assume, that when I see someone is asleep, I can accurately assume that that person is never awake. At least according to the rules of evidence as presented by Patterico.
Gary was good enough to apologize for sarcasm. It would be nice if Patterico apologized for making groundless claims.
The other point is that the error was never clarified on Patterico's blog. Just a statement stating some more information became available and a nuance was missed. That is baloney. There was a missed nuance, ther was a clear false statement made. True Patterico did not make it, but it is his blog. If he chooses not to accept any responsibility for the conten t of the blog, he should make that clear. This was not a random comment made, but a post by someone who is apparently approved by Patterico.
Look, I have read Patterico's blog off and on for quite a while, and many postings are smart, intelligently written and at least based upon some solid ground.
But this is just weasel wording by Patterico. I can say this, if hilzoy were still around she would be very quick to acknowledge her error as she has done in the past.
Apoparently Patterico does not believe in apologizing for his errors or those who work for him.
Posted by: john miller | July 19, 2009 at 10:53 PM
"Unless Obsidian Wings has frequent baseball games, with the dynamic hilzoy-Farber duo on the starting line up, we can safely agree that 'your team' refers to the liberal side of the political aisle, and that the criticism about that was related to liberal subjects, not romance novels."
Bridget, not that I have anything to prove to you, but to point out just one of a zillion examples where I criticized a liberal/leftist, did you read my 7/19/2009 @ 2:46 pm comment at Patterico's thread?
Of course, the only response I got to that was a commenter saying "Kudos for criticizing Michael Moore. That is about the equivalent of being against genocide, really going out on a limb there," so there's some more goal-post moving.
But setting aside that I can give you some hundreds of further examples from my blog of criticizing Democratic politicians, and liberals, and liberal bloggers -- along with even more criticisms of Republicans, and conservatives, to be sure -- I, above, at July 19, 2009 at 02:10 AM gave you a long list of compliments to me about my intellectual honesty from a whole bunch of well-known conservative or liberal bloggers.
Curiously, neither you nor Patterico, nor anyone at Patterico's blog, has responded to that.
There's a four-link limit to comments at ObWi, so I have to break this comment into two, to get more links into the next comment instead.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 10:55 PM
As a result, I really don't feel like jumping through more hoops to prove to you the simple fact that I've criticized endless number of liberals and Democrats and leftists, as well as even more conservatives and Republicans, since I first started blogging in 2001. Hell, maybe that's why I've had, over the years (not very much in more recent years, to be sure), dozens of approving links from Glenn Reynolds, several from Bill Quick, a number from Stephen Green, a couple from Stephen den Beste, one from Jeff Goldstein, and so on and so forth. Certainly the politics of these folks and myself have diverged further and further and further in recent years, but I continue to criticize liberals, Democrats (in and out of Congress, on blogs and off), as well as President Obama, all the time.
I'm still on the blogroll of Instapundit, Bill Quick's Daily Pundit, Stephen Green's Vodkapundit, Meryl Yourish's Yourish.com, Midwest Conservative Journal, and so on through a list of highly longstanding conservatives and libertarian bloggers.
Continued with another link on next comment.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 10:59 PM
I was a co-blogger for sometime at Winds of Change, and am still listed there as a Blogger Emeritus, with a link.
Why I bother to take all this time to explain this to you, I don't know. I suppose I just don't like being called, whether explicitly or implicitly, either a liar, or intellectually dishonest.
And you simply don't know me, don't know my blogging, and neither does Patterico, or his commenters, but a great many commenters at his blog have been extremely nasty about me in a completely personal way, and regardless of the fact that I grew heated with Patterico for a few hours, and then tried to cool things down, that was neither necessary, nor did it reflect well on the commenters there, nor on Patterico.
In short, I'm entirely nonpartisan about being annoying. I'm not non-partisan in general -- I was a very wishy-washy Democrat during the Clinton Era, and was, in retrospect, way overkind to George W. Bush on my blog through 2003, and I'm now a lot more partisan than then, absolutely -- much more so -- but I'm damned well intellectually honest about it.
