« Lost and Found/TRR | Main | comment of the day »

so now two wrongs make a right?

This thing with Cramer is never going to end. It just gets nastier everyday. Someone just left a nice, long comment with this statement in it: bq. I think it's time you realize that the whole net knows about what you and LGF and a few others tried to pull with this kind of sick intimidation, thanks to sites like boing boing and usenet and some listservs that paint a pretty unflattering picture of your role and LGF's role in the warblog, jackboot wingnut brigades. Even some people on LGF itself think you and the attack dogs at LGF are idiots. It has nothing to do with Cramer. It has EVERYTHING to do with YOU and some complete cowards at LGF. Judging from some of the mail I received today, the guy isn't blustering. There are people going around smearing my name, making accusations about me and telling complete, utter, bullshit lies about me and passing them off as the truth. I have no idea what to do at this point. How many times can I defend myself for the same thing. I really wish I didn't delete the original post, because then people would be able to see for themselves that I never incited anyone to go over there and abuse her in any way. If by just linking her post and discussing it is what they consider inciting death threats, then they are sadly mistaken. It's no longer a case of whether I was right or wrong (and I was not wrong, but let's not get into that again). Hell, I don't even know what it's about anymore. I just know there are an awful lot of people spreading lies about me; lies that could probably undo the three years of work I put into making a name for myself in an effort to switch careers. I could really just throw up at this point. I'm at a complete loss. By the way, the title of this post is a reference to the fact that these people are using the same methods as the people who originally went after Cramer to go after me. There's a joke in there somewhere. A bad, sick joke. Added: This site is not LGF, nor does it resemble LGF in any way. Try to keep that in mind, ok? Update: One other thing for all you idiots claiming I followed Charles Johnson over to Cramer's blog like a sheep. Wrong answer. You know how I found Cramer? When she left a comment on this post on April 1st. Basically, she introduced herself to me on a post about the "mercenaries." So stick it.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference so now two wrongs make a right?:

» Inciting Death Threats from Insults Unpunished
I just wanted to make clear to Michele that she can incite death threats against me anytime she chooses.1 I love her that much. 1I'm hoping her sense of humor is still intact after having her name dragged through the... [Read More]

Comments

You can ignore it and let them slip back into oblivion. Cory Doctorow is a witless prick, and usenet is hardly blogland. I'd say batch up a blender of margaritas, raise a glass (repeatedly), and tell 'em to kiss your rosy ass.

Every time you post about it gives them more of a tiny chub, fuck if you should be their turn-on. Let 'em pay for it or get it from their sisters like they used to.

Buck up, Michele. This will pass.

I repeat what I typed on another thread - I read about Cramer's baseless speculation based on nothing more than a similar name two other places. Long before Michele posted at all. And neither of the other places was LGF, BTW.

The insults of small-minded people are not worth the time to refute, and those who listen to them and believe them are also not worth your time. Considering what sort of people these are (I read Cramer's smear on the dead man and didn't even bother to comment or say anything about it elsewhere) I find the idea that they think their word against someone means anything to be laughable.

I keep coming back to this (I'll avoid the metaphors this time).

There's an election coming up and a large number of people consider their moral duty to pull every possible dirty trick.

I called it troll season, but that's too mild.

To a billion kids who were never taught civics, this is the season for WAR. And as a visible Republican with strong opinions, convincing arguments and a George W Bush logo in the corner of your web page, you're an enemy combatant.

Sorry the country came to this, but "there it is" as Winnie the Pooh says.

;)

I agree, ignore them, they will go away. This is the last thing you need to have to worry about. They have nothing better to do, and you DO! Who care what they think! I love you :)

I 2nd Sekimori's comment; and raise a glass to it as well.

Wear each enemy as a badge of honor. They wouldn't care if you weren't having an effect.

I think Sekimori's right. Don't give their accusations any perceived legitimacy; they have none.

But damn, do I ever wish I'd screenshotted your original post.

I'm still stuck on "it had nothing to do with Cramer." Nothing? NOTHING?

Bullshit. She could have asked her readers to lay off you far sooner than she did, number one. That would have been the ethical and responsible thing to do. She could have made public the contents of her e-mail to you, number two--letting the faithful know that the attacks against her were not encouraged, sanctioned, or caused by you.

And she could have kept her idle speculations about a dead man who certainly suffered enough in the last hours of his life to herself. Ah, but why even go there?

Accountability is dead anymore. Dead.

Forgive my ignorance on virtually everything, but what is LGF?

Also LGF touches the Islamists and Arab facists. That's a "community" for whom slander is their only means of gaining public support.

