Comments
I’m directing this at almost everyone involved in this issue across multiple blogs.

You’re all acting like a bunch of Prima Donnas.

This does not reflect well on anyone.

Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I am a prima donna, and I’ll thank you to remember it, Mister.

Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Not just a prima donna, but a silly one. The existence of five or six links doesn’t disprove the notion that Ace doesn’t pay a lot of attention to Q and O.

I’d bet a dollar that you’re not done with Ace, though. In fact, I’ll bet one of you guys links Ace again (disparagingly) in less than a week.

Written By: Charles Martin
URL: http://
Ace’s fans aren’t going to be impressed with your latest flame. They - ok, we - are going to look at this and think: "Ace used to think your blog was decent, stuck it somewhere on his blogroll, and occasionally took a passing look at it; then he got pissed at you recently and yelled some sh*t he didn’t mean."

Ace is emotionally invested in the G.G. fracas right now; in large part because the other researchers (esp. Patterico) have outsourced their research into it over to him for now. Many of his fans and commenters have argued that he should step a few steps further back from the abyss. I have not suggested this to him, yet, because he says that he has not finished his research; and I am willing to trust in his judgement so far.

I think of Ace as the Olmert of this effort, and G.G. as its Hizba’llah (or at least its propaganda channels - which isn’t that far off, given G.G.’s support for Juan Cole). In this analogy, those still making excuses for G.G. are acting like Lebanon’s ineffectual and compromised government.

I was a Sullivan centrist back in 2002-3; that’s one reason I used to come in here and comment ("The dessert cart rolls on" - good times, man, good times). The reason I haven’t been here was because my home computer went down. I’d like to see more sites fighting the good fight against dishonesty in media, from the left, right or centre. I’d like to see LESS sites providing that dishonesty (like Sullivan and G.G. these days) or providing cover for it (like Wizbang).

I suspect this whole issue is about to blow over soon. Ace is going to get tired of fighting people who should be on his side.

And you really should be on his side.

Written By: David Ross
URL: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/blog/zimblog.html
Not just a prima donna, but a silly one. The existence of five or six links doesn’t disprove the notion that Ace doesn’t pay a lot of attention to Q and O.
Well, he didn’t say he doesn’t pay a lot of attention to us. He said something more far-reaching than that. And, it simply wasn’t true.

He wanted to play blogwars, evidently. Now let’s see how he likes being on the receiving end of one, having what he says parsed—and disproven.
I’d bet a dollar that you’re not done with Ace, though. In fact, I’ll bet one of you guys links Ace again (disparagingly) in less than a week.
I can’t speak for the other guys here, but I guarantee that I won’t be linking to him. He’s dead to me.



Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Oh, whenever will the incivility end?

Courage.

Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Dale,
I love a good cat-fight in the morning!

I have a question, though.

As a regular blog-reader I am uneasy about the "trackability" of my behavior online. Your post’s technical revelations only bolster my concerns.

In an age where identity theft, murderous cartoon-censors, and general moon-battery all seem to be on the rise, it is more than a little disconcerting to discover that:
1. Online commentators can be located and exposed by a site’s host. The use of pseudonyms (the classic shield for authors who publish controversial texts) will no longer prevent identification: this is an advent of new-media.

2. Bloggers have exposed commentators for subjective, and often trivial reasons. No doubt the exposing blogger deems the exposure to be "in the public interest," but the exposed commentator probably feels otherwise.

Do you have any tips for this blog-commentator who’d like to preserve all of his autonomy when commenting?
-Steve

Written By: steve
URL: http://
Lame, lame and double-lame.

Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com
I’m swooning from all the personal attacks. Why can’t you just address the substance? Why if I didn’t know better I’d think that this post was driven by SHEER PERSONAL ANIMUS!!!!

Decided against the high road did you Dale? Enjoy it down here in the gutter.

OBTW To address your comments in your previous post on this matter; I used my reading comprehension to deduce that you were personnally attacking a small group of bloggers and specifically the person who sent you that e-mail. I, wrongly, assumed it was Ace from the vehemence of his reaction. In any case you personnally attacked someone in that post, even if you didn’t name them.



Written By: Big E
URL: http://
I’ve been demoted to "a commenter" during my absence. Ouch.

To answer your question, on which your response to my comment is based:
By the way, as an interesting gedankenexperiment in blog ethics—completely unrelated to any specific personalities, of course—which would be worse: Leaving comments as a sock puppet on someone’s blog, or telling outright lies, and amending one’s blogroll in order to support those lies? Discuss among yourselves.
"completely unrelated"?! LIAR!!! BECAUSE OF THE - /jeffg

Snark aside, I just spent some time rereading your stance.

You have demonstrated to my satisfaction that Ace made a claim which he knew was false. Which is, yes, an "outright lie". (Although, I seriously doubt that his removing you from his ’roll was meant to cover up this claim. Occam’s Razor says he did it because he, uh, wanted to delink you.) Leaving a comment under an assumed name deliberately disassociated from the original author would also amount to an "outright lie".

Your analogy fails due to motive. If it is "completely unrelated", it is only because you’ve been withholding evidence related to the case. How ethical is that?

Ace (and you, my dear) screwed up after being provoked into anger. Those of us in the know realise that he was flaming you; just like we realise that you are now flaming back.

But Greenwald did this as a matter of policy; over and over again, with multiple aliases. And then this lower-than-frog-turd piece of slime (h/t "War of the Roses") tried to pin it on his lover. To sum up - Greenwald ain’t your buddy. If he could forge your IP and get away with it, he’d do that too. Don’t forget that. And don’t forgive him.

Written By: David Ross
URL: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/blog/zimblog.html
OBTW To address your comments in your previous post on this matter; I used my reading comprehension to deduce that you were personnally attacking a small group of bloggers and specifically the person who sent you that e-mail. I, wrongly, assumed it was Ace from the vehemence of his reaction. In any case you personnally attacked someone in that post, even if you didn’t name them.
I thought you announced you "used" to read us ... and here you are again.



Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I haven’t really been following this whole sock-puppet thing closely (as in ’not at all’) mostly because I don’t think the whole sock-puppety thing is terribly interesting. (It’s pretty lame, obviously, but who really cares? The rationality or irrationality of an argument isn’t based on who makes it, but on the quality of the argument itself.)

That being said, who is this Ace of Spades guy?

Written By: Dustin Vines
URL: http://
I thought you announced you "used" to read us ... and here you are again.

Zing!!!!



Written By: Big E
URL: http://
Ace (and you, my dear) screwed up after being provoked into anger. Those of us in the know realise that he was flaming you; just like we realise that you are now flaming back.
Ace came over here and carpet bombed the place and while doing it he flat lied. Pretty pathetic when you have to resort to that to start a flame war, isn’t it?

For a guy so full of himself you’d think he could be a bit more creative.
To sum up - Greenwald ain’t your buddy. If he could forge your IP and get away with it, he’d do that too. Don’t forget that. And don’t forgive him.
I love this as well ... who ever said he was? The fact that we think something is overblown and silly (i.e the Great Sock Puppet Hunt) doesn’t mean that anyone is our ’buddy’.

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
That being said, who is this Ace of Spades guy?
Good question.

Right now he’s known as "the entertainment".

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
QandO was still there in his blogroll

Which proves what?

I link to people I rarely/never look at — you’ll find them under the "weapons grade crazy" heading on my sidebar.

Sort of a public service for moonbats and loons who happen to wander by.



Written By: Purple Avenger
URL: http://
Oops forgot the site link in the last post. Its here now

Written By: Purple Avenger
URL: http://
No its not. Your * seems broken

Written By: Purple Avenger
URL: http://
Dale, McQ,

Yes, I linked your blog... SIX TIMES over two years. Wow, I’m a dedicated reader.

Check back on those posts. I think you’ll find almost all of them were linked by Instapundit, or someone else who I do read.

As for deleting you from my blogroll — of course that was juvenile. But I do intend to keep you off; I don’t really need crap-sites like this cluttering my blogroll. But it was not some absurd attempt to "bury" the evidence. Hell, I was posting on your site all day yesterday, that alone is proof I’d "heard" of you and "read" you.

But always via the same route. Never actually going to your blog to see what McQ and Franks are up to; always because you were linked by instapundit, and I read his digest there, and just linked you off of his recommendation. Or, yesterday, because someone (I won’t say who, to keep him out of this) linked you in the comments and posted most of your sanctimonious "Guy! Let’s not fiiiight! Let’s deal with the suuuuuubstance!" post in my comments.

Funny how Dale Franks springs to make allegations — "He deleted our link to hide the fact he’d heard of us!" — with no evidence at all, and yet takes Glenn Greenwald’s story as credible despite a mountain of evidence against it.

And Dale— seriously, never heard of you. I linked one of your posts, you say. Okay, so I did. I didn’t know the roster of this site. Until recent emails with Patterico, I didn’t know ANY of the names connected with this site; and Patterico’s mention of the names didn’t include you. He said somethign like "McQ might be interested but Jon will keep away from it." (I hope that’s not telling tales out of school.)

But no mention of this very important "Dale Franks" character, who spends long posts urging people to be civil and deal with the "substance" in between attacking Bithead mercilessly because it "amuses" him to do so.

So, like I said: never read your blog. I have never, in my life, clicked on Q&O’s main page. Never typed in Q&O into my browser. Never. (Until yesterday; and now I can just click on it in my drop-down URL thing, because it’s there, at least for a few more days.) Only came here after Instapundit or the like linked you, or a commenter I trust urged me to link a post.

And yes, as I said, I’m barely aware of your blog, except that I see it on Instapundit, occasionaly.

If you think six mentions over two years proves some sort of genuine interest in your blog, well... you have rather low standards about reader interest. There are dozens of much smaller blogs that get six links in a month.

But yeah, I was such a fan of this blog to link it six times in two years. Or once every four months, on average.

Big fan, guys. Big fan. Keep on keepin’ on. I don’t know what I’d do every four months to satisfy my "Q & O Jones" if you guys weren’t here, doing what you do, whatever that is.


Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Flame away —> http://purpleavenger.blogspot.com/
Why? What did you say worth flaming ... in four posts.

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Yes, I linked your blog... SIX TIMES over two years. Wow, I’m a dedicated reader.
Actually you’re a punk, Ace. You came over here and picked a fight and got caught in a lie. You’re just too clever for your own bad self, aren’t you?

As to the rest of your nonsense ... *yawn*.

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
By the way, you were also on my blogroll with 100 other sites I don’t read.

I don’t want to embarrass anyone, but most of my blogroll consists of courtesy-links.

It is not a blogroll of blogs I read. Some people do that, I don’t. I link people out of courtesy (i.e., they linked me, they asked for a link) or because they’re larger bloggers (like you) so it’s a courtesy to my readers who might want to see what amazing stuff you guys are cranking out any particular day.

Me? Nope. Don’t click on the Q&O link. Wasn’t even sure I had one until I checked.

Actually, I had meant to de-link Belgravia Dispatch last week, having found that he was now off the rails, but I was disappointed to learn I had never linked him in the first place. But when I saw I DID have a link to Q&O and the preening, sanctimonious Franks (who is all for civility except when incivility may "amuse" him), well, it was my time to do that de-linking I’d been all excited to do since last week.


Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
McQ,

Yeah, I got caught in a "lie." I said I "never" read your blog, when in fact, over the course of two-plus years, I have linked you six times, always off of an Instapundit link.

That proves I "read your blog."

Odd that the standard for lying is so easily met by me, and yet you continue to insist upon the credibility of your very good chum Greenwald.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
The next accusation: Ace is himself engaging in sock-puppetry because the name he quickly typed in here says "acd," not "ace"!

It’s not a typo, it’s a conspiracy!

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Oh, I just checked that "Dale Franks" link I posted.

Here’s the sum and entirety of the post:

What They Said and What They Meant

Demure Thoughts/Jen alerts to this Q&O take on the debate.

...

That’s it. A tip from a blog I *do* read, a simple link (with no quoting— usually a sign I didn’t even bother to read the thing, but put the link up on the recommendation of another).

Also— that seems to be debate coverage. I didn’t really cover the debates — barely watched them — so I was in dire need of linkage to people who had. I almost never watch speeches and rarely watch debates, which always creates a great big whole in my blogging coverage.

A lot of crap blogs might get linked in an attempt to make up for my deficiencies. Guess you drew the lucky card there, eh?

Yep— Ace of Spades: True Fan of "Dale Franks."


True Fact: When I’m weightlifting with my spotting partner "Turbo," and I can’t quite put up that last rep, Turbo shouts at me, "Dig deep within yourself and find the *DALE FRANKS* within you!"

True fact.



Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Odd that the standard for lying is so easily met by me, and yet you continue to insist upon the credibility of your very good chum Greenwald.
You read about as well as you lie. Who here has argued that Greewald has credibility?

Here’s what we’ve said and have been saying:
Fact: Someone using the same IP blogged under different names in support of the blogger in question. Fact: That’s sock puppetry. The intent was obvious. Point made. Let him deal with the questions and move on.
Heck, that’s not even nuanced. Maybe you missed it in your rush to carpet bomb the place.

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
It’s not a typo, it’s a conspiracy!
Heh ...

Hey, you’re the big investigator...no one here yelling conspiracy but you. I know ... why don’t you spend a couple of weeks investigating yourself. I’m sure that would be an eye-opening endeavor.

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Oh, I just checked that "Dale Franks" link I posted.
Ace ... ever hear of the "1st rule of holes".

Try it, you’ll like it.

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I don’t approve of Ace’s nasty comments about Dale. But if this post shows anything, it’s this: it’s very easy to rise above the fray when someone else is the target of nasty stuff that you think is dishonest. But guess what, Dale? The second you felt that *you* were the target, you went off and did some Internet research to take down the credibility of another blogger.

And this, just one day after you said this:
OK. Fine. But count me out. If I have a problem with Mr. Greenwald’s arguments, I’ll address them. But I decline to participate in an attempt at personal destruction, especially over a matter that is so trivial as to warrant little more than mild interest.

Oh, and by the way, in the future, I’ll be essentially uninterested in hearing from those right-wing bloggers—you know who you are—who attempt to interest me in some heinous example of the Left side of the blogosphere engaging in personal attacks rather than substantive debate. Because, really, you don’t care about substantive debate, either. Not when you can substitute overblown personal attacks.

So, you can get down off your high horse.
Now, look. I’m not really criticizing you for getting angry. I’m not even criticizing you for expressing. It happens. Most of us bloggers do it.

I’m just making the point that it’s ever so easy to be critical when the target is someone else. Maybe this little episode is helping you see that.