Having a particular set of political views, and whether one is intellectually honest or not, are orthogonal concepts. I'd like to think you understand that.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 19, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Wait, Patterico never made any such demand of me.
There you go again, Gary, correcting somebody on your own team :)
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | July 19, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Gary Farber: if we are to talk about "goal post moving," surely, but one example would be to take my point and then to somehow pretend that I was making a much broader one, and ask me to defend what I never intended to defend in the first place.
My point: when charged with mindless obedience to liberal bloggers, it is not a defence to claim that one has disagreed with the aforementiond bloggers on such trite subjects as romance novels and long walks on the beach.
Posted by: bridget | July 20, 2009 at 12:35 AM
OK, Bridget, you've not responded to a single point I've made, so I'm done with you. Want to believe I engage in "mindless obedience to liberal bloggers"?
Whatever rocks your boat.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 20, 2009 at 12:42 AM
Oh, hell. Between my July 19, 2009 at 10:55 PM comment, and my July 19, 2009 at 11:03 PM, I posted a long comment, with four supporting links (maybe I miscounted?), and Typepad has eaten it, and not posted it as it first appeared to me that it did.
I listed a whole set of extremely well-known conservative and libertarian blogsites I was blogrolled into, and responded to Bridget at excessive length.
And, damnit, Hilzoy isn't around to get it from the bitbucket for me. Damn it, damn it, damn it.
I hate Typepad with a flaming passion at which all words fail at my ability to describe how deep and hot the flame burns within me.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 20, 2009 at 12:54 AM
Gary - I hate to say this, but have you tried keeping a word (or pick your word processing program of choice) document with a backup copy of all your comments? Copying and pasting before hitting "Post" might allow you to save some of the deep hot flame for issues that more merit your passion and attention. Just sayin ;)
Posted by: SeeMoreGlass | July 20, 2009 at 01:02 AM
(Quietly.) Mr Farber, I never took a position either way on that. Such should be clear. I merely pointed out that your defence of that charge (i.e. disagreements over romance novels) left something to be desired.
While there are people who firmly believe that any defence of a just or correct position is a just defence, I am not one of them. Likewise, I don't believe that any poor defence makes the position untenable. That you and your compatriots may disagree with me on this is no reflection upon my stance on the romance novel issue.
At any rate, I have a very long day tomorrow (today, really) and must go. Good night.
Posted by: bridget | July 20, 2009 at 01:09 AM
"Gary - I hate to say this, but have you tried keeping a word (or pick your word processing program of choice) document with a backup copy of all your comments?"
I keep a temporary copy of my drafts and final drafts until they've posted. I believed that post had posted. I deleted my copy at that point.
I also use a clipboard saver that saves my past 25 clipboard entries; unfortunately, between my posts here, and coming back to see that the post had, from my POV, disappeared, I was engaged in a very long email correspondence, and used more than 25 clipboards in the process.
Perhaps I should take to waiting a week to delete my notepad drafts, indeed.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 20, 2009 at 02:31 AM
Publius has now released my Typepad-kidnapped comment of July 19, 2009 at 10:59 PM.
Many thanks, publius!
And I'm very glad to know someone is reading kitty mail now, in Hilzoy's absense.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 20, 2009 at 03:50 AM
Just to put a cap on this: Gary criticizes everyone, about nearly everything, all the time. He is left of center (IMHO), but that does not act as a limit on his targets.
Posted by: von | July 20, 2009 at 09:02 AM
End part first: I missed the part where I was "nasty and personal" with you. I'm responsible for myself, not other people.
First part: my comment (as per above, which I've stated multiple times) was just pointing out that your defence of yourself did not address Patterico's issue with you.
Whether or not you think that you should even have to defend yourself, or whether or not Patterico was justified in saying what he said, is irrelevant to the issue I brought up.
What I don't understand is why you think I do or should blindly accept other people's viewpoints of you. Note to Mr Farber: I prefer to make my own judgments of people....
Posted by: bridget | July 20, 2009 at 09:19 AM