Anyone who even MENTIONS LGF (or Daniel Pipes or any other enemy of Islamofacism) without slamming them is likely to get slandered.

And American dupes do pick up the propaganda style of their current dupers, if you follow my horrible writing.

Slander and lying are the new fads for anti-Americans.

Welcome to propaganda stew. Oops, I made a metaphor again.

skippystalin:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

I agree with all comments posted here so far...nothing you can do, nothing you should do...except go have some fun. The fear-biters will still be there, but they'll find someone else to chew on in about 5 minutes. It'll pass.

Oh and the political groups on USENET are the lowest pit of hell.

When I first discovered warbloggers like Steven Den Beste I was shocked to find out that there are intelligent conservatives on the net. My prior experience on USENET had only turned up people who were too stupid to even follow Rush Limbah's arguements.

You just don't want to know.

Little Green Footballs or Late German Fascists?

Who's dehumanizing who?

Take the LGF quiz and see if you can tell the difference!

http://lgfquiz.blogspot.com

Jesu Cristo. Push your bullshit elsewhere, loser.

Mr. Spock appears to have expressed a hankering for tearful bunny pictures.

Mr. Spock, we could find idiots and take quotes out of context from any political site.

Go peddle that slander somewhere else.

Also, Michele, feel free to delete this post along with Spock's. When you've gotten rid of the whole arguement your site will feel cleaner.

Water off a duck's back, babe.

These are people who rely on fuel for their anger.

Refuse to give it to them. They'll claim victory no matter if you charge on or give up. There's nothing you can do about the situation.

I had a similar flame war with a friend on a site and just got tired of the shrillness. (Not that you've even been remotely so.)

There is a culture war at the moment running parallel to the terror war. Only thing is, you can't win the terror war with suicide vitriol bombers. You can win by not giving them the attention they sorely need to feel justified in their anger.

And since I haven't said it before, you totally rock.

There are so many people who have your back on this one, it isn't even funny.

she's a freak. let it go. your work and your record speak for themselves, and it's a good record.

the nutcases will pass. frankly I don't think she's got many...

By the way, I just checked LGF and Cramer is spewing slander and demanding that LGF be shut down.

There's a thread devoted to our troll, Mr. Spock, too. And I doubt it's a coincidence that they both attacked LGF and ASV at the same time.

Welcome to dirty tricks season.

Hey everyone, I found a picture of "Mr. Spock" here. I wouldn't trust him. I don't think he understands what fascism is.

Michele, you earned my respect a long time ago.

I would suspect that regular readers of ASV are not a small group in the blogging community, and we outnumber the hateful, ignorant SOBs by a fair bit. It's just that a lot of us lurk more than post :-)

My advice is to ignore the bastards. Your work with Voices and Command Post can withstand any scrutiny they choose to send your way, and ASV is awesome. Be proud of what you've accomplished. You make me proud to be a fellow American.

Jay

Evil Otto: LOL

I almost direct linked for you, but it's funnier with the build up.

Typical leftist B.S., Michele. They spew vile hatred and, when called on it, say "You're attacking me! You started it! Timmy is looking out my window!" and other childish things.

Joshua is onto something real there, BTW. The left believe any means are justified in their pursuit of a Kerry/Appeasement win, and have no time for truth, honor, civilized behavior, or any of those "bourgeois" values.

You do a valuable service by shining the light on them, Michele. And, like cockroaches that fail to run in the same circumstance, it makes them easier to squash.

Ooh, Belize you said "cockroaches" and "squash".

I could start an "ASV or Hitler" site with that quote.

I've looked at LGF, at your website, and at Kramer's blog. She's nuts--paranoid, delusional, and hypocritical. She claims people are posting private infor to harass her...then demands private info from numerous posters to her comments. She claims she's been harassed--and then sics her minions on others.

But as others have said, this will pass. Don't worry about your name--nobody who can think for herself (or who reads you) is going to take their accusations seriously. They're the frothing tinfoil hat-wearing crowd.

Remember--they take themselves so seriously that nobody else has to.

Easy for me to say, but ignore the idiots and have some tequila.

Mmmm, tequila.

Your reputation among people with functioning brains will not be hurt by the whining of the liars. And I doubt you planned to court the people without functioning brains in any case.

Love you dearly, Michele, but sometimes your blog makes my head hurt... I can only imagine what it does to you!

Have a margarita and let karma have at 'em...

And if your current service provider gives you any trouble because they believe the moonbats' lies, talk to Hosting Matters. They already know what kind of a wingnut Cramer and her ilk are.