The "lie" you caught Ace in, by the way, isn’t really a lie. It was poor wording on his part. I had a similar problem recently in a previous argument with Greenwald. I overstated a claim about Misha, saying his blog had "never" appealed to me. Greenwald’s legions of minions dug up an old two-and-a-half-year-old comment of mine where, as a relatively new and untrafficked blogger, I had obsequiously welcomed him onto my site, and had essentially said "ooookay . . ." to one of his over-the-top comments, when I should have said: "Dude, what the hell is wrong with you? Are you kidding?"

I should have said that I don’t read Misha’s blog nowadays, and haven’t for years, although I did at one point in the past have a slight familiarity with it. But I misstated the point, and got slammed for it. Doesn’t mean I was a liar.

By the way, I’d like to disabuse people of the notion that I have "outsourced" any research on this to Ace. I have a family and a job and limited time, and Ace has been doing a smash-up job building a circumstantial case, in my opinion. I have been working on some stuff of my own which I may or may not publish, depending on whether it seems like it will contribute to the debate.

You and others will call that obsessive. But I have to say, I feel (on a terribly small scale) a little like I did during the impeachment proceedings. Guy gets caught lying; he lies about it further; and people back him up and tell his critics to move on dot org. Well, I’m not ready to do that quite yet, and since I know Glenn Greenwald is reading this, he should know that. It won’t go on forever; it will go on until we have all the evidence gathered, make our best case in one place, and then and only then will we move on dot org. In the meantime, the calls of "obsession" won’t do much to move me. If anything, they’ll do the opposite.

When I was routinely slamming Ann Coulter (something Greenwald dishonestly stated I hadn’t done — in fact, he claimed I hadn’t slammed ANY vile right-wing rhetoric), my commenters kept telling me to stop. All those cries to stop were probably good for another 3 or 4 anti-Coulter posts.

Anyway, I don’t expect you to apologize to Ace, exactly. At least not until he apologizes to you. And I say that as someone who believes that you, in some sense, started this, with the "high horse" comment. Because I think your "high horse" comment (ironically issued from a high horse) was well-motivated, whereas Ace was over the top. I think he probably already recognizes this.

I just want you to recognize that you’re capable of the same feelings we all are when you feel unfairly attacked — and I want you to take that into account in the future when you issue pronouncements about our behavior. Even if there is some truth to what you said, the way you said it was pretty dismissive of a lot of us.

Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Dale, you and McQ claim that QandO didn’t participate in this blogswarm about Greenwald’s sockpuppetry — that it would simply be beneath you to do so — but I noticed this in a Patterico post talking about Greenwald’s sock puppetry.:
Jon Henke writes to say that numerous comments from Greenwald defender “Thomas Ellers” were left in this thread using the same IP. There are too many to quote. Just go to the thread and search for “Ellers.”
And then there’s this in the comments section of a Greenwald-sockpuppet post at Outside the Beltway:
That IP address showed up in our comments too, in the person of “Thomas Ellers”. Strikes me as pretty poor form.
Posted by: Jon Henke at July 20, 2006 09:23 Permalink
Last time I checked, Jon Henke was a blogger here at QandO, and he sure seems to have been participating in gathering/confirming evidence that Greenwald has been sockpuppeting by providing IP information about commenters here.

I know there’s absolutely no chance that you and McQ will be retracting your lies that QandO didn’t participate in the blogswarm, nor will you apologize for the insults about obsession, being unable to address arguments, etc. you directed at the bloggers who were trying to gather evidence of what actually happened.

But I see that as a good thing, because it makes your whole series of "we’re too concerned with important world affairs to stoop to getting involved in this blogwar" and "Ace is a big fat liar" posts all the more hilarious. Keep up the self-parody, guys, you’re getting extraordinarily good at it!

Written By: Shad
URL: http://
I’m trying to stay out of this — and desperately hoping it ends soon — but I do want to reiterate something I think I’ve mentioned privately to Patterico previously...
The second you felt that *you* were the target, you went off and did some Internet research to take down the credibility of another blogger.
You are absolutely right to be incensed at Greenwald in regards to some of the things he said and/or implied about you. While I think too much is made of the IP thing, I have no problem at all with you defending yourself — angrily, repeatedly, etc — against the misleading statements Greenwald has made about you.

For another good example of what I consider some seriously misleading or deceptive accusations from Greenwald, see the first two comments at this post. Greenwald took something Reynolds said very out of context and made some quite serious accusations based on an incedibly flawed misreading. And never corrected his blatantly incorrect statement.

That, I think, is more important than "somebody in the Greenwald household and/or place of business touted Greenwald using a different name!" Mileage, of course, varies.

Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I think everyone should calm down.

Ace is a good guy. While I don’t know Dale as well, I have a good impression of him and all the bloggers here from what I know.

Even Greenwald may not be that bad a guy some of the time. I have all these people who tell me he makes a lot of good substantive points. I really have no idea. If that’s true, his weak spot must be sloppiness in attacking right-wing bloggers. Because just about every time I’ve ever read him in the past, that’s what he’s doing: attacking right-wing bloggers unfairly, and distorting their record and calling them dishonest while being dishonest himself.

And how do I find those posts? Because the people he unfairly attacks (like Instapundit and Goldstein) link him. Which I suspect is part of the reason for the attacks.

If the guy would cut out that crap, and 1) apologize to me for saying things about me that weren’t true, and 2) explain fully what is up with all the comments coming from his IP address, I actually might be interested in reading his stuff about whatever he writes about. I have enough commenters and fellow bloggers who like him that it’s possible.

I could even forgive him. I’ve made up before with people I’ve been this angry with.

But somehow I think his pride stands in the way of all that. Because that’s what all this is about. Pride. It’s what causes all the wounded feelings and causes all the barrage of accusations.

Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Patterico,

Thanks for the semi-support. As for being over-the-top, yes. I shouldn’t have said "eff off and die alone." I forget what else I wrote, but I’m sure there’s something else objectionable.


Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
I don’t, however, apologize. I regret the statement only to the extent that it demonstrates I lost my cool, and anyone who loses their cool looks pretty stupid.

I continue to maintain that Dale Franks is a dishonet and preening pretty pony, a guy who calls for "civility" when three posts down he ripped into Bithead mercilessly, and then, called on this disgusting hypocrisy, had the gall to offer the justification that it "amused" him to rip into Bithead, and his amusement is reason enough to suspend his code of civility.

Like I said, it amuses me to catch Greenwald in lies. Why am I not entitled to the same justification?

Q&O are simply not part of this story, and therefore, in order to have any sort of take on it, they are required to be contrarian, hopefully garning an Instapundit link for their scary-brave call for "civlity" and "dealing with substance" and "covering more important issues."

I think this is fairly transparent, and fairly disingenuous.

And I think it’s perfectly obvious who started the blogwar rolling here. I didn’t even mention Q&O recently, except for, I think, to link their own little finding about Greenwald (I may be wrong about that), or else I linked them simply because "Thomas Ellers" showed up in the comments, and someone tipped me to that. (I have to be careful here, lest I be charged with "lying.")

Dale Franks could have simply said there is no way to prove this beyond any doubt, and frankly, it’s not the most important issue in the world. (Two things I’ve said on my own blog multiple times.)

He didn’t. He had to write a little provocative little slam preening "Look how focused on the BIG ISSUES I am, like whether Bithead is a lying wingnut," and etc.

I’ve never heard the name Dale Franks in my life, and I now suspect I know the reason why. If this the best he can come up with, it’s best that his audience is, as Spinal Tap’s audience says, very "selective."

As for McQ— I didn’t attack him personally, but he decided to come to Dale Frank’s defense. Again, I don’t really care about any of these guys, or this blog, which I — colloquially, but not strictly, speaking — NEVER READ and NEVER HAVE READ.

The only thing I’m really sorry about is that I lost my cool, and made myself look bad. And that I’m pulling a Bill from INDC and posting here at all, like an idiot.

The rest of it— pretty much I stand behind. If McQ and "Dale Franks" don’t want basic questions answered, like "Was the magic boyfriend even home on the mornings in question?" — that’s their thing. No one has to be as consumed by this as I am.

But they’re being preening pretty ponies to suggest that NO ONE ELSE should be interested in seeing such a question answered.


Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
"That, I think, is more important than "somebody in the Greenwald household and/or place of business touted Greenwald using a different name!" Mileage, of course, varies."

He didn’t just tout Greenwald. He attacked bloggers, calling them jealous morons. He mocked their SiteMeters and said they were dependent on him for traffic. Etc. etc.

Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
This story: “ The Great Blogosphere Brawl”, covered the Jeff Goldstein/Frisch embroglio fairly well. Of course, I was thinking “You think THAT was an internet brawl, what about GG/his detractors! Surely THAT is now “The Great Blogosphere Brawl””?
At the outset I should state my position on the issue: Mr. Greenwald leaped at the “opportunity” to divert the attention being paid to the Goldstein dustup to his self-promotion efforts. Mr. Greenwald is, from all evidence, a believer in the school of thought that believes that no publicity is bad publicity, just so they spell my name right. [Yes, I know that I am paraphrasing two different famous quotes, I just prefer not to look them up. If I have violated something, feel free to point that out.]
Having committed at least one grievous sin already under current rules of comment, dare I proceed? [sarcasm/humor alert]
I was struck at how the author’s comments about how the Goldstein case developed paralleled how Mr. Greenwald so far has handled his challenge.
“First, there was the non-apologetic apology that amounted to a denial of wrongdoing...
Goldstein publicly documented the post as well as information identifying Frisch as its source: her IP address...
Then Frisch played the victim card...
Next, Frisch tried to elevate the incident into political significance...
Finally, she converted the entire matter into a left-against-right struggle thus removing personal responsibility...
To their credit, some left-wing bloggers have denounced Frisch’s behavior as inexcusable. To their discredit, some have rallied around her.”
Note: I haven’t seen any left-wing bloggers denounce Mr. Greenwald’s behavior, but there has been some rallying around, at least in Mr. Greenwald’s blog Comments section.
The closing of the article is apt as well:
”So what, beyond bad jokes, can be gleaned from the Great Blogosphere Brawl?
I return to the opening sentence of this column, "[B]logs reveal the emotions churning beneath the surface ...The motor is often a raw unrepentant rage that takes no ideological prisoners on either side of the left-right divide.
The rabid them-or-us attitude must not be allowed to guide mainstream advocacy. It should be exposed for what it is: ugly and destructive to everyone.”.
My postscript is: Will the man who dreampt of being another Thomas Jefferson be remembered as another Tawana Brawley?


Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
I’m just making the point that it’s ever so easy to be critical when the target is someone else. Maybe this little episode is helping you see that.
A reminder, Patterico ... he was talking about getting contacted by email to help put a time line together.

It is that of which he was critical for heaven sake.

We agree that sock puppetry went on. We agree that isn’t kosher. We agree that it’s pretty sad. We also know you’re not going to be able to prove he did it, so our advice has been "drop it, point made".

From that we get that we’ve been crtical of the entire effort and we’re "Greenwald’s buddies".

Context, for heaven sake ... context.
The "lie" you caught Ace in, by the way, isn’t really a lie. It was poor wording on his part.
Well you need to tell him that since he’s agreed it was a lie. Sorry, the scare quotes don’t absolve him. His story now is that he links to us but doesn’t read us, and somehow, I suppose that means he didn’t really lie to some people (even though in the links he makes it clear he has read what he’s linking because he characterizes the link).

Hey, if you want to defend that, be my guest.
Anyway, I don’t expect you to apologize to Ace, exactly.
Well you’ve gotten this exactly right and you should know why, now, as well.



Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
And I think it’s perfectly obvious who started the blogwar rolling here.

Ace, I agree with that, as I’ve already said.

Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
As for McQ— I didn’t attack him personally, but he decided to come to Dale Frank’s defense. Again, I don’t really care about any of these guys, or this blog, which I — colloquially, but not strictly, speaking — NEVER READ and NEVER HAVE READ.
Cripes, first he’s never heard of us and now he’s like a bad smell you can’t get rid of.



Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
So much drama, you’d think Sullivan was involved!

:)

Written By: shark
URL: http://
I know there’s absolutely no chance that you and McQ will be retracting your lies that QandO didn’t participate in the blogswarm, nor will you apologize for the insults about obsession, being unable to address arguments, etc. you directed at the bloggers who were trying to gather evidence of what actually happened.

But I see that as a good thing, because it makes your whole series of "we’re too concerned with important world affairs to stoop to getting involved in this blogwar" and "Ace is a big fat liar" posts all the more hilarious. Keep up the self-parody, guys, you’re getting extraordinarily good at it!
Read my previous entry again. Read it slowly, to avoid straining your lips.

What I objected to was the concerted effort to get a number of bloggers together to research and publicize the "time line". I never said that it was wrong for a blogger to respond at all. Indeed, I explicitly acknowledged the possibility:
An allegation of sock puppetry has been made. Mr. Greenwald categorically denies it. Alternative explanations exist. Without evidence that points directly at Mr. Greenwald, there is no further purpose in inflating this story. Lay the facts out. Let Mr. Greenwald respond. Let readers make their own conclusions. If all you have is an IP address, the story should pretty much end after a day or so of mild interest.
This is my "day of mild interest" about Ace.

I’m not getting other bloggers together to help me reinforce my complaints about him.

Apparently, despite the passage quoted above, many of seem to have gotten the impression that I was claiming to be above striking back at all at people who irritate me.

Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
I think everyone should calm down.

Ace is a good guy. While I don’t know Dale as well, I have a good impression of him and all the bloggers here from what I know.
Well I have to admit, I’m kind of like Ace and QandO - I’ve not read his blog very much. I will, at least, admit to having heard of it though. I mean, cripes, what childish posturing that was from him last night.

And then the total misrepresentation of what Dale and I have said, just about narrowed the tolerance level to zero.

I’m glad you think Ace is a ’good guy’. To this point, I remain unconvinced.



Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I "agreed" it was a "lie"?

Realy, McQ? Since you’re such a bear for diligent research and strict fidelity to the facts and *speaking perfectly accurately* at all times, I’m sure you can point to the quote where I say, "I confess this was a lie."

Otherwise— you’d be guilty of a LIE yourself, wouldn’t you?

So long as we’re writing strictly, here.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Patterico,

Yes, I know you said it. I’m saying it again. For, like, emphasis & stuff.

Duh.

Duh, man. Super-duh.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
McQ—

I’ll just be waiting here patiently for you to find the admission of my "lie."

Again, as you and Franks have established the threshold of "lying" to be any loose statement that is not perfectly strict in its terminology, you can either find this quote from me or confess your own "lie."

Get on it, dickface. Mach Schnell.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
"Lay the facts out. Let Mr. Greenwald respond. Let readers make their own conclusions. If all you have is an IP address, the story should pretty much end after a day or so of mild interest."