Michele, I second Loudness. The only people they can sell their slander to, are those to whom your name means nothing. If they don't bother checking for themselves, they'll forget all about it the next day. If they do come to see for themselves, they'll realize they've been lied to.

Not that it matters, but I saw your link to Cramer's blog, and I don't think there was anything inciting people to send death threats. I'm sure a lot of the nasty comments came from people who followed your link, but that's not your fault. You had a right to say what you said, and I don't remember there being anything above and beyond the usual snarky nastiness that you exude from time to time.

At the same time...Cramer has been inundated with this bullshit for over a week now. In my perusals of the comments, I have seen people call for her death, threaten to call child protective services, criticize her ruthlessly (including implying she's abusive and sexually deviant) for breastfeeding her children for longer than they deem necessary (I have a three year old who just weaned, the worldwide average from what I can recall, of weaning is actually 4 years old) and even someone who alluded to sending a "the rapist" over (later, they comment "Oops, I meant therapist," but it was still fucking creepy as all hell.)

I don't give a fuck what anyone thinks about Cramer's original observations, but come ON now...don't pretend like this isn't extreme harassment well past the date of expiration. Michele, for crying out loud, you are complaining because someone's saying you might have caused it and you can barely deal with THAT...imagine how you would feel if the shit that's going down there was going down here.

It needs to stop, and those of you who are commenting on this thread could probably do a lot to put an end to it, rather than acting like that "crazy bitch" deserves it.

We should do a full blog-bomb across a myriad of pro-war blogs.

We find some story that would drive the left crazy, with a fantastic graphic, then post it en-masse and email it off to all our contacts.

Chuck, I've been on Hosting Matters for a long time. All my sites are on HM. You'd be a fool not to use them. Stand-up people all the way and the best customer service you could ever get.

It needs to stop, and those of you who are commenting on this thread could probably do a lot to put an end to it, rather than acting like that "crazy bitch" deserves it.

You find me one post in this thread that acts like "that 'crazy bitch' deserves it."

Oh, and do please tell me what the fuck I can do to "put an end to it." Do tell me, O Mistress of Morals who only ever shows up to tsk-tsk Michele and kick her when she's down and absolutely never has anything positive to contribute.

I've read a few of the hateful things Cramer's been getting. I don't think she deserves them, and particularly not the ones that reference her children. But check it: I don't think Michele does either. And that's all anyone here is saying, Smugsy.

Am I a lefty or righty if I think all three of you are nuts? You, Cramer and Chucky J. all deserve each other.

Joshua: "Cockroaches and Squash" would be an excellent name for a rock band.

I had a post half-written in my head and then Sekimoro and Joshua Scholar go and express it better within the first three posts.

Michele, I don't think this will affect who likes you and who doesn't. People with functioning synapses will see it for what it is, whether they agree with your opinions or not. The rest probably wouldn't like you anyway.
I gave up worrying about people who dislike me long ago. I live my life as best I can and screw em if they don't like me.

Your writings are a source of enjoyment for most of the people here. As far as I'm concerned, half the fun is watching the moonbats go crazy.

drublood, as ilyka pointed out, none of the harasment what's her name got came from ASV.

If you look through the comments, you'll fine that this is a blogger's blog. 80% of the comments come from other blogger.

This isn't FREEP or DU - there aren't trolls who hang around here.

Michele can't call off her dogs because she doesn't HAVE ANY. What Cramer said about Michele was ALL slander.

What they crave is attention. Ignore them.

What Dave in Texas said.

These people out themselves as they lie and spread rumours..... no sane person who is not a far-left idealogue can give them any credence after 30 seconds--2 minutes tops.

Besides, you have more important worries, it's baseball season again.

Belieze: Dave Barry fan

Hey you'all, where did "I'm Rick James, bitch!" come from?

Ohh, just found it, Dave Chappelle show. Downloading it.

Michele -- well all righty then. g

Goodness.

What a mess.

But, if I may be so bold...

Point: Joshua. It's libel. Okay? Not slander. Libel. Like I said before, I didn't used to care one way or the other. But people on the 'net have been accusing each other of it so often, it's starting to get on my nerves that nobody's using the right word.

Next thing: (deep breath)

I just went and looked at your original post about Kathryn Cramer. I didn't actually go hunting for it; I just stumbled across it while I was Googling to see how far this whole thing had spread through the 'net. Apparently you took it down from your index, but it still exists at the same web address. Someone is linked to it, and the link is still active, so I followed it. And what I found was this:

Michele (from the initial post): She should have done her sleuth work, discovered what was the truth and, if it turned out they were the same person, posted that story with all the relevant links. Instead, she engages in public detective work that will only serve to put her thoughts in people's minds.