I think the blogger who sent you the e-mail was just trying to get the facts and lay them out.

If one read your response uncharitably, they could read it as saying: go ahead and respond — just don’t do so thoroughly.

I mean, look. You are within your rights to say that you don’t want to participate. That’s fine. But you started this by writing a post that Ace has accurately described as "preening" about it.

It bugged me, it bugged Ace, and I betcha it bugged the mystery blogger who sent you the e-mail. And, while you claim not to have made it clear who it was, it’s pretty clear. Who has actually done a timeline on this so far? I know that. A lot of readers know that.

Again: I contacted another blogger re IP addresses while researching Hiltzik. Was that wrong too?

I will suggest one more time that everyone calm down. And that includes the Q&O guys. Ace didn’t lie, he didn’t admit lying; he said some nasty and unnecessary stuff about you guys because Dale provoked him with his airy dismissal of bloggers who would research other bloggers — one day before doing it himself.

If you guys can’t see the irony there, you should take a giant step back.

By the way, if you really want to make the case that Ace lied, you’re going to have to do a far better job than you have so far.

Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
PS, I never watched Friends.

Is this a lie?

I should note, in the interests of honesty, I saw about three episodes the first season, and about ten episodes over its nine year run. Mostly because people I was with at the time had it on.

I guess it’s a "lie" by your standard, and yet, oddly enough, no one’s ever called me on it before.

A strictly accurate statement would be: "I have seen Friends, rarely, and never sought it out, and seldom if ever deliberately went to a channel showing Friends."

Which is pretty much my relationship with Q&O. You’re not on my "cycle" of blogs to check, I have never (until yesterday— let’s be accurate!) clicked on your main page, never typed Q&O into my address bar (except, I guess, when I added you to the blogroll, in order to find out what your address was).

The only time I have EVER come to this site (except since yesterday) was through Instapundit links or tips from bloggers/commenters I read.

And even in those cases, I usually didn’t read very much. I took Instapundit’s digest as representative, and linked.

So, you know, loosely speaking, I "never" read this blog, like I "never" read Glenn Greenwald’s blog, either. (Until recently, of course— must be perfectly strict in our statements, lest we "lie"!)

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
McQ—

Found that admission of my "lie" yet?

Or were you speaking loosely?

One or the other, baby. Let’s have it. You can’t have it both ways.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
My postscript is: Will the man who dreampt of being another Thomas Jefferson be remembered as another Tawana Brawley?
Given the proximity and the commission of an actual offense leading to cries of victimhood, I daresay we’re talking about another Deb Frisch.
::shudders::
The second you felt that *you* were the target, you went off and did some Internet research to take down the credibility of another blogger.
Ladies and Gentleman, we have a winner.

Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
McQ,

If you’re going to continue to insist that Ace lied, then what are people to make of your apparently false statement that he admitted it?

Step back from the brink, guys. All of you. Admit you all said untrue things about each other, because you overstated things in your anger.

Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
That’s okay Dale, I knew that neither you nor McQ would admit that you lied when you denied QandO’s participation in the blogswarm regarding Greenwald’s sockpuppetry (you even went so far as to spread that lie on at least one other blog), even when presented with direct evidence that IP address information about comments left here had been shared with other bloggers at least 3 days ago.

But as I said earlier, that’s a good thing... it gave me an even heartier chuckle to see that not only are you a dishonest pompous blowhard, but you’re a predictable dishonest pompous blowhard.

Written By: Shad
URL: http://
I humbly suggest all involved follow Patterico’s advice.

"Step back from the brink, guys. All of you. Admit you all said untrue things about each other, because you overstated things in your anger"

It is very sound.

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
Got that Instalink yet, Dale?

By the way: I’m always a little suspicious about people so personally committed to the proposition that sock-puppetry, and lying about it, are no big shakes.

So, let me just ask:

McQ, Dale— anything you want to ’fess up to? Any sock-puppetry in your own pasts?

Bill Bennett never criticized gambling, we all know. For a very good, but very personal, reason.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
This is so inane. Somebody have the decency to rephrase your opponent in a way that your opponent would agree with, then show why you think it’s wrong (sans useless personal attacks), and decline to comment further. This is a sad waste of time.

I read QandO regularly, and I’ve read Ace of Spades several times. There is really no reason for either of you guys to get worked up over this, except that you already got worked up over it.

So quit the "dead to me" B.S. and race each other back to high ground already.

P.S. For those who care: If you want to change your name/email/URL info that QandO "remembers," go ahead and kill your QandO cookies and correct your typo.

Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Dawnsblood, Patterico,

I’m sure your advice is quite sound, and yet I find myself wanting to slap you both with silly-stick.

I know you’re right, but don’t know you’re right where it counts.

In the heart.

Or the spleen, whatever.

Hey, someone started this radio-shock-jock-war to get an Instalink and some Ace-traffic, and it wasn’t me. The one thing I said that was over the line was "eff off and die alone," which I have admitted was wrong to say. (Okay, I think my last "admission" admitted that was wrong without actually retracting it, so let me retract it clearly this time: It was wrong to say, I shouldn’t have said it, and not just becaue it reflects poorly on me, but because it’s a nasty thing to say to someone.)

As for the rest, it is true. I NEVER read this blog, defining "never" as people do in casual conversation, meaning "almost never." It’s the truth. I never heard of Dale Franks before. I have heard of McQ, as he has such a memorable handle, and recently I heard of Jon (sorry to drag Jon into this in a mean way... but I really didn’t know the roster here, or even that it was a group blog).

Franks? First time.



Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
"By the way: I’m always a little suspicious about people so personally committed to the proposition that sock-puppetry, and lying about it, are no big shakes.

So, let me just ask:
Obviously, you are not stepping back. Discretion clearly indicates that is a wise move - stepping back. Somewhere, lefties are laughing out loud at the success of their effort to get the right fighting with the center. So go ahead. Just know what you are doing in prolonging this fight.


Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
McQ, you are incredibly immature and intellectually dishonest.

You have been asked a simple question, multiple times. Knowing that you can give no answer that does not compromise you, you simply ignore it.

Now THAT’S a tactic right from the Usenet groups.

You can’t admit I never confessed to a "lie," and can’t admit, then, that you were engaged in loose-language which, per your definition, is itself a lie.

So you just ignore the question. You just dodge a perfectly valid question because you don’t want to offer the inevitable answer.

And now you’ll resort, of course, to the standard, "I have a life... I was away from the computer... you know, a life? Look into it" answer that inevitably follows a stubborn refusal to address a point.

And, also inevitably, in your "I have a life" post, you will AGAIN refuse to answer the question.


Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
eh.. I withdraw my previous question. I find that I am no longer terribly interested in the answer.

Written By: Dustin Vines
URL: http://
McQ, you are incredibly immature and intellectually dishonest.

You have been asked a simple question, multiple times. Knowing that you can give no answer that does not compromise you, you simply ignore it.
Bless your pointed little head, Ace. It may come as a shock to you, but you and your concerns aren’t the first priority in my life. In fact, at 4pm each Sunday, we record our podcast, so I had to put your whiny little diatribes to the side and do that.

I’m sure you understand. You said:
Yeah, I got caught in a "lie." I said I "never" read your blog, when in fact, over the course of two-plus years, I have linked you six times, always off of an Instapundit link.
So tell me, slugger, unless you read the quote below, how’d you know to include it?
QandO beats me to the punch on this point (you snooze, you lose):

In order to move the presidential campaign away from what happened or didn’t happen in Vietnam 35 years ago, I offer a suggestion. Since the Kerry camp wishes to argue that official Navy records are conclusive proof that Kerry served honorably and with distinction, I suggest that those of us opposed to Kerry offer to accept that argument, as long as the Kerry people accept the logical corollary: the official Air Force records indicating George W. Bush was honorably discharged from his service is conclusive proof that he properly met his obligations as well.
And this one:
And... QandO provides a more extensive recap of the evidence than I did— and also a much more concise one.
How would you know that unless you read the entry?

Seems, even if unintentionally or sarcastically given, you’re confession is legit.

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ writes:
Well you need to tell [Ace] that since he’s agreed it was a lie. Sorry, the scare quotes don’t absolve him. His story now is that he links to us but doesn’t read us, and somehow, I suppose that means he didn’t really lie to some people (even though in the links he makes it clear he has read what he’s linking because he characterizes the link).
"Ace is teh liar! ACE T3H SUX0R!"

And this, dear readers, is the moment at which a second member of the QandO team has jumped the shark. No wonder Henke has been "trying to stay out of this"; this level of stupid, it burns.

McQ: So, you think that Ace’s explanation of his hastily-written comment amounts to story-changing. Wow. You must be a real hoot at the local watering hole. "Oh, so you ’never’ watch American Idol? NEVER? YOU LIAR!"

Written By: David Ross
URL: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/blog/zimblog.html
ace,

McQ may be busy. But when he comments next — and he should comment, at some point — he should admit that he was wrong to say that you admitted you lied.

Dale and McQ, you really should not be casual about accusations of dishonesty. I think you have been in this post and thread.

Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Obviously I didn’t see McQ’s comment when I posted.

McQ, ace does not appear to have lied and rational observers can see that. I don’t understand why you continue to say he did, and I understand his anger over it.

Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Seems, even if unintentionally or sarcastically given, you’re confession is legit.
Isn’t there an alternate explanation? Perhaps Ace is insane, or amnestic.
Perhaps someone else posted those things using Ace’s name, *ahem* and IP address.

I don’t see how you can draw conclusions based on the evidence you have at hand. You can’t possibly know what actually happened here, and you shouldn’t claim that you do just to satiate your obsessive need to destroy another blogger.





Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Seems, even if unintentionally or sarcastically given, you’re confession is legit.
Also, if anyone sees a McQ authored comment using the word "your" in proper context, then it clearly isn’t him.

Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Heh to both Pablo comments.

Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Ace addressing Dale Franks:
I’ve never read you before, and I won’t be reading you again.
Ace of Spades cite:
QandO beats me to the punch on this point (you snooze, you lose):
In order to move the presidential campaign away from what happened or didn’t happen in Vietnam 35 years ago, I offer a suggestion. Since the Kerry camp wishes to argue that official Navy records are conclusive proof that Kerry served honorably and with distinction, I suggest that those of us opposed to Kerry offer to accept that argument, as long as the Kerry people accept the logical corollary: the official Air Force records indicating George W. Bush was honorably discharged from his service is conclusive proof that he properly met his obligations as well.
Author: Dale Franks.

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
No wonder Henke has been "trying to stay out of this"; this level of stupid, it burns.
Aside from the burning, Henke can’t really comment without admitting he participated in this blogswarm by sharing IP address information from the QandO comment section with (at the least) Patterico and Outside the Beltway. And once he makes that admission, it becomes crystal clear that both McQ and Dale have been lying about this blog’s non-participation, and that all of the insults and condescension they’ve been directing at the people/blogs working to suss out information about Greenwald’s sock puppetry apply equally to Henke and QandO.

Written By: Shad
URL: http://
Also, if anyone sees a McQ authored comment using the word "your" in proper context, then it clearly isn’t him.
Heh ... touche Pablo ... it is an irritating habit of mine that I work like h*ll to break.


Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Compare:

And now you’ll resort, of course, to the standard, "I have a life... I was away from the computer... you know, a life? Look into it" answer that inevitably follows a stubborn refusal to address a point.

And, also inevitably, in your "I have a life" post, you will AGAIN refuse to answer the question.


To:

Bless your pointed little head, Ace. It may come as a shock to you, but you and your concerns aren’t the first priority in my life. In fact, at 4pm each Sunday, we record our podcast, so I had to put your whiny little diatribes to the side and do that.

Nailed it, huh? Except, of course, that McQ was here and posting for the first several iterations of the question.

As for your evidence: I have already said that yes, I have linked you, off an Instapundit link. Saying I "never" read your blog is actually accurate: I don’t click on your blog to read it. The sum and entirety of my "reading" of your blog is from digests on OTHER blogs— and, being a good guy, I link directly to you, the source, rather than Instapundit, where I saw the quote, because you need the traffic, and Instapundit does.

But have I read what you’ve written on other sites? Yes. Have I followed someone’s tip to come here on occasion? Yes.

Do I read your blog? Well, no, not really. Again, I think of "reading a blog" as actually deliberately clicking on the main page to see what the blogger(s) is/are saying.

There are a lot of blogs I don’t read, and I’ve linked a lot of them. I will not be so ungallant to mention them, but many of my links are to blogs I don’t read. I get an email tip, I like what’s in the email, I quote what’s in the email, I link the site.

Is that reading a blog? Depends on how you look at it. I look at as "reading my email" or "reading Instapundit."

I guess I have heard of Dale Franks. I did write his name once — long ago.

Again, six links over two years... I think that establishes I do not "read" your blog.

There are very tiny sites, way beneath you on the Truth Laid Bear ecosystem, I’ve linked thirty, forty, or fifty times over two years.

So take your six links with a strong chaser of perspective.

Patterico,

No, he lied. By his definition, he lied. He’s trumping a casual "never" into a legalistic, absolute "never" and calling it a lie.

And the scare quotes do deny I’m admitting to a "lie." What I admitted to was loose language.

And, frankly, I don’t remember ever linking Q&O. Obviously I have, but I don’t read them, don’t check them on my "blog cycle," and only encounter them via Instapundit or a tip from, say, Jen from Demure thoughts.

This blog is a black hole to me. I don’t know if it’s conservative, libertarian, or a mix of different people. I don’t know if one of the posters is liberal, and the schtick is that they cover things from all angles.

I don’t know.

I don’t read the blog.




Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
So tell me, slugger, unless you read the quote below, how’d you know to include it?

From Instapundit, I imagine. Or, if it has to do with Kerry’s war records— from Just One Minute.

Or an email tip.

We can go around the mulberry bush on this as much as you like. I have linked you SIX times in two years. I think that immediately establishes I do not read your blog.

If I were reading it — if I found it interesting enough to check out from time time — shouldn’t I have mined more than six interesting nuggets from the site.

I repeat: I do not read your blog. Never have.

I have seen citations on other blogs, or a tip in my gmail box.

That’s it. What I read, and what I quoted, was from the tip or from Instapundit.

I do not read this blog.

And I guess I now know now why it has failed to spark my interest previously.


Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Lawsy.

Seriously now, I don’t think Ace cares enough about you guys to lie about a darn thing. Anyone who reads the posts Dale linked to in the original post can see that Ace has been perfectly honest while you have not.

Let’s take Dale’s "proof" links one at a time.

23 Aug 2004

Ace says: "Thanks to Instapundit for the QandO link."