Michele (from a comment on the initial post): You really aren't that stupid, are you? Kathryn posted something totally irresponsible and I called her on it. I am not the only one to post about it, nor did I ask my readers to go spam her comments or threaten her. So why the hell would I apologize?

So, okay, let me just walk through the logic here: Cramer does research using common search engines, checking public sites, and posts what she finds. She states that the evidence is not conclusive; she is only posting what she has found up to now, but it might not be true. You take her to task for posting it because, even though the information is available to anyone who wants to look for it, her posting it puts, "her thoughts in people's minds." You stipulated that, "She keeps saying that she doesn't want it to be true that they are indeed the same person yet, just by reading the post, you can picture her drooling over every link that brings her closer to her realization."

Later, you wrote that When you write something on a public site that can be read by anyone with an internet connection, you open yourself up to all kinds of possibilities. It just stands to reason that people who do not agree with are going to come across your words. If someone links to your words and maybe takes you to task for the things you said, that’s just part and parcel of making your thoughts public.

So.

1. Kathryn Cramer's actions were reprehensible because of what people may infer from her post, in spite of her explicit disclaimers that she did not have all the facts and that she hoped her suspicions weren't true.

2. Because she posted her thoughts in public, she opened herself up to criticism from you and anyone else who may read her work.

3. You take no responsibility for the actions of your readers in response to your post, and anyone who expects you to is stupid.

4. Yet, your initial criticism against Cramer was, in essence, that it was irresponsible of her to post her suspicions because of what her readers may believe as a result of her writing. In fact, you were fairly specific about this when you wrote, But I will not go back on my assertion that the way Kramer is going about this is completely irresponsible, especially when she knows people will contract her paranoia like a viral disease.

5. By your design, Kathryn Cramer is responsible for the reactions of her readers. But you are not.

That's point one.
Point two is:

1. You stated that, although Cramer was disclaiming any hope that one of the murdered men was a former Aryan Nation member, you could "picture her drooling over every link that brings her closer to her realization."

2. In your posting, "All Apologies," you wrote that, I simply stated that she was treading dangerous ground by making her research about a dead person public before she had the absolute proof that the nasty accusations she was making about this man were true.

3. And yet, that is clearly not the case. You did not "simply state that she was treading dangerous ground". You ascribed malice to her intentions, in fairly specific language.

4. When Kos deleted an offensive post and then referenced it later as something he "wrote in some diary comment somewhere," you wrote, If that's not the sign of a man covering his ass, I don't know what is. And if Zuniga is covering his ass, that means he knows he did something wrong. and you later castigated him for not offering up a full and unqualified public apology.

Point three:

1. In your post, "All Apologies," you wrote, It’s all well and good for you to stand up for Ms. Cramer and denounce those people that are immature enough to threaten her family. But, as with the Kos case, you are missing a huge point. Ms. Cramer made the original inflammatory statements. I don’t see how anyone in their right mind (maybe I should say left mind) could defend a woman who was clearly crossing legal and moral boundaries with her post. You get all righteous and demand an apology from me for writing about her, but not one of you even came close to saying that Cramer might have crossed the line.

2. I never did defend Cramer. In fact, I went to her site, read her points, and asked her what difference it would have made if the dead man had been a member of Aryan Nation; what would that suggest? That he deserved to be burned to death and hacked to pieces, or that the federal government was sending Nazis to Iraq on purpose? I stated that it was my opinion that there was no useful point to exploring the connection Cramer made, except to assault the character of a man who died horribly, and whose family suffered the appalling trauma of having to see his mangled body on display in every major news source in the world. I am, as always, open to other perspectives on the matter. But I did feel that Cramer had crossed a line, and I told her and her readers so.

3. By your design, I would be remiss not to say that I think you might have crossed a line.

4. I think you crossed your own line. And I think you know it, because you left something important out when you recounted your own actions. I'm saying so.

5. I have no doubt that I will be burned to the ground for it by your readers and, possibly, kick/banned by yourself. Perhaps this might explain some reluctance on the part of Cramer's readers to criticize her actions too sharply? Or maybe it was simply the fact that she was already receiving threats to herself and her family, and her readers thought adding a little, "Yes, but you were wrong," to the mix would be somewhat cruel.

In sum:

You accused Kathryn Cramer of maliciously posting accurate but misleading information about a man who was murdered in Iraq, and held her responsible for the conduct of her readers in response to her postings. You later disavowed all responsibility for any of your readers who might have responded to your post by attacking Kathryn Cramer, effectively claiming a double standard for yourself. You then took down your initial post and paraphrased your points in softer terms than they were initially put forward, in spite of having taken Kos apart for just such a maneuver in front of, as you say, between six and ten thousand readers per day.