Site (ha ha) unseen, I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that when Ace quotes you in that post was taken directly from Instapundit’s link. 2 seconds later, checking Google, as you recommend us all to do... yep, it was.

Next.

7 Sep 2004 (The post in which he announces he’s added us to his blogroll.)

Right away the title of Ace’s post should give us a clue.

"New Blogroll Additions: A Ginormous Update"

Scrolling down the list, I count 69 new additions to Ace’s blogroll. Q and O is #52 on that list.

Hate to do this to your ego, but I don’t think he extensively (if at all) researched every site in that list, and if he did, Dave at Garfield Ridge prolly beat the hell out of you for his attention. It’s not like it’s in alphabetical order or anything.

Next.

10 Sep 04

Ace links to you, saying:

"And... QandO provides a more extensive recap of the evidence than I did— and also a much more concise one.

Don’t expect Dan the Document Man to address the dozens of indica of forgery.

Via Allah."

The last two words, I believe, tell the whole story.

Next.

15 Nov 2004

Ace updates an earlier post, saying:

"Must-read Update: Steve sends along this terrific Q-and-O link. The lefties are in a lather (what else is new?), but it seems Clinton did something similar."

I’ve emphasized the relevant (to this discussion) portion for your edification. Much like the example above, Ace was forwarded a link by someone he knew - who, amusingly, himself got it from... Instapundit.

Next.

16 Sep 2005

I don’t know what to make of this supposed example, but I suppose it’s appropriate that you end your high and mighty yet utterly incompetent indictment with more of a whimper than anything that preceded it. A guy called "tom scott" mentions Mona and QandO and recommends a post she wrote. No one responds to him. No one mentions QandO or Mona again. Even HE doesn’t link to the post; Ace certainly doesn’t. Ace’s name never once appears in the comments.

Way to go, Dale. Point proven, only it’s not the point you thought you were proving: the point is that while Ace’s internet research is not only persuasive, straightforward, and quite frankly practically conclusive, your own internet research can be characterized as sloppy at best and dishonest at worst.

You were correct: anyone can follow a link. Anyone can use Google. And the truth will, indeed, out.

Maybe you should have thought a little harder about that. Because the truth exonerates Ace completely and damns you utterly.

Written By: Megan
URL: http://
I do not read this blog.
So what did you do Ace, just guess in this case:
And... QandO provides a more extensive recap of the evidence than I did— and also a much more concise one.


Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ is a liar.

I have said, repeatedly, that my links to his site came off of Instapundit, or from an email tip.

He attempts to rebut this by presenting me quoting his site above.

What does he somehow "forget" to include in the quote?

THIS:

Thanks to Instapundit for the QandO link.

Nice selective editing, McQ. I keep saying I only come here off an Instapundit tip, and, in order to rebut that charge, you deliberately omit quoting the part where I hat-tip Instapundit for pointing out the quote.

God. Damned. Liar.



Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Ace,

Let’s not lose sight of the main point of this whole thing. Dale Franks wrote a post flaming you and several other bloggers from a very holier than thou perspective. From the very beginning all that this whole thing has been is Dale Franks being a d!ckhead. How do you write a post decrying the incivility on blogs while you are simultaneously attacking other bloggers personnally (even if you didn’t name them)? Now, with this post, they are doing pretty much exactly what you were doing with Greenwald except in their case the evidence they have put forward does not support their conclusion.

Come on McQ, how is this post different from what Ace, Patterico et al were doing with the GG sock puppet deal?

Written By: Big E
URL: http://
Wow. 6 links in 2 years. I got more than that from ace when I was blogging on a site that yielded about 100 hits a day.

So, where’s the quote where ace admitted to lying?

Written By: Warden
URL: http://
I personally think Megan hit a homerun in her comment about Ace’s entries. Google was her friend. I also will add myself to the list of people who say Ace is most definately owed an apology.

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
Come on McQ, how is this post different from what Ace, Patterico et al were doing with the GG sock puppet deal?
The obvious difference to the casual observer is that Ace, Patterico, et al. didn’t have to lie about anything in their posts to make their points about Greenwald’s sockpuppetry.

Written By: Shad
URL: http://
Patterico,

As you’re playing honest broker here (and I mean that in good way, not sarcastically), you want to weigh in on that last one?

Want to comment on any dishonesty going on here?

PS, Megan— thanks!

McQ,

Can you find a single f’ing link which is NOT hat-tipped to Instapundit, a better blog, or a reader’s tip, or Allah?

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Megan just kicked Dale and McQ’s asses. Case closed.

Written By: Warden
URL: http://
Now about that thing where ace admitted to lying....

I’ve been search and searching for the quote, but just can’t seem to find it. Now I just know that on a post dealing with honesty there’s no way someone would make a claim that he couldn’t substantiate. Not from a group of guys so above the fray.

And I’m quite sure that if this claim couldn’t be substantiated then a blog full of such honest, upstanding, sober and mature individuals would be sure to issue a retraction and apology.

The last thing they would do is ignore the issue.



Written By: Warden
URL: http://
If anybody who actually blogs here thinks Ace spends much time at all reading any but a handfull of blogs on a regular basis I’ve got stock in Val-U-Rite vodka to sell to you.

Reading tons of blogs is not part of the Ace of Spades LifestyleTM.

Now, this is a defense, but I’m here to tell you Ace is the laziest moron with decent traffic that one can find in the tubes. He’s in awe of the "Open Thread" lifestyle because he wants to participate in said lifestyle. If he could he’d post links to nothing but his supersecret pron stash but there’s too much competition in that market...

Whoops. Think I mighta said too much.

First rule of the Ace of Spades LifestyleTM is to not talk about the the Ace of Spades LifestyleTM.

My bad.

Written By: Birkel
URL: http://ace.mu.nu
Guys, if there’s a bad faith actor here, it’s Glenn Greenwald. Y’all are just having a pissing contest and it’s getting fairly silly now. (Which, while I still find it amusing, my conscience somehow compels me to note a moral difference.)

Come on. Group hug.

Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Anytime, Ace, dahlink.

But there’s one more thing: Dale says

"Indeed, as recently as 10 Feb 2006, a commenter left a link to QandO in his comments section. Presumably, Ace reads the comments to his own blog."

Now, I don’t know what kind of traffic you get around here - oh wait, yes I do; thank you Site Meter! - well. It appears to be a couple of orders of magnitude below Ace’s site. Let’s look at some numbers, shall we?

Visits:

Q and O: Total 2,523,014
Ace: Total 6,592,056

Q and O: Average Per Day 3,724
Ace: Average Per Day 19,349

Page views:

Q and O: Total 3,814,559
Ace: Total 11,865,277

Q and O: Average Per Day 6,169
Ace: Average Per Day 31,287

Now, Ace is of course too much of a gentleman to point this out, but maybe he can’t read every one of "the comments to his own blog," as you snidely put it, while you presumably can, precisely because so many more people read his blog than read yours. It’s not unusual for Ace to get over 300 comments on a single post. I know, because I’ve been in them.

You want to be holier than thou over how much less successful you are than Ace? Eat ’em up, Dale. Chow down. How does it taste?

Written By: Megan
URL: http://
As you’re playing honest broker here (and I mean that in good way, not sarcastically), you want to weigh in on that last one?

Yeah. They are being far too casual with serious accusations of dishonesty. The evidence doesn’t bear out the accusations. They should be embarrassed.

Like I said, ace, I think you overreacted at the beginning — with provocation, but you overreacted. But these accusations of lying on your part are junk.

Now I got some stuff to do. If you’ll excuse me.

Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Proof that Ace isnt a liar and that Greenwald uses sockpuppets!

Written By: atomic_amish
URL: http://
Proof that Ace isnt a liar and that Greenwald uses sockpuppets!
That’s not all. There’s also this, which to my mind is absolutely incontrovertable.

Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Patterico,

I am directing your attention specifically to McQ’s "proof" that I lied about only getting Q&O quotes off Instapundit, in which he quotes me quoting him, but fails to include the key quote at the end:

THANKS TO INSTAPUNDIT FOR THE QANDO QUOTE.

Capitalizations added, of course.

Does this constitue argument in good faith, in your opinion.


Megan,

Thank you for that. I don’t know why I’m thanking you, though, as you are of course actually a sock-puppet of mine, and I wrote that myself but found it too embarassing to put in my own name.

Of course, all my readers and commenters are sock puppets, as I have previously admitted.



Birkel,

Quite true, but that diminishes the "I don’t read your blog" put-down. Still, it’s true. I don’t read this pompous, no-rate pos blog.

I have about four blogs I read every day — everyone knows what they are, and then some blogs I read when I do an expanded blog run-down when I need stuff to post, and then blogs that I check on from time to time because I like them, and they’re commenters, and I just want to share some blog-love, and the have some interesting stuff.

Q&O is decidedly not in any of those blog-cycles. Not the everyday cycle, not the expanded cycle, not the let’s give someone cool some bloglove cycle.

In fact, there are some blogs who I click on when linked by Instapundit, but do not usually read — like Tom Maguire — and other blogs whose Insty-links I usually ignore because I just don’t dig on them. Q&O is firmly in the latter camp.

Pretty much the extent of "reading" Q&O is limited to reading the quotes other, better bloggers may cull from this piece of crap. And then, when I see those, I just quote what’s been quoted; I don’t delve into this lame blog to see what else they may be saying.

If anyone can find a Q&O quote I actually dug up myself, I’d be pretty surprised. I can’t rule it out— I have been desperate for news some days, and checked some sites I almost never do — but I’d be pretty surprised.

To recap:

I never read this blog.

It’s lame.



Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Dale’s a pretty gay name for a guy, too. Just wanted to throw that in there.

Written By: Meekrob
URL: http://
And here is the sockpuppet proof everyone has been looking for.

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
The only way I can imagine reading a Q&O post myself is through the "trackback courtesy," which I do from time to time.

Yes, I will look into my referral lists, and if I see someone, big or small (usually small— the big guys hardly need it), has sent some traffic in my direction, I will (being such a super guy) click on that link and look for something interesting to link myself. At that point I’m looking for pretty much anything halfway decent to link; it doesn’t have to be stellar.

So, yes, indeed, it may just be the case that at some point I’ve given Q&O a mercy link.


Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Seems pretty clear at this point, you guys are not getting shirts.

Written By: JackStraw
URL: http://
Gateway Pundit is another blog I don’t really read, though I should. (One could almost say I "never" read it.)

But when Insty links it, I always click, because I always come away with something good. I just need to be reminded of Gateway pundit.

But Insty’s links to Q&O? Usually a pass, unless Insty has done me the yeoman’s service of culling something, ANYTHING interesting from the site and posted it on his own.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
it’s getting fairly silly now
Now?

Look, here’s a synopsis from my point of view:

1) Ace said he never read QandO along with some other dismissive comments. In response, I said that I was quite sure we’d been blogrolled and linked at Ace of Spades.

2) Dale put up a post attacking the claim Ace made.

3) Ace argued that he didn’t actually mean it; it was a figure of speech.

(NOTE: I think that’s a reasonable claim to make; there are a number of blogs I’d say I ’never’ read, though I’ve probably read them at some point)

4) Ace went on to say — and I think this is where he showed his ass and got Dale’s and McQ’s backs up — that Dale should "F’ off and die alone" (for which he’s expressed regret) and that despite never reading the blog, he still thought QandO "sucks and always has".

(NOTE: everybody’s entitled to an opinion, and I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but I admit to taking it a bit personally when somebody says QandO "sucks and always has", based solely on the fact that they read one (or two) posts that annoyed them)

5) Dale and McQ took the most literal interpretation of Ace’s comment and continued to attack it. I think this was probably unfair, especially once he’d explained the extent of his interaction with QandO. Clearly, his initial statement was incorrect. Ace amended it. His ammended statement was plausibly correct.

6) Everything since then has been arguing past each other. Ace didn’t "lie" — he oversold his case, and retracted the oversell when the facts were pointed out to him. In the course of doing that, he managed to be an ass towards people (me, for example) who had never given him cause.

So, everybody managed to look a little ridiculous today.

Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I came over to this POS website — which I never read — just to see this? The creeps who run this place didn’t even land a blow with the original post, much less the comments.

Here’s some free advice to those who waste their time keeping this blog afloat...

Give it up. Flaming isn’t the only thing you’re amateurs at.

Written By: bbeck
URL: http://
Dale:
What I objected to was the concerted effort to get a number of bloggers together to research and publicize the "time line". I never said that it was wrong for a blogger to respond at all. Indeed, I explicitly acknowledged the possibility:
An allegation of sock puppetry has been made. Mr. Greenwald ategorically denies it. Alternative explanations exist. Without evidence that points directly at Mr. Greenwald, there is no further purpose in inflating this story. Lay the facts out. Let Mr. Greenwald respond. Let readers make their own conclusions. If all you have is an IP address, the story should pretty much end after a day or so of mild interest.
True, but given the imperfect timeline that they have, they already have more than that. If the timeline were more complete, the picture would be clearer still. For example, an individual case of Greenwald and a puppet commenting within a few minutes of each other means nothing, but as the data set becomes larger, a pattern of such "coincidences" begins to look fishy. Similarly, given that IP addresses ascribed to Greenwald have been found pointing to two different ISPs rather than merely one, more data pooling between bloggers might be able to reveal whether the sock puppets use both ISPs or only one. If they come from both, that implies that Glenn and the puppets are in the habit of posting from two separate locations, making the odds of the puppet being another person, acting independently of Greenwald and without his knowledge, more remote. Conversely, if the puppets are limited to ISP #1, that would cut in Greenwald’s favor. And a Glenn-comment from ISP #1 coinciding with a puppet-comment from ISP #2 would imply that Glenn and the puppet weren’t even in the same physical location at the time; about as strong an alibi as would be possible.

If this one particular quest for the truth that you’d just rather not be involved in, fine. But it’s wrong to attack other bloggers for not sharing your alleged disinterest, and it’s really dumb to compare a certain blogger to children playing in a sandbox, only to turn around and tell the first blogger to complain that he shouldn’t be offended ’cuz you didn’t mean to criticize that child in that sandbox, only some other child playing the exact same game in an identical sandbox somewhere else.

Last and least, while no one questions your right not to provide time/date information or anything else you may see fit not to provide, if you’re going to pursue that route then the least you could do is to spare us the "if all you have is an IP address..." bit. By refusing to provide other bloggers with evidence beyond an IP address, you forfeit any right to complain about how much evidence they don’t have because you won’t give it to them. This principle was decided once and for all in the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of Pissenbach v. Raining.

Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Jon,

The "sucks and always has" thing was out of anger, and yes, at this point, I am baiting McQ and Dale.

I don’t know if this blog sucks. Actually, given that it’s fairly well read and regarded, I’d imagine it does not, in fact, suck. If there was a "lie" I told, it was that one.

I really don’t know. Not to knock you, it’s just not one of the blogs I read. No one can read all blogs, and you probably don’t read mine, either. Everyone reads the biggies and a few of the others they are fond of. Q&O just doesn’t happen to be one of the biggies and it’s not a fave, so I don’t read it.

At any rate, in my attempt to get at McQ and Dale for their dishonesty and hypocrisy, I said the whole blog sucks, thus attacking you, who wasn’t even a part of this pissing match.

I retract "this blog sucks" as a juvenile attack that I can’t even back up with a firm opinion. I will say that the couple of posts I have read here have, in fact, sucked, but that is just my opinion, and obviously I am not a disinterested party at this point.

I apologize to you.

But not to your blogbuddies.


Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
McQ, with all due regard. You said this:

"We agree that sock puppetry went on. We agree that isn’t kosher. We agree that it’s pretty sad. We also know you’re not going to be able to prove he did it, so our advice has been "drop it, point made"."

Please keep your eye on the ball. We’ve long since stopped caring about the sock puppetry.

Glenn Greenwald is a huge big swinging dick, we know that coz he’s been read into the Congressional Record. He’s a so-and-so, a real up-and-comer. He has influence. Even wrote a book, which apparently the NYT took note of.

He’s also a proven liar.

Written By: Alear
URL: http://
OK. I hate it. I absolutely hate it. Jon, come in here and save the *ss*s of your fellow bloggers. The reason these guys won’t give it up is that they are right [!]. And I am prejudiced on the other side! Yes, I can be incredibly stupid. Yes, I have not been able to read every charge made here today in detail. Nevertheless, IMHO the pride of QandO can best be protected by a conciliatory comment by Jon. Further mis-steps by others won’t get this job done. Hey, everyone has a bad day.

[After Jon’s comment] Good on you Jon!

Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Not really. Ace looks pretty ridiculous every day. He makes fun of himself and his readers. But he does it with integrity and wit.

You guys looked pompous, arrogant and tremendously thin skinned. You, the people who guys who write this blog, called Ace a liar. You have been proven to be wrong. And still you refuse to apologize and keep looking for ways to explain it away. It goes a long way to explaining why you are unwilling to hold Greenwald to account for his dishonesty and unwillingness to come clean.

I believe it was one of the three of you who refered Ace to the law of holes. Perhaps it would be a good idea if you reviewed it yourself.

Written By: JackStraw
URL: http://
I’ll just tack on a heartfelt "me-too" on Bob’s post: as far as I’m concerned, Mr Henke has delievered the last word on this topic. He’s a class act, and all my socks agree.

Except for the one with the hole in it, but it’s always been trouble. I’m throwing that one out tonight. Not sure how to break the news to its partner, though...

Written By: David Ross
URL: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/blog/zimblog.html
But to recap:

I said that out of annoyance at McQ’s and Dale’s insistance that I was "lying" about never readign this blog. Thus far, they have failed to produce a single citation that was not hat-tipped to a reader or Instapundit or Allah.

And six links over two years— ONE OF THEM IN THE COMMENTS BY ONE OF MY COMMENTERS WHICH I DIDN’T LINK MYSELF? Come on.

If I have clicked on Q&O more than five times in two years — all off of tips or Insta-links — I’d be surprised. In fact, I doubt the number is even that high; in most cases, I just took the quote I had been supplied and the link given to me.

I have, to my knowlege, never just clicked on Q&O. Until yesterday, I did not even know the address. I did not know it was a .net address. If I clicked on the site more than once or twice, I would be shocked.

So, yeah, given that I was being called a liar over something I knew to be true, I lost my cool and declared the blog to "suck."

I would say that most people would say, in a casual sense, that at most clicking on a site five times over two years (and the number is actually probably closer to 0 than five) does in fact constitute "never" reading a blog.

And McQ and Dale are blatantly dishonest to cite me quoting the blog, while DELIEBERATELY and DECEPTIVELY omitting key sentences like "Thanks to Instapundit for the QandO link" or "Thanks to Allah."


Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu

Glenn Greenwald is a huge big swinging dick, we know that coz he’s been read into the Congressional Record.
One little data point that seems to be overlooked is just how much good reading GiGi on the floor did for Feingold. How badly did the censure resolution crash and burn again? Wasn’t it like 85-something against?

Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
PS, as accusations of lying are flying around at the drop of a hat, when I said I’ve not clicked on this blog more than once or twice, tops, I am OBVIOUSLY excluding the past two days.

Also, Patterico sent me a tip like three days ago to a commenter arguing with one of the idiots (not Jon) summing up the case against Greenwald. I clicked on that — the comment, not the post. I would have linked it, too, except that I am trying, and badly failing, to reduce my Greenwald postings.


So, there— there would have been another link, off a tip. But to a commenter arguing with the bloggers here, not the bloggers themselves. And I WOULD HAVE linked it, but for the fact I had already overloaded on Greenwald.

If you want to quibble over the word "never," fine. I think I’m pretty comfortable, and honest, in saying I "never" read this blog, as most people take the word to mean in a casual sense.

"I never floss" does not mean I really, actually, NEVER-EVER-EVER have flossed. I have flossed. I may do so again at some point. But, come on— "never" as most people understand it.


Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
I have to say I can see how Ace would get upset at that initial post, Dale. I know you fellows are now walking back the post’s intent a bit, but the title, "Children, In a SandBox: Greenwald’s Sock Puppet Celebrators," is particularly suggestive. "Celebrators" is, after all, plural. So it can easily be taken as condescending and more than a little self-satisfied by all those who’ve posted on the Greenwald sockpuppetry matter — and by those who continue to believe that there is some use in exposing a potentionally self-promoting cutout who, though he publishes (as Mona will be quick to tell you) in The American Conservative, was also, somehow, on the Kos Townhouse list. Which, let’s recall, was intended to help get out a "unified message."

It matters, therefore, that someone who is being built up by the left as a go-to "centrist" or "conservative libertarian" may be trying to build up his bona fides.

Written By: Jeff G
URL: http://www.proteinwisdom.com
But to recap:
Bwaaahahaha!

Ok, now cut it out.

Oh, and you really should floss. Your teeth will thank you, though your gums may bitch about it.

Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
I read Ace pretty religiously. One (of the few) thing(s) that’s always impressed me about Ace is that, when confronted with facts and evidence that argue against a position he has taken (which happens with distressing frequency), he acknowledges it and backs down gracefully. One could almost say he acts as a gentleman. The fact that he has gone fangs out with you guys (McQ and Dale) says a lot more about you than him. Give it up already.

Written By: John
URL: http://
a potentionally self-promoting cutout who, though he publishes (as Mona will be quick to tell you) in The American Conservative, was also, somehow, on the Kos Townhouse list. Which, let’s recall, was intended to help get out a "unified message."
Ever notice how Mona refuses to talk about that?

Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
And Jon,

As you seem to disagree with the claims of your cobloggers, will you suggest they walk back the post this thread is attached to?

For crying out loud, one of the evidences of an "Ace-link" is a freaking link in a COMMENT posted by SOMEONE ELSE ENTIRELY.

At the very least the post should be corrected to "five."

And it should be also noted that all links seem to come off of Instapundit links or reader tips or Allah tips.

(Allah is, as ever, in his own special category.)

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Let me look at this from a grumpy old blog reader’s POV, here.

In the last, what two months, we’ve seen TruthOut post a completely bogus scoop on a Karl Rove indictment, and continue to defend it even while refusing to offer any proof. We’ve learned that two "sources" Doug Thompson repeatedly quoted, Wilkinson and Harleigh, were either blatant frauds or never existed — and now we are watching Doug Thompson diligently and futilely trying to erase any sign he ever referred to either source. Now we’re watching Glenn Greenwald deploy his personal peanut gallery of nonexistent boosters, in the course of which we’ve learned that most of his resumé as a big-deal free speech attorney was also bogus.

We’ve watched ’progressive’ bloggers lie, lie again to defend the lie, and even lie about who’s defending the lie.

So, and this is a serious question, what exactly does the left side of the blogosphere offer that I can’t get from CBS and the LA Times...? I’d genuinely like an answer.

Written By: richard mcenroe
URL: http://
I agree with JeffG and y’all know how that makes me crazy.

Also, Dale’s original post was chock-full of the most ridiculous, most exquisitely prissy posturing. What the hell is this sh*t supposed to be:

"Well, if Ace, from Ace of Spades Blog, wanted to attract my attention, he did a very good job of it. You wanna play the blogwars game with me, Ace? OK. I’ll pitch in."

I mean really, what the hell? Is this a fair translation?

"Oh no he din’t! Oh no he din’t! Ooh, he think he bringin’ it now! It on!"

And then later:

"And, now, Ace, I’m done with you."

You supposed to be in sixth grade or something, Dale? Pity no one else was done with you, isn’t it. And given the fact that you and McQ have had your heads handed to you by numerous people, don’t you think there’s something at least faintly ridiculous about being first out of the gate with such strutting, self-important condescension?

" Just this once, I’ll play an inning, and we’ll see how you like it."

You thought you were going to play an inning. Instead you’re still stuck in the dugout and now everyone’s making you his bitch. So why don’t you tell us, Dale:

How do you like it?

Written By: Megan
URL: http://
Ace, for god’s sake correct the typo in your username.

Written By: Jeff B.
URL: http://
OMG, people! How can possibly continue this bickering when:
The deployment of US troops to Iraq continues. The Mideast is blowing up like somebody shot an inbred Austrian archduke.
???

And tracking down every link to QandO from Ace of Spades HQ is worth this level of effort? Checking Ace’s archives and Google’s cache for referrals and blogroll entries? That’s worth your time?

OK. Fine. But count me out.



Written By: John from WuzzaDem
URL: http://www.wuzzadem.com
OMG, people! How can possibly continue this bickering when:

The deployment of US troops to Iraq continues. The Mideast is blowing up like somebody shot an inbred Austrian archduke.

???
Uh, I covered that earlier today.
And tracking down every link to QandO from Ace of Spades HQ is worth this level of effort? Checking Ace’s archives and Google’s cache for referrals and blogroll entries? That’s worth your time?
When he popped over here and got all ass-like over a post that wasn’t even directed at him, he made it worth my time. He was mean to me, and I was hurt. So, I lashed out.

And again, back to my original point, I did it all by myself. I didn’t try to engage a whole raft of other bloggers to help me.
OK. Fine. But count me out.
Nobody’s asking you to count yourself in.

Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Dale Franks - I can’t even follow all the above shouting, but the simple fact of the matter is: you have written a nasty-spirited post that greatly violates the rules you previously announced yourself as cherishing, about civility and focusing only on substance. You shouldn’t have done it; you look awful.

Written By: Ellersburgwhoresonellis
URL: http://
This has already been said better by Patterico and Xrlq (and probably others), but I’m gonna say it anyway. To put out a call to other bloggers to gather information about someone’s veracity is hardly gathering the villagers with torches to go kill the monster. If you don’t want to participate, fine, but to call those interested in the search names is childish. This is important, as it revolves around someone (GG) who seems to revel in his position and aura of influence.

Why do I read ace *every* day (even though he posts no pictures of cats)? Because he’s always interesting. Because, as John says above, "when confronted with facts and evidence that argue against a position he has taken (which happens with distressing frequency), he acknowledges it and backs down gracefully. One could almost say he acts as a gentleman." Because he talks about a lot of different things, most of which I find interesting. Because, from time to time, he DOES get rather fired up about some topics. :-) And because he has some of the smartest, funniest & most interesting commenters ever (I’m excluded from that, as I don’t comment much and am about as interesting as day-old toast).

Written By: iamfelix
URL: http://
Dale wrote: "He was mean to me, and I was hurt. So, I lashed out."

Boo-freakin’-hoo. Could you sound more pathetic?

"I did it all by myself. I didn’t try to engage a whole raft of other bloggers to help me."

Ace and other bloggers on the Greenwald-sockpuppetry trail asked other bloggers for information they couldn’t possibly get themselves (IPs on blogs not their own).

You first posted a sneering attack on them collectively, and then another and more personal (and even more ill-conceived) attack directly against Ace. For that you think you might conceivably require assistance from other bloggers? You know what, forget "require." How exactly would anyone assist you with that? You’d get someone else to do your typing for you?

You’re not some kind of magnificent individualist bravely standing apart from the crowd, and the comparison you posit is inane.

What Ace did and what you did are not in the same playing field. Not even close.

Written By: Megan
URL: http://
...you have written a nasty-spirited post that greatly violates the rules you previously announced yourself as cherishing, about civility and focusing only on substance.
Then you need to re-read the original post. You know, the one where I speculated on whether Greenwald was an ass or a moonbat. Was that passage where you got the idea I was calling for more generalized civility?

It wasn’t a call for general civility. It was a criticism of a concerted effort among several bloggers to nail down an essentially trivial offense. It ended with a criticism of the hypocrisy apparent in complaining that Left uses shoddy tactics, then engaging in them yourself.

Whatever else I may be, I have never claimed to be the center of civility on this blog. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Jon is the nice one here. Bruce is also mostly cordial.

I’m not.

Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Re: "New Evidence of Ace Links Without Attribution"

Hey, guys? Ever realize I don’t hat-tip when the tipster himself is tipping to his own blog?

How’s this email grab ya:

....

from McQ to Allah [and a long list of addressees, including me]


Guys … through a particularly good connection I have obtained and posted a copy of Jesse Macbeth’s original and unaltered DD214. It is clear as a bell and shows he was a Chapter 11 discharge with all of 1 month and 13 days in basic training.

I have it on line now at:
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3957

....

You want me to keep this up? I have a lot of tips from Q&O in my mailbox. A few of them I actually linked.

Christ, I do smaller blog a favor — linking to them — and I get crucified for it.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Boo-freakin’-hoo. Could you sound more pathetic?
Sorry. I thought it was plain that I was being sarcastic.

Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
You want me to prove that all these links without attribution are actually linked OFF OF TIPS FROM Q&O POSTERS THEMSELVES?

Because I can do so, if you insist upon it.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
I have to admit, I forgot this blog has some stuff on the Jesse Mcwhatshisname case.

Still, I never read it, not unless it’s off a tip.

Those "unattributed" linkings? Either mercy links from my track backs or, like the example above, LINKS ORIGINATING FROM McQ TIPPING ME HIMSELF.

I don’t bother to write, "Here’s McQ with the story. (Hat tip: McQ)."