You later stated that medication withdrawal was affecting your judgment, but specified that you were only apologizing to your friends for any untoward conduct on your part.

Now.

When the flamers come for me, the main thing they're going to accuse me of here is being an asshole. Of posting all this with malice aforethought or, just as likely, of unforgivable rudeness in coming to your blog and insulting you this way. I would remind them that you yourself called for Kathryn Cramer's readers to point her errors out to her. I agree with your assertion that Cramer's readers have a responsibility to criticize their friends and enemies equally. I do not consider you an enemy, and am working my way, slowly, toward thinking of you as a 'net friend. But I think you're letting the pitch of national politics rub off into your discourse, and I think the sheer anxiety of it is driving you to errors in judgment that compromise your own morality.

Believe me, I understand. I have a hot temper myself, and have written things in my blog I was later sorry for, especially in connection with national politics. These are very angry, partisan times, and there are days when reading the paper makes me want to strangle the first Republican I see. Some days, I go to my computer and write when I'm feeling like that, and it's almost always a bad idea. I have yet to pull a post because it was drawing too much heat. But, then again, I don't get ten thousand hits a day; I'm not exposed to the kind of heat you deal with.

But that's neither here nor there.

I am accusing you of hypocrisy.

Some, reading this, will believe that I have accused you of something on a par with child molestation. But I want to be very clear what my perspective on all this is, and it is best described by a passage from a book, by Neal Stephenson. I hope I may be forgiven for quoting it at length:

"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices," Finkle-McGraw said. "It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of climate, you are not allowed to criticise others -- after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?...

"Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others' shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all the vices. For, you see, if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour -- you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all the political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.

"You wouldn't believe the things they said about the original Victorians. Calling someone a Victorian in those days was almost like calling them a fascist or a Nazi....

"Because they were hypocrites... the Victorians were despised in the late Twentieth Century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefarious conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves -- they took no moral stances and lived by none."

"So they were morally superior to the Victorians -- " Major Napier said, still a bit snowed under.

"-- even though -- in fact, because -- they had no morals at all."

"We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy," Finkle-McGraw continued. "In the late Twentieth Century Weltanschaaung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception -- he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course. most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it's a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing."

"That we occasionally violate our own moral code," Major Napier said, working it through, "does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code."

"Of course not," Finkle-McGraw said. "It's perfectly obvious, really. No one ever said it was easy to hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved -- the missteps we make along the way -- are what make it interesting. The internal, and eternal, struggle between our base impulses and the rigorous demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we conduct ourselves in that struggle that determines how we may in time be judged by a higher power."

What I mean to say with all this (and I recognize that and apologize for the fact that there is really quite a lot of it), is simply that I think you are guilty of hypocrisy but that, in itself, is a minor thing. However, you are also not conducing yourself very well in the face of it. This is also a minor thing, in that it is easily corrected.

I think, as an admirer of your work, that it might be healthy for you to take a step back. Center yourself. Apologize for some of what has transpired and move on with the awareness that the pitch of current events is more dangerously infectious than you might have imagined.

Good luck in either case.

ps- Lordy. Long comment. Sorry for that. Maybe I can avoid some of the flaming by having posted more than a flamer is willing to wade through, eh? Ha.

pps- The link to Michele's original post is here:

http://asmallvictory.net/archives/006388.html#006388

Joshua, pet, I've read every word of your comment and you know what? You need a new calculator. That is the longest trip I've ever seen anyone take to make a non-existent point. There should be some kind of award for that.

I submit that you should stick to fawning over the Internet Harpy instead of attempting to investigate, well, pretty much anything. Because you are just no good at it.

Joshua N.

You know I like debating you. But dude, I just can't do the 1,000 word post. Edit man! Be ruthless! Get to the point!

Please?

J. N. I suggest that from now on you should put that excess energy into trying to get laid.

That way only one person will be disgusted with your performance.

I'm Rick James, bitch!

Actually, I think Joshua secretly admires some right-wingers. Btw Josh if you ever get around to strangling Democrats, please give me a call.

"..hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception -- he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy."

What does Bill Clinton have to do with all of this?

Josh if you ever get around to strangling Democrats, please give me a call.

Is that what it takes to hang with your posse? I gotta be a made man.

Sorry I'm starting a band "Cockroaches and Squash." Music is my life.

Damn, this thread is so long it's got in jokes!

I know, you were talking to my twin.

Speaking of jokes, here's a sick one that Michelle will like (PETA related).

---------------------------------------

A farmer and a pig is walking across a street and the pig has a wooden leg.

A man stops the farmer and asks, "How come your pig has a wooden leg?"

The farmer replies, "A few months ago, this pig started digging with his hoof into the back of my garden. He kept digging until he discovered oil, and now I'm a millionaire."

The man said, "Yah, but how does that explain the wooden leg?"

The farmer replies, "Just last week, the pig woke up our kids in the middle of the night and alerted us to a fire in the kitchen. He saved our lives."

The man said, "That's a great pig, but I still don't understand why he is walking around with a wooden leg."

The farmer replied:

"Well like you said, he's a great pig. I wouldn't want to eat him all at once."

I've heard that one. It's so cruel! Ugh!

Here's a cruel in joke about Kathryn Cramer.

You might not get it if you haven't read Kathryn's blog.

I'm leaving it on LGF so Michele won't get hate mail because of it.

Jokes?

Why do lawyers wear neckties?

To keep the foreskin from rolling up over their face.

No thank you for that image!

If Michele get rid of comments I blame YOU!

That is the longest trip I've ever seen anyone take to make a non-existent point. There should be some kind of award for that.

If, on the other hand, I had simply said, "You're a hypocrite," I suspect I would be accused of, more or less, the oposite offense.

Holy cat-snacks. J.N. - that was one LONG post. I agree with Dave - get to the freaking point already!

Michele - I've been reading your blog for 2 years, but I have rarely commented. Don't sweat it. There comes a point where you just have to let it go.

I do think J.N. had one good point though, the pitch of the current political dialog has gotten worse and it affects everyone. I've been burned by it myself a couple of times in other forums. But there comes a point at which you just say "Whatever." and let the screaming subside. It always does.

Ignore it for a while and it will all go away. The people who will continue to sully your reputation are gonig to continue to make it clear that they harbor a grudge against you, and people will be curious as to why and come to visit your site.

Your traffic increases and everything is right with the world again.

See - I can take a long time to come to a non-point as well.

That was fun - and pointless!

Y'know, Doc Weevil just posted on my site, grumbling about Haloscan's 1000-character limit. I was going to apologize to him, but now I think I won't.

Michele is many things, but one thing she is not is a hypocrite, Mr. GetanEditor.

I agree with Meryl - Michelle is far too consistent and principled in everything else she does to be called a hypocrite.

Although she is a Yankees fan - which is hardly a good thing.

God sakes. Wah wah wah, five whole pages. What're you, hyperactive? Five type-written pages is just more than you can be bothered to wade through?

Tell you what, it boils down to this: this is Michele's blog, and most of the readers are Michele's fans. So if one is going to accuse Michele of putting her foot in it, one must be thorough about it.

Kay? Jesus. Kill your television.

I think your commenter is doing a bit of hyperbole, Michele. I ran a search on Boing Boing and came ups with only two refferences to all of this, and nither mentioned you or ASV ["michele" and "ASV" and "A small Victory" turned up no results]:

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/04/07/little_green_footbal.html

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/04/01/using_the_net_to_tra.html

As they said in Hitchhiker's Guide: "DON'T PANIC!" ;]

"ps- Lordy. Long comment. Sorry for that. Maybe I can avoid some of the flaming by having posted more than a flamer is willing to wade through, eh? Ha." - Joshua Norton

Not likely, but we'll let you slide. Just this once. ;)

Among many other, far more important attributes, Michele is now a bona fide celebrity. It has its disadvantages.

Now that I got the obligatory cheap joke at JN's War & Peace entry outta the way, I think Olesma is correct. Sidestep. It takes two to make a flamewar.

If, after looking at what JN said, you think you might have some fault in it, say so, then drop it and move on. Walk away and let Cramer and cronies play after that.

If after looking at it you're satisfied with your part in it, shrug and let it go: you don't have anything to prove, and there's not too much that a bunch of Usenet rats and 'net weasels can do to you.

Either way, they'll end up checking your page daily looking for comments they can snark on, and if tehy don't see any, well... they'll do what forum weasels always do and end up going into an entertaining frenzy and biting their own tails.

Either way, taking the whole thing too seriously will only give you ulcers, ne?

Sorry I'm starting a band "Cockroaches and Squash." Music is my life.

Bwahahahhahahahahaha!

Did someone say "lawyer jokes?" (Go with it and pretend they did)

A woman asks her good friend "Can I get pregnant with anal sex?"
Her friend says "Yeah. Where do you think lawyers come from?"

I like Sekimori's attitude.

I think if things are going to be like this, we need to come up with more images for blasted posts than just the crying bunny. It's old already.