I would think that’s obvious. Not only is it unnecessary, it’s just not customary, and we, um, hide the fact that bloggers are always on email relentlessly promoting their sites, out of consideration.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
I’m embarrassed for you, Dale. This is like 3:00 a.m. USENET masturbatory obsessiveness.

Really, I’d suggest you get a life, but there doesn’t look like there’s much hope for you.

Written By: Russell
URL: http://russellwardlow.net/blog/
Dale, don’t take this the wrong way, but you really are a goddamn lying prick of a moron.

With all due respect, buddy.

(Note that the front page WILL NOT be updated to include the fact that McQ himself tipped me as to one of these Ace-links, thus explaining the lack of a hat-tip.)

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Christ, I do smaller blog a favor — linking to them — and I get crucified for it.
No. You got crucified from coming in and carpet-bombing the comments on a post that wasn’t even directed at you, and general ass-hattery.

I will, however, correct the entry.

Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
This is like 3:00 a.m. USENET masturbatory obsessiveness.
No doubt...Ace’s comments take up about 25% of the entire thread. Dude, come up for air.

Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Off*cking commencing in 5 . . . 4 . . .3 . . . 2 . . .1
Off*cking complete.

Written By: Dan Collins
URL: http://
Dale,
Please someone mentioned earlier the law of digging. It states that if you find yourself in a deep hole, for God’s sake, stop digging. I think it fits here well. Please stop digging Dale. Maybe Jon can arrange an intervention.

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
(Note that the front page WILL NOT be updated to include the fact that McQ himself tipped me as to one of these Ace-links, thus explaining the lack of a hat-tip.)
Priceless.

Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
I’d like to clarify an ambiguous statement of mine:

"But these accusations of lying on your part are junk."

What I meant by that (and I put it terribly) is that the Q&O accusations that ace lied, are junk. They are lame accusations. Because ace didn’t lie.

Jon Henke has it mostly right above. He’s a very reasonable guy. Normally I think McQ is too, from what little I know of him. Dale, too, though I know him less.

Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Alonedying commencing in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . . 1
Alonedying complete.
Internet entity terminated.
Hope you are all satisfied.
c>

Written By: Dan Collins
URL: http://
I don’t mean to be rude but has anybody else noticed how two of the bloggers on this site are Dick Cheney-sized d!cks? I’m not trying to call anybody out — Dale — but you’re a big enough douche to get rid of Hillary Clinton’s vaginal problems (aka Bill Clinton).

At some point you’d think you either:

1) made your point so the argument is over and you should take your own advice from the main post
-OR-
2) twisted your panties in a knot so tight that you just can’t get that shot of "move on dot org juice" down your gullet without choking on your own apology.

FULL DISCLOSURE:
I’ve read your site before. Weighed it. And found it wanting.

Written By: Birkel
URL: http://ace.mu.nu
Dale, McQ,

No sweat, baby. Just know that your MANY, MANY link-begging tips will go unanswered in the future.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
yawwwwwnnnn...


McQ to SMASH, Blackfive, Jeff, Allah, me, greyhawk ...
More options May 26

His unit of discharge is a BCT unit (2/47 - a basic training company at Ft.
Benning). If I see through the shading his "service record" is about 3
months max.

And Ranger qualifyed?

heh


Reply Reply to all Forward Invite McQ to Gmail





McQ to SMASH, Blackfive, Jeff, Allah, me, greyhawk ...
More options May 26

I’m up.

http://www.qando.net/Details.aspx?Entry=3955

...


Another case where I should have written: McQ has more. Hat-tip: McQ.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Dale, too, though I know him less.


Actually, I am normally less abrasive. Oh, occasionally, I have my moods, but I normally don’t do posts like this.

This post was intentionally provocative. And, judging from the 30 or so comments Ace has dropped in this thread alone so far, the provocation worked.

Ace dropped in, with comments dripping with vitriol towards the blog in general, and me in particular. He doesn’t like it much when the tables are turned, apparently.

That was the whole point.

Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Can I get a second correction, Dale?

You want me to continue with this?

DO YOU REALLY THINK I DON’T KNOW WHAT GODDAMNED BLOGS I READ?

And I don’t mean to be a jerk — but this is not exactly a huge blog. Why would you be so damn-sure that I MUST be reading it?

This blog is — again, I’m just talking size, not quality — third tier.

From where comes this amazing cocksurednes that I read this blog?

How many third-tier blogs do YOU read, Dale?

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Christ, I do smaller blog a favor — linking to them — and I get crucified for it.
No, you started commenting on this site by being an a**. Dale had not mentioned you by name, yet you felt the need to piss on him. You started the personal attack and Dale responded.
Just know that your MANY, MANY link-begging tips will go unanswered in the future.
So you were aware of QandO beyond Instapundit and some other blog tips? I guess you were lying earlier, then.

Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Just one small point.

When someone makes reference to your work in a place otherwise devoid of reference to you it is a positive thing for you. Mr Aces readership may now take an interest in you. This is how the internet works - see something interesting, have a look (or at least acknowledge it’s existance). All publicity is good publicity.

For instance I had never heard of Mr Greenwald until very recently he was mentioned on this site, now I assume he is a pundit of some importance in America.

Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
"He doesn’t like it much when the tables are turned, apparently."

There are a lot of turning tables here.

Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Oh, dale. I think I’ll be able to do just fine without relying on Q&O traffic, and never linking you again. It’s not like you break many stories, and it’s sure not like you can give people "Q&Olanches."

I really am having trouble wrapping my mind around a cowriter on a third-tier blog getitng less hits in a day than I do in three hours insisting, OVER AND OVER, that I must read his blog.

Do you know how very few people read any blogs, Dale? Do you know how many fewer people read third-tier blogs?

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Ace, booby, now you’re just being mean.

Written By: Birkel
URL: http://ace.mu.nu
Just know that your MANY, MANY link-begging tips will go unanswered in the future.
I defy you to find an email from me asking for a link. Indeed, I defy you to find an email from me at all, on any subject.
How many third-tier blogs do YOU read, Dale?
None, actually. I tend not to read blogs. I tend not to link to blogs either, although I do it on occasion.
Can I get a second correction, Dale?
Since I took your word that the five unnattributed blog posts came from Jon or McQ emailing you with the link, It’s hard to see what another correction could do to make that clearer.

Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Come on JWG, read Megan’s and Jon Henke’s comments . Dale made an assumption that was basically wrong. I can say I never watch TV, but you know if I am visiting someone’s house with a TV on I catch some of it. Ace was pretty much saying this blog isn’t on his to read list. He did not mean to imply that he never clicked on an Instapundit link or an e-mailed tip. Even I read the front of the National Inquirer when I am line at the grocery store, but if anyone asks I’ll say I dont read the National Inquirer. Please stop digging and take a sec and think. I read both blogs and think McQ and Dale are being way to literal and petty. It is hard to climb off a high horse if you are afraid you’ll slip on the way down and break your ego.

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
yayawwwwn...

jonhenke@comcast.net to me
More options May 24

Knowing how much you love Atrios, I thought you’d appreciate this...

http://www.qando.net/Details.aspx?Entry=3925

Look, I don’t want to say that there’s anything wrong with tip-emails. I hope I haven’t suggested that. I rely upon them myself; when a blogger writes something good, or something that would appeal to another blogger, he SHOULD send out emails.

I don’t do much of that myself, but mostly because I’m lazy, not because I’m "above it."

Anyway, I’m just making the point. I’m sowwy to huwt youwr widdle feeewings, Dale, but I honestly, truly, do not EVER read this blog unless prompted by an ineteresting tip or an Instapundit link.

You can now go cry yourself to sleep as you contemplate that fact. I am sorry for the collateral damage to Jon, who seems like a good guy, but I have a short list of blogs I read, and this ain’t one of them.

Period, end of line, end of file.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
As an avid reader of Ace’s site, I have to say that any accusations that Ace is dishonest is total hogwash. That said, backing off will only increase your credibility, such as it is.

Also, I think that your correction is in error, Dale. Specifically, Ace has claimed that ONE of his links to QandO came from McQ’s email. The other FOUR where hat-tipped to Instapundit or Allah.

He didn’t claim that all FIVE of his links to QandO were based on McQ emails.

Maybe you should take a remedial reading comprehension course.

Written By: Matt
URL: http://
"He doesn’t like it much when the tables are turned, apparently."
There are a lot of turning tables here.
Exactly. What have we accomplished with this post? Precisely nothing. What will we accomplish by investigating Greenwald’s sock puppetry?

Much the same.

Who is going to care, really? Ace’s minions have come in, jumping in on Ace’s side. Will they be swayed by anything I’ve written? Of course not.

Will Greenwald’s? Nope. They’ll write it off at worst as an unfortunate, silly, and temporary lapse in judgment. The people who don’t like him will be reinforced in their dislike.

Greenwald will still be blogging. So will Ace, XRLQ, and Patterico.

And then where will we be?

Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Are you obsessed with me?

Now that I’m dead (alone!), if I say something nice about you, will you let me bleg some links from you?
Greenwald is a certified douchebag.
The blogosphere has a stake in bringing sock suborners into the light.
Ace did everyone’s job.
I don’t watch Desperate Housewives.
I admire Terri Hatcher’s breasts.
Sosumi. Hai.

Written By: Dan Collins
URL: http://
Squeek! Squeek! [Sound of mouse when elephants are fighting.]

Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
yikes, guys.

I spend the weekend working, come in on Sunday for a nice gentle read and there is a knife fight. I think I slipped in some blood here.

I read many of the guys fighting here and I feel bad for everyone. It’s like finding yourself in the middle of a fight between friends and unsure what to do but hope that it works itself out.

Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Also, I think that your correction is in error, Dale. Specifically, Ace has claimed that ONE of his links to QandO came from McQ’s email. The other FOUR where hat-tipped to Instapundit or Allah.

He didn’t claim that all FIVE of his links to QandO were based on McQ emails.

Maybe you should take a remedial reading comprehension course.


Huh. I could’ve sworn Ace wrote:
You want me to prove that all these links without attribution are actually linked OFF OF TIPS FROM Q&O POSTERS THEMSELVES?

Because I can do so, if you insist upon it.
So, uh, actually, he did claim that all the unattributed links came from QandO bloggers.

But, you’re at least partially right. One of us needs to learn how to read for comprehension.

Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Greenwald will still be blogging. So will Ace, XRLQ, and Patterico.

And then where will we be?


Everything will be status quo ante, except that Greenwald’s credibility will be worthless. Dale’s analytical skills will be judged similarly.

Hey, you suggested reading comprehension classes yourself (in the other thread).


Written By: Matt
URL: http://
OMG, people! How can possibly continue this bickering when:

The deployment of US troops to Iraq continues. The Mideast is blowing up like somebody shot an inbred Austrian archduke.

???
Uh, I covered that earlier today.
Oh, now I understand - your problem with Ace, Patterico, Dan and others is that they were covering the Greenwald controversy to the exclusion of any other story.

Oh, wait - no they weren’t
And tracking down every link to QandO from Ace of Spades HQ is worth this level of effort? Checking Ace’s archives and Google’s cache for referrals and blogroll entries? That’s worth your time?
When he popped over here and got all ass-like over a post that wasn’t even directed at him, he made it worth my time. He was mean to me, and I was hurt. So, I lashed out.

And again, back to my original point, I did it all by myself. I didn’t try to engage a whole raft of other bloggers to help me.
Oh, now I get it - ripping into a blogger who gets "all ass-like" is worthy of a post, but shooting an e-mail to other bloggers asking for a simple courtesy - oh, wait, that calls for a lengthy, sanctimonious admonition for those bloggers to "come down off [their] high horse[s]".

Now I know the rules.
OK. Fine. But count me out.
Nobody’s asking you to count yourself in.
(Retreats to lick wounds)

Written By: John from WuzzaDem
URL: http://www.wuzzadem.com
I’m just happy being promoted up to minion.

Did you see that Ace?

I’m now officially a minion.

And there’s nothing you can do about it because Dale has declared it so.

Written By: Birkel
URL: http://ace.mu.nu
WARNING: Substantive, invective-free post. Please read; it has a concession about McQ, and makes a larger point about this "substance" question. There’s very little acrimony or dick-swinging in it; I think you might actually find yourselves agreeign with it.

...

By the way, I should make an admission before I go. Reviewing my emails, I realized something I had forgotten:

McQ was one of the lead bloggers on the Jesse MacBeth story.

I’d forgotten that, since I had nothing to do with the story, except linking people. ANd I was linking a lot of poeple — allah at hotair, black five, Smash, Greyhawk, etc.

That is, I realize, why I know the handle "McQ."

So yes— I forgot. McQ was a lead blogger on a juicy blogosphere story and I linked him several times during that period. I forgot that.

Still, the main point stands. I never would have known McQ was doing yeoman’s work on the story had he not tipped me myself. Because — to recap — I don’t read this blog.

But nice one that, McQ. Honestly, I don’t know all the names associated with all the blogs, or what their claims to fame might be. But you were big on exposing MacBeth as a fraud. I forgot that.

This does illustrate some hypocrisy, though. You guys went after Jesse MacBeth and destroyed him, and yet you cry I’m a child playing in a sandbox for doing the same thing to Greenwald. Yes, the two cases are somewhat different. But they both deal with credibility and honesty. (In MacBeth’s case, it more clearly goes to his "substance," of course.)

I would just suggest that a story seems more important when you’re actually involved in the story, as opposed to being on the outside looking in. While MacBeth was a juicy story, I never considered it important; I just thought it was sad and funny. But I imagine McQ thinks it was quite important indeed.

I don’t want to say he’s wrong; I want to suggest his perspective on it is just different. He was doing things on that story; he had an amount of pride of authorship that I simply did not.

Consider that with the Greenwald story. It appears bigger to me than it does you. But that could be partly a function of the fact that you guys are simply not part of doing any original work on the story.

And one thing about Dale’s prissy preening pony thing about dealing with Greenwald’s "substance:"

Why should I? I never dealt with his "substance" before; why should I now? To me, he has no substance. To me, the only thing interesting about Greenwald is that he’s a liar. I’m not calling him a liar to undermine his substance; I’m calling him a liar because he IS a goddamned liar. THAT, to me, is the story, and not his substance.

When Ben Domenech got outed for plagiarism, all right-leaning bloggers, including me, admitted this fact sadly. But not to undermine Ben Domenech’s "substance," which, of course, we basically agreed with. But simply because his conduct was wrong, and he needed to be chastised for it, whether or not his ’substance" was true.

I didn’t call Ben Domench a plagiarist to undermine his substance. I LIKE his substance. Hell, I even like him as a guy (we met briefly and he bought me drinks, which always makes me like someone; but he seemed like a cool guy).

Nevertheless, his bad conduct had to be noted for the record, questions of "substance" notwithstanding.