It would be cool to have a huge library of "you suck - I blasted your excess verbiage" images.

Ironbear: "Either way, taking the whole thing too seriously will only give you ulcers, ne?"

'ne' is Japanese, right? How did that get into your vocabulary? Are you an anime buff?

For instance these images off Ironbear's blog would make good post blasters for the correct deserving troll.

Spam golem:

DU spawn

My favorite episode of ASV was the one where that guy wrote that really long and detailed post where he made a clear, well-documented argument that a double standard was at work and everyone who commented complained that it was too long.

But Scott, isn't this just unbelievably rude?

Do me a favor and take Paxil for a year then stop cold, ok? Cut the woman a fricking break!

I mean why should anyone care if a troll who's been rude since post 1 calls someone a hypocrite for the 30th time?

Joshua Scholar: But Scott, isn't this just unbelievably rude?

Joshua Norton: When the flamers come for me, the main thing they're going to accuse me of here is being an asshole. Of posting all this with malice aforethought or, just as likely, of unforgivable rudeness in coming to your blog and insulting you this way. I would remind them that you yourself called for Kathryn Cramer's readers to point her errors out to her.

On an actually interesting topic, (not JN's inexaustible bile), The Belmont club has two must read posts right now "Mirror of the West" and "Fallujah and Kut"

Joshua Scholar: "But Scott, isn't this just unbelievably rude?"

Wait a minute. A long comment is "unbelievably rude" and yet you posting 22 comments on THIS POST ALONE isn't? Give me a break. Considering that Michelle has recently had to castigate her own supporters for their behavior towards other bloggers, I hardly think that leaving a detailed and respectful (however long) post is "rude."

"Do me a favor and take Paxil for a year then stop cold, ok? Cut the woman a fricking break!"

1) How do you know I haven't? Or are you trying to bait me into a "my life is soooo much worse than Michelle's life" contest? Sorry. Not my cup of tea. 2) Either she wrote what she wrote or she didn't, and she's been remarkably frank about what she's proud of and what she's not. That's why we keep coming back. You can't claim, now, that it's not her fault, that the drugs (or lack thereof) made her do it.

"I mean why should anyone care if a troll who's been rude since post 1 calls someone a hypocrite for the 30th time?"

Because he seems to be right? Calling someone a troll doesn't necessarily mean that what he has to say isn't accurate. And considering that he's (?) commented TWICE on this post (to your 22), I hardly think that makes him a troll.

Sorry Michele. I accidentally added an "l" in there. Chalk it up to excess of bourbon.

Forgive the length... JN:

Point one fails because:
1. Michele is disavowing responsibility for, among other things, potentially untoward acts that she did not incite (nor has she ever incited, mind you).

2. Cramer is responsible for her irresponsible reporting of something she had absolutely no firm evidence of. She blogged defamatory conjecture. Her readers believing it was a side-effect of a larger moral/intellectual problem.

These are not equivalent, and the equating them to imply hypocrisy is exceptionally weak (at best).

Second point fails because claiming that Cramer was on dangerous ground is not mutually exclusive with claiming malice. That is to say that Michele seemed to convey that Kramer was hoping for the worst, but that doesn't mean that she did more than stating that Cramer was on dangerous ground. You'll need a lot more solid quotes to make this connection. (Although you may just want to blog it and post a link, if the past is any indication as to how long that will be)

Point three stands to a degree but it is fairly meaningless without the first two to support it. Also, subpoint 5 is a poor attempt at excusing tacit approval of irresponsible behavior by commenters too weak willed to stand up to it.

So, essentially, it took you five pages to make a whole lot of invalid points, quote a novel, and then criticize Michele for a post disappearing. I daresay you could've done all that much more efficiently. Nice Work.

"I mean why should anyone care if a troll who's been rude since post 1 calls someone a hypocrite for the 30th time?"

Because he seems to be right?

Luckily J.N. isn't quite that rude.

There's nothing ruder than critisizing someone's minor flaws repeatedly and being correct.

But truely, a nag who's full of it is almost as unbearable as a nag who has a point.

Point one fails because:
1. Michele is disavowing responsibility for, among other things, potentially untoward acts that she did not incite (nor has she ever incited, mind you).
2. Cramer is responsible for her irresponsible reporting of something she had absolutely no firm evidence of. She blogged defamatory conjecture. Her readers believing it was a side-effect of a larger moral/intellectual problem.

And yet, strangely, that wasn't his point. His point was that Michele's claim was that Cramer was irresponsible in her public "reportage" (a term I take issue with), and was thus responsible for any result of that. Michele, on the other hand, does not claim that her readers are in any way responsible for any results of her own "reportage" of the debacle. This dichotomy (that Michele herself has established) cannot cut both ways.

These are not equivalent, and the equating them to imply hypocrisy is exceptionally weak (at best).

If only saying it made it so.

Second point fails because claiming that Cramer was on dangerous ground is not mutually exclusive with claiming malice. That is to say that Michele seemed to convey that Kramer was hoping for the worst, but that doesn't mean that she did more than stating that Cramer was on dangerous ground.

Say that again? Kramer explicitly stating that she hopes that this isn't so somehow renders her succeptible to Michele's hyperbole of her "drooling" at the thought of this being so? Is that really what you're claiming?

Point three stands to a degree but it is fairly meaningless without the first two to support it.

And the first two do.

Also, subpoint 5 is a poor attempt at excusing tacit approval of irresponsible behavior by commenters too weak willed to stand up to it.

And yet for some reason Cramer is responsible for her weak-willed commenters and Michele is not?

Nice work.

"'ne' is Japanese, right? How did that get into your vocabulary? Are you an anime buff?" - Joshua Scholar

Picked it up from Wizzard, who is half Japanese [it was his 1st language], and from Mortius, who picked it from from the gods know where. ;]

I'm not really an anime buff, althout I like good anime like Cowboy Bebop and others on occassion.

I pick up nifty expressions, turns of phrase, and accents like a sponge... usually from novels or from other old 'net runners.

JS: Good job avoiding the bulk of my response.

Scott:
GAZE.

"althout" = "although"

Sheesh. I'm giving it up while I can still spell my own usernick correctly.

My phone is out of batteries and I'm going to bed. Michele, if you read this end of this monster first, I would humbly advise you to enjoying the banter and troll-putdowns and skip the upsetting crap. There's no substance to it, and the world is full of things with substance.

JS:

That is seriously your response? Give me a break. That's hardly the response I expected from a crowd that seems to pride itself on intellectual honesty. Why don't you just stick your fingers in your ears and shriek "lalalalalalala" for the rest of your life? This has been a civil, sincere, and honest debate, and you come back with "GAZE"?

I expected more.

Ironbear:

I'm with you. Time for bed. You folks have a good time patting one another on the back.

"Michele's claim was that Cramer was irresponsible in her public 'reportage' (a term I take issue with), and was thus responsible for any result of that."

If only saying so made it true. You and JN both like to oversimplify the issue so that it suits you. Here's the fact:

Michele criticized Cramer for actions that even CRAMER HERSELF recognized (later) as irresponsible. Michele made no such irresponsible comments. Moreover, this is quite a straw man. Michele's original indictment was of Cramer herself, not Cramer's commenters.

"Say that again? Kramer explicitly stating that she hopes that this isn't so somehow renders her succeptible to Michele's hyperbole of her "drooling" at the thought of this being so? Is that really what you're claiming?"

That's not at all what I'm saying. Read it again. In addition, just because Cramer made the cursory, hand-wringing, "Oh golly, I hope this isn't true!" statement, doesn't mean we should pass the rest of her comments off as innocent or responsible. The tone of her posts certainly didn't echo that sentiment, nor did the fact that she drug the man's name through the mud only to clear it instead of publishing a well-researched closed case... but I digress. If this point was really that confusing to you, I can try again in a little more detail -- I was trying not to set any comment-length records.

"And yet for some reason Cramer is responsible for her weak-willed commenters and Michele is not?"

I didn't even reference Cramer in this point. You'll do better not to put words in my mouth, Scott. Try again.

Pete makes the point I was just going to make.

I didn't blame Cramer for her trolls coming over here. She didn't send them, nor did I imply that she was responsible for what her readers do. She is responsible for dragging the name of a dead man through the mud in an irrepsonsible manner. End of story.

Josh S - I told you a hundred times to please not direct link other people's imagine. It sucks up their bandwidth and is incredibly rude. And while I appreciate you trying to defend me, my apologies from the other night in relation to the Paxil had nothing to do with Cramer's post at all. I make no excuses for anything I've said on that subject. I'm not saying I've been entirely right, but I am not making excuses.

Josh N - I appreciate the time you took to try to explain your points.

For all - Josh N., while you may not agree with him, is not a troll in any sense of the word.

Also, in the future, please allow me to speak for myself when the issue demands it.

Now, all of you just shut the hell up. These comments are officially closed (on this post) because it's become nothing but a never ending circle of finger pointing that is going absolutely nowhere and will never come to a conclusion or end up giving validity to one side or another.

Thank you.