The same with Greenwald. Obviously, if Greenwald falls, which he just might, the "substance" he’s arguing will CONTINUE, with a thousand other leftie idiots parroting the same schtick. The question is not about what he thinks or believes; it’s about how he conducts himself, his character, and the fact he flagrantly lies about it to his own readership and the world at large on his blog.

Consider that.

And that’s it for me.


Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
There are a lot of turning tables here.
Yes, like Ace revealing himself to be a bigger baby than the middle school students I have to deal with all year long. How many more pathetic insults and scary non-linking threats is he going to continue posting?
Ace was pretty much saying this blog isn’t on his to read list.
Ace also started off by saying, "If I didn’t see the letters Q and O occasionally on Instapundit, I never would have heard of it at all." Ace’s own comments in this thread show that not to be the case. Evidently, he regularly receives "many, many" emails from QandO that he will ignore forevermore.
I’m sowwy to huwt youwr widdle feeewings
Christ Almighty! You came to THIS site to insult Dale, even though he did not mention your name. Whose feelings were hurt?
McQ and Dale are being way to ... petty
Um, go back and count how many childish insults Ace has thrown around in the gazillion posts he has made in this thread.
Maybe you should take a remedial reading comprehension course.
Matt, try reading what Ace claimed again.

Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Dale,

Angels dancing on pins here, but I think that even if Ace had received emails for every one of his links (as your quote of him would suggest), the evidence would still show that he credited either Insty or Allah for most of them. Whatever. Maybe he didn’t originally read the emails and is just now going through them, realizing that you all had asked for a link.

The whole point was that you claimed that Ace was a liar for saying that he didn’t read QandO. Now, that it has been established (by your own correction) that Ace doesn’t "read" QandO in the common usage sense, shouldn’t you issue an more apologetic correction?

Boy, if i claimed someone loved the smell of my farts based on the fact that they had acknowledged them in the past, I would be embarrassed to admit that I had delivered the gas right to their nose.

Nevertheless, didn’t someone claim that Ace linked an almighty DALE FRANKS post here at QandO? Didn’t you say that you never email tips to your own posts? Are you suggesting that McQ is emailing tips you your posts?

I couldn’t care less, but it would behoove you to admit that you were unfair to Ace.

Written By: Matt
URL: http://
OK, I admit it. Ace suggested that he had received email tips (from QandO authors) for every link he made. In context, however, I think he was objectively bluffing. Or more likely, Ace was saying that he had email tips for every post that was not already hat-tipped to Insty or Allah (a common sense interpretation).

Reading recomprehension classes for me. I just couldn’t resist the slam given that Dale had thrown it out in the earlier thread.

Written By: Matt
URL: http://
Jwg, Ace and Megan handed Dale his still beating heart. The rest of the commenters just hammered it home. Please read my last comment and Please. Stop. Digging! (my thanks to Lady Rachel)

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
PS: I guess there was SOME invective in that post. But honestly, it was a prissy preening pony act.

PPS: I am not 100% sure that every single Q&O tip came from an email. I can check, but really would rather not to to prove such a trivial point. However, I do know I have a lot of Q&O tips in my gmail box, and I know, get this, that I don’t read this blog without prompting. Ergo, unless I just gave Q&O a courtesy link after seeing a referral in my sitemeter, I’m pretty sure all Q&O links come from tips.

PPPS: Lest I be accused of lying, I only THINK I met Ben Domenech. Mike from RedState was at CPAC with one of his partners, eithr from Red State or his consulting firm, and I have always remembered, or believed, that was Ben Domenech. If he wasn’t at CPAC, it might have been some other partner of Mike’s. Until someone tells me authoritatively "No, that was Joe Schlobotnik," I will believe it was Ben "The Nech" Domenech.



Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Dale said: "Ace’s minions have come in, jumping in on Ace’s side. Will they be swayed by anything I’ve written? Of course not."

O rly.

I’ve complimented Glenn f’n Greenwald when I found a post of his I completely agreed with. He was right, and he said it well. And I read that after Ace started down the sockpuppetry trail (and I think Ace has made a conclusive case on that score).

See Dale, "Ace’s minions" think for themselves. We don’t blindly follow Ace around because we’re hoping for something from him.

I would’ve backed you up instead of Ace if I had thought you were saying something sensible. I didn’t, so I didn’t.

What I’ve seen from you are discredited claims, personal attacks, and repetitions of previously discredited claims. This was followed by new claims (also instantly discredited) added to the body of the post instead of to the comments, as they should have been, since your accusations were relevant to an ongoing discussion. And then, finally, when all your claims have been torn to shreds in the opinion of nearly everyone watching this debacle, you said:

"This post was intentionally provocative. And, judging from the 30 or so comments Ace has dropped in this thread alone so far, the provocation worked... [t]hat was the whole point."

In other words: "Ha ha, made you post."

You want to talk about childishness? Look in the mirror. You’re nothing but attitude, son.

Written By: Megan
URL: http://
The whole point was that you claimed that Ace was a liar for saying that he didn’t read QandO.
Reading! Comprehension! I cannot stress its importance enough!

What Ace claimed wasn’t that he didn’t read QandO. What he claimed was:
If I didn’t see the letters Q and O occasionally on Instapundit, I never would have heard of it at all.
One might’ve thought that he’d have seen the letters "Q and O" on the permalinks on his own blog sometime during the past two years, but, apparently not.
I would be embarrassed to admit that I had delivered the gas right to their nose.
Since I didn’t, no embarrassment is necessary.
Didn’t you say that you never email tips to your own posts?
Not in the last three or four years, I haven’t. I think I did it a couple of times when I was starting out "The Review".
Are you suggesting that McQ is emailing tips you your posts?
I’m not suggesting anything, other than that I don’t solicit links, nor am I aware of anyone sending out link solicitations on my behalf. I have certainly never asked anyone to do so.

Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
it would behoove you to admit that you were unfair to Ace
Again, Ace came to THIS site and insulted Dale, even though none of the QandO authors had mentioned Ace. Dale responded to the comments made in the insult.

Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I’m acting like a middle-school student?

Hmmm... how revealing.

Because I’ve noticed teachers, used to dealing with children over whom they have authority (and years of learning and experience), tend to assume an entirely-unwarranted posture of hectoring, lecturing superiority with fellow adults.

Just something I’ve noticed. Especially with male teachers, who really do begin to believe — based on the fact that they spend their days with uneducated children — are far more intellectually accomplished than they really are.

Spend a few days with adults, Dale, and it might knock some of that smug, lordly condescension out of your jackass mouth.


Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Will Greenwald’s? Nope. They’ll write it off at worst as an unfortunate, silly, and temporary lapse in judgment. The people who don’t like him will be reinforced in their dislike.

Greenwald will still be blogging. So will Ace, XRLQ, and Patterico.

And then where will we be?
In Blogland, exactly where we would be if none of this had ever happened. In the real world, once Greenwald is at least as well known in the public sphere as an assclown rather than a self-styled constitutional expert, we’d be in a much better place. When we reach the point where the odds of any Senator quoting Glenn Greenwald on the Senate floor are about the same as the odds of him quoting Patterico, Xrlq, Ace or Dale Franks, our work will be done.

Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Both sides have declared victory, so I can only hope this sillyness is concluded. A pox on both your houses!


Written By: Skorj
URL: http://
The Franks cite came directly from instapundit.

BTW, I would also check stuff like The Gateway Pundit. See, the Gateway Pundit (which I do read on occasion) does big link round-ups from around the blogosphere on a breaking issue. What I’ll usually do is link THEM in a post, and then, if they have something worth posting, I’ll link that as well.

Which is fair, I think, since I gave them the top-billing post.

Check your cases of "unattributed postings." Do any of these include a Gateway Pundit or the like ABOVE your precious link?

Oh— and forgive me, but on occasion, I DO NOT cite Instapundit, even though I may have gotten something from there. Either I think I’ve linked him enough in one day, and I figure he hardly needs another hat-tip from me, or else sometimes I just forget.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Spend a few days with adults, Dale, and it might knock some of that smug, lordly condescension out of your jackass mouth.
Maybe you should actually look at the names of the commenters, and answer them, instead of me.

Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Megan, Your link comes up blank for me but searching through his posts, I see it abount halfway down his December posts. JWG, I am trying really hard not to flame you, but your posts are idiotic.

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
Dale-

That thing people are handing you....that would be your ass. Your are becomming an internet verb. As in "man that clown got Daled last night". It’s not a good thing.

You called Ace a liar. You were wrong. You then decided to take it to another level, making a post where you tried to prove Ace was a liar. Nobody, your own partners included, agrees with you.

I’m not a minion. I’m not your enemy. But your circling the bowl and it would be a great idea to grab the lid and pull yourself out instead of continuing to pull the flush lever. That way lies madness. And strawberries.

Written By: JackStraw
URL: http://
I wish Dale and JWG would read Jon Henke’s comment at slightly below the 50% point of these comments because he is dead on.... please Dale and JWG... stop. Digging.

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
"smug, lordly condescension out of your jackass mouth"

Kinda defines the situation nicely, imo.

Even if you didn’t type the specific comment Ace mentioned I’m sure you’re responsible for the comments of your commenters. Just like you said Ace was earlier.

Right?

Written By: Birkel
URL: http://ace.mu.nu
It’s probably not so much a damned lie as a statistic.

Now, can everyone just get over themselves? Blogwars are utter crap, and we all have better uses for our time.


Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
What I’ve seen from you are discredited claims, personal attacks...
Let’s review the very first instance of this whole thread for truth-supporting megan...
Riiiight, "Dale" (whoever you are)...

You’re a jackass, Dale. I’ve never read you before, and I won’t be reading you again. It’s one thing to be an ignorant jackass; it’s another thing to be arrogant and self-righteous about it, spouting off about how you’re too "above" attacking other bloggers.

Right... your whole post was a morally-preening bit of masturbating noting your purity, while attacking others. (Oh, and yeah— your excuse for attacking Bithead? That it "amused" you and that was reason enough to do it? Well attacking your butt-boy Greenwald amuses me, Hoss. So that’s an adequate reason.)

F’ off and die alone,

Ace

PS, your blog sucks and always has. Just wanted to point that out.

Gosh Dale, what’s with the "discredited claims" and "personal attacks"? Oh, wait...that was Ace taking a piss in Dale’s yard.

Written By: JWG
URL: http://
[My comments] w[ere] intentionally provocative. And, judging from [Dale’s responses he] has dropped in this thread alone so far, the provocation worked... [t]hat was the whole point

Smootches Dale. You have to pick up your credibility by friday, otherwise, I’ll be forced to sell it (to cover my losses).

Written By: Matt
URL: http://
I’ll say this again: this is inane. Read my comment again, a third of the way down

Ace: Swinging around your higher readership is pathetic. And since casually typed figures of speech and other misunderstandings started this in the first place, and you know that Dale was being intentionally provocative, what are you going to accomplish by getting all aggressive and resorting to CAPSLOCK as if you need to shout?
You’ll give QandO a short-lived spike in readership, gain nothing for yourself (unless this is somehow satisfying for you, in which case... carry on. Just seems kinda childish.), and so on. You know the saying about wrestling with pigs; Dale was specifically — and by his own admission — playing the part of the pig because of your own off-hand and insulting comments.

A far better strategy on your part would be to calmly clear up any misunderstandings, make any necessary admissions (you got a good start) and move on — it’s not like your pride’s going to take a big hit if you can fire off a short apology for any misunderstandings without a snarky parting shot at Dale, McQ, or the bog in general. You can still do this and save yourself the trouble of continuing this circus.

Dale: Take higher ground now, before he can.

Jon’s comment should have started bringing this to a close, doing the work that both Ace and Dale should have done, as I suggested earlier, which was to faithfully represent what the other side had said.

This is much ado about almost nothing. The stakes are too absurdly small to be getting this snippy — and that goes for some of the trolls that followed Ace here and had nothing productive to add, but went ahead and posted something they thought was clever anyway. I’m sure Ace appreciates the "backup;" thanks for lowering the signal:noise ratio even further.

I’d rather not see this continue much longer. I read many blogs, and QandO is a very good one. Don’t want to see it bogged down in this little cockfight when there’s so much other, substantial stuff to talk about.

Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
JWG: Is your LP player broken? Is this Groundhog Day? What’s so important about the statement "none of the QandO authors had mentioned Ace" that you have to repeat it over and over?

If I had posted a flame about, say, people getting all obsessed over that witch hunt after Jesse MacBeth (someone I personally didn’t bother with, for all that matters); then readers familiar with the case would assume I was talking about McQ, who was most involved with that particular crusade. And I would’ve been a singular crapweasel if I’d denied it.

Not even Dale is following you on this one, JWG. McQ? McQ is nowhere. You’re Muhammad al-Sahhaf, repeating that there are no, again, absolutely no troops in Baghdad, while the man you’ve sworn to defend has buggered off to Tikrit.

Written By: David Ross
URL: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/blog/zimblog.html
Ah, Dale, my bad. Slam redacted and redirectd towards the idiot "minion" (that’s what we’re calling them, right?) JWH.

Incidentally, I don’t know who offered this, but let’s just examine how absurd it is. Either JWH or Dale (don’t care who) said I’m lying because I wrote that if I didn’t see Q & O on Instapundit, I wouldn’t know it existed.

Ah-hah! This genius cries. But you ADMIT you also get emails from Q & O posters! You LIAR!

Yesssss... I’m a liar. Please amend that to: "If I didn’t see Q & O linked on other sites, or get the occasional link from a reader or other blogger, or GET AN EMAIL DIRECTLY FROM A Q&O BLOGGER HIMSELF, I wouldn’t even know it existed."

You caught me!

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Dale better take evasive action, OrneryWP is attempting to take his place astride the high horse. Dale, watch your back!!!

Written By: Matt
URL: http://
I didn’t brag about my readership; Megan (my sock-puppet, who is me) actually did.

So I guess I did brag about it.

I did bring it up later because I cannot wrap my mind around the fact that Dale believes his third-tier blog is somehow "must-reading" for me, or for anyone else.

I did not say that as a slam on the site’s quality. I am only speaking of its actual size. It is a *fact*— this is a third tier blog, or fourth tier, depending on how you divide things up. (I am erring on the side of being charitable.)

The simple fact of the matter is that most bloggers read, get this, BIGGER BLOGGERS. Q&O is not, in fact, a bigger blogger. Not even close, in fact. There are smaller bloggers I read frequently because I share their interest and just flat-out like them — like John From Wuzzadem, etc. — but Q&O just isn’t on this list.

It is simply maddening to be told over and over you are lying about what blogs you read when the simple fact is, before today, I could not have told you what the Q&O website even looked like. Have I seen it before? I’m sure I have. A couple of times, tops.

Nor could I recall, gun to my head, that McQ and Jon were associated with it, and, while I have typed the man’s name before off an Instapundit tip, I have no recollection of ever reading the name "Dale Franks" before.

It simply becomes maddening when some strutting prig of a jackass attempts to tell you the contents of your own mind.

For the last f’ing time: I don’t know if this is a good site or not, but I do acknowlege, upon reviewing the evidence, that they did good work on Jessie MacBeth and, I’m sure, many other stories.

However: I do. not. read. this. blog.

Again, I don’t mean to be a dick to anyone else, but there are a LOT of blogs I link and quote and yet I don’t read them. How did get the link and quote, then?

Simple: They sent me the link and the quote.

That doesn’t mean I "read" their blog. That means I read my freakin’ email.


Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Late to the party, as always. Just wanted to see what was going on.

You see, when I read the original post, I thought that Dale had picked a rather poor example for illustrating "Silly Bloggers Picking Nits and Obsessing Over Minor Details in Order to Prove Their Own Superiosity". Unless one considers exposing a demonstrated liar and self-aggrandizing gasbag with some notoriety as an insecure Usenet SPNAK!-toy running around waving sock puppets in order to appear more important than he is "unimportant" and "minor", of course. All GiGi needed to make his journey to the (f)Layme Side complete would be to use the tried and mercilessly ridiculed "the lurkers support me in email."

The post DID get the preening "Holier than Thou and I’m Here to PREACH it!" aspect down pat, on the other hand. But, again, choosing the Hunt for GiGi and the Sock Puppets as an example of anal obsession with details and over-parsing of statements? Not so much.

I’m therefore happy to see that Dale has done his research, because THIS post illustrates the point so perfectly that it ought to be included in future textbooks, if any are forthcoming.

"How Not To Run a Flamewar."

It’ll be a smash hit, I tell you.

I’d now close with something along the lines of "never in my life have I...", but I wouldn’t want to risk somebody Googling up an example of me actually doing so at some point in the past, thus branding me forever a Liar Most Vile.

Now shake hands and be done with it, please.

Thatisall.

Written By: Misha I
URL: http://www.nicedoggie.net/
Because I’ve noticed teachers, used to dealing with children over whom they have authority (and years of learning and experience), tend to assume an entirely-unwarranted posture of hectoring, lecturing superiority with fellow adults.
Hey...if you’re proud of your multiple attempts at insults pointing to your superior daily sitemeter hits and personal attacks, then I can flaunt my superiority as well.
JWG, I am trying really hard not to flame you, but your posts are idiotic.
Point to one error or nonsensical post I’ve made. Ace’s minions keep claiming poor Ace was unfairly picked on, but the evidence demonstrates otherwise which is why I keep pointing to it.

Written By: JWG
URL: http://
banned?

Written By: Matt
URL: http://
Hey, where did Pablo go? Amidst all the confusion, we seem to have lost him. Starting to like that guy.

Good catch here Pablo, and here’s a problem with the intertubes: I con’t convey irony easily with pixels. I’ll try boldface:

Alear: Glenn Greenwald is a huge big swinging dick, we know that coz he’s been read into the Congressional Record.

Pablo: One little data point that seems to be overlooked is just how much good reading GiGi on the floor did for Feingold. How badly did the censure resolution crash and burn again? Wasn’t it like 85-something against?





Written By: Alear
URL: http://
Now shake hands and be done with it, please.
Jimmy Carter’s got nothing on Misha (whom I condemn in whatever terms I’m supposed to do that in lest I be set upon by yet another jabbering horde) in the peacemaking department, and really I’m just fooling around with this rope so don’t read anything into it.

It’s dead, kids. Stop kicking it, or you’re going to hate yourselves in the morning.


Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Megan’s posts suggest otherwise JWG. Everytime Ace posted he was going off Insty, an e-mail, Allahpundit or an e-mail from McQ or Jon. You keep trying to blame Ace. Again please stop digging. Look I started here calling for a ceasefire, more and more I feel Ace, megan and the rest should continue to beat you all down.

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
Ace, I wouldn’t concede that your "read [your] freakin’ email"

For crying out loud, retain some amount of deniability. McQ and Dale will take this literally (and to the ultimate conclusion, then gild the lilly on top of that): you know each emailer personally.

Written By: Matt
URL: http://
It is simply maddening to be told over and over you are lying about what blogs you read
Then I guess you shouldn’t have come over to Dale’s post from Friday, overstated your claims about QandO, and thrown about various insults. Gosh, do you think peeing in someone’s yard might make them angry? If a lowly, uneducated, inferior teacher like me can understand that, then certainly someone who runs one of the upper-tier blogs can.
while the man you’ve sworn to defend has buggered off to Tikrit
I don’t need Dale to rub my back in order to post evidence taken from your own writing, but if you think it would make me a better commenter, I’ll ask him about it.

Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Thanks, Alear. I thought that little gem had gone unnoticed in all the hubbub. It’s a hoot, ain’t it?

Yay, Feingold!

Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Kinda funny Jwg, You seem to defend him reflexively.

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
Wow. Most interesting. This urine & poop flinging show was probably some of the most lamest 40 minutes of my life I’ve spent in a while, and I just got through recaulking my bathroom and watching Charlie and the Chocolate factory - and that was pretty lame.

Got lost in all the details. Not that I can’t read. It’s that I can’t care enough.

I read Q&O for info. I read Ace for entertainment. Tomorrow, I plan on continuing to do so. But thanks for reminding me why I don’t blog as much or with as much gusto as I used to.

Written By: Robb Allen (Sharp as a Marble)
URL: http://sharpmarbles.stufftoread.com
Everytime Ace posted he was going off Insty, an e-mail, Allahpundit or an e-mail from McQ or Jon.
No...the explanations grew from the original claim about Instapundit. Fine. Everytime new evidence was presented, Ace expanded the methods of knowing about QandO. I couldn’t care less what Ace reads. But it’s obvious that his initial, unprovoked, profane comments which sparked this thread from Dale were in error. In response, Dale made accusations about those initial comments.
You keep trying to blame Ace.
Ace started it, so nyah.

Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Just mentioning...

Here we’ve had Dale and McQ calling me a liar, and me calling them a liar back.

Just curious: Did anyone else’s husband/wife/girlfreind/boyfriend show up to start obsessively defending any of you guys?

Mine didn’t.

My SO didn’t show up to begin obsessively defending me, starting every sentence with "But you’re missing ACE’S point..." or "As ACE says on his blog [extended quotation]..." or "You are failing to deal with ACE’S substance..."

And yeah, she knew about it, too. Know what she told me? Stop being an idiot and post content on your own blog, moron.

Just a little old point to consider for those of you maintaing Glenn Greenwald’s Magic Boyfriend has the same level of obsessiveness about defending Greenwald’s internet-rep as Greenwald himself does.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Rob, might i suggest, give what’s transpired (despite the triviality of the debate), that you start reading ace for the info and entertainment, and qando for solely entertainment? Just sayin’.

Written By: Matt
URL: http://
Nice try JWG, but everytime Dale submitted a claim, he was shut down, by Ace or Megan. That is the fact, it should be the end of discussion, but I expect you to make something up. If Ace is wrong, call him out, make specific claims and challenge him to defend. Otherwise I’m gonna ignore your idiotic claims.

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
Kinda funny Jwg, You seem to defend him reflexively.
What, you’re getting paid to support Ace?

Hey, Dale...forget the back rubs...I want money like dawnsblood!

Written By: JWG
URL: http://

God I asked Ace to quit, but am now glad he didn’t. My mistake Ace... Carry on.

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
Rob, might i suggest, give what’s transpired (despite the triviality of the debate), that you start reading ace for the info and entertainment, and qando for solely entertainment? Just sayin’.

I don’t care who you are, that right there was funny.

Written By: John from WuzzaDem
URL: http://www.wuzzadem.com
No money here JWG... just trying to counter your illogical BS. Ace is correct, even if he reached a bit.

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
Jimmy Carter’s got nothing on Misha
Pablo, I’m afraid I must condemn that comparison with Dhimmuh Cahd’uh most vehemently. Now, seeing as how you’re not going to use that rope for anything, might I inquire as to whether or not I can have the use of it? Not that I am suggesting that... Nope. Not me.

Written By: Misha I
URL: http://www.nicedoggie.net/
JWG, if you’d post something more substantive than "DAAAAALE! ACE STARTED IT!" then maybe he’d give you one. You’re not even worth a reacharound at this point.

Written By: David Ross
URL: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/blog/zimblog.html
Now, I’d be one to back up Ace blindly, but it seems that all we have here is a failure to communicate mixed in with overblown blogger ego action. Reading and have read are two different concepts. Ace simply has read Q and O, kinda like how I have read the USA Today when I’m at a hotel and my local paper isn’t available. Of course, if someone asked me if I read the USA Today, I’d say "no" even if I was reading it at that particular moment. If I went to the store and threw down my quarter and picked up a USA Today a few times a week, I could safely say that I read it. That’s what I do with Ace.

This "ace is a liar" crap just shows how the accuser doesn’t understand the difference between have read and read with respect to publications...or else people have bad marriages, are angry little SOBs and are looking to take it out on someone. Who the F knows.



Written By: Feisty
URL: http://feistywhore.blogspot.com
Anybody? JackStraw? Dawnsblood? Megan? Pablo? JWG?

Did ANYBODY’S Magic Girlfriend/Boyfriend/Husband/Wife show up to defend you during this ugly exchange?

Everyone here was called an idiot or worse at one time or another. Any of your roommates/lovers/co-workers/siblings/parents show up to defend you?

Or... did you actually not tell them you were all involved in a bit of internet blogwarring, because it’s all slightly embarrassing?


Just curious.

Want to know. Everyone seems soooooo convinced that it’s perfectly normal for a boyfriend or girlfriend to obsessively defend their blogger/commenting partner on-line, I’d just like to know if anyone’s just experienced any of that first hand.

No... sharing the computer between heated exchanges? No one else had their wife on the other computer sticking up for them throughout this?

I’d just like to see one instance of the Magic Boyfriend Theory actually occurring in real life before crediting it even as a remote possibility.

Oh well. I guess no one loves any of us — JWG, Dale, Jack, Megan, Pablo, Dawnsblood, McQ, me, etc. — as much as Glenn Greenwald’s Magic Boyfriend loves him.

Sad, isn’t it, that we will never be the beneficiaries of that level of obsessive mindthrall sort of love?


Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Agree totaly with Feisty.. never tell a pretty girl no:)

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
Can’t we all just get along?

Would all of you stop acting like little children? No one wins in this blogwar, except for the pinko losers who are laughing their asses off at all these conservatives bickering amongst themselves. Shouldn’t we all turn our attention to something more important?

I enjoy both blogs. I admit that I read AoS a lot more often than I do Q&O. But I like both blogs regardless of how often I read them. Can’t one of you guys just say something along the lines of:
"I am sorry all of this started. It is irrelevant at this point who started this whole blogwar, but I would like to put this little episode behind me and move on. And hopefully we can forget any of this happened and try to remain on cordial terms from now on."

What do either sides gain from continuous flaming from this point on? As far as I can see - nothing. I understand that all of your egos were hurt by the name calling. But the person that apologizes first now should get an ego boost, as they would come off as being the bigger person in this whole argument.

Written By: magnetism87
URL: http://
By the way, as an interesting gedankenexperiment in blog ethics—completely unrelated to any specific personalities, of course—which would be worse: Leaving comments as a sock puppet on someone’s blog, or telling outright lies, and amending one’s blogroll in order to support those lies?

From what I’ve read here and at Ace’s, he did not amend the blogroll to hide his tracks, as you allege. It seems to me he removed you from his blogroll because you’re kind of being a dink.

Written By: Slublog
URL: http://
Nope Ace. No wife, GF or admirer came to defend any of us, but I would like to find a ’magic GF’ :)

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
Okay, my fake-internet significant other Feisty just showed up to defend me, but she didn’t even really defend me all that strongly (hey.. it was just a misunderstanding, fellers!) and NOT A SINGLE EXTENDED QUOTATION from me besides.


Seriously. Think about it. Where are all the "Magic Boyfriend" style defenses here? Where are the "But MEGAN has made many intelligent points, and you have failed to deal with anyone, and furthermore, she is the proprietress of a very popular chat site called ’The Pit’" being posted by her significant other?

I want to know.

Someone who buys the Magic Boyfriend theory — please show me any example of this sort of obssesive defending of a blogger by an SO in actual practice.

Didn’t seem to happen here.

Can we conclude that’s because it... really doesn’t ever happen?



Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Am guesing Dale is just looking for hits.... not a real debate he is all attack and very little analysis

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
Since the question was asked...

I have been involved in approximately 16 billion instances of online flaming over the last 15 years, and not once was my darling husband ever felt compelled to leap in and post on my behalf. And yes, he DOES like me.

And I still never read this ugly, boring blog. This Jon person deserves better.

Written By: bbeck
URL: http://
Did ANYBODY’S Magic Girlfriend/Boyfriend/Husband/Wife show up to defend you during this ugly exchange?
Well, Ace, since I’m obviously rather much in love with myself, does me posting twice count? I mean, the second time was in defense of myself re: the Carter comparison, although I must confess that I realize that I wasn’t being attacked per se, but I perceived it to be an attack so I posted in my own defense anyway which, I suppose, is rather silly of me but that’s just me. Any excuse to post, I suppose. So, anyways, what I was trying to say...

Wait. What the Hell was I trying to say?

I guess the answer is "no."

I should note, however, that although I completely agree that it is sad that none of us have anybody who cares as much about us as Magic Boyfriend has to care about GiGi in order for his "defense" to be true or even plausible, you HAVE to remember that GiGi is a best-selling author who, after a mere 9 months of blogging, already has articles leading to major articles in the New York Times (readership: 4 and falling) AND that his blog is quoted by Russ Feingold whenever he’s not conducting impeachment hearings in the Senate basement behind closed doors.

I know this because a guy named "Ellison" told me so.

Anyway, clearly there is nothing odd in somebody like Magic Boyfriend loving somebody of THAT massive substance and stature enough that he adapts his lovers language and mannerisms to the point where he’s a bona fide mimic and obsessively scours the Internet in order to Stand by His Man.

I seem to have lost the point.

Strange. I could’ve sworn that I had it right here with me. Good thing I didn’t, or I’d now be A Liar in Perpetuity.

Ohnevermind.

Written By: Misha I
URL: http://www.nicedoggie.net/
Mag,

It’s over as far as I’m concerned.

Right now I’m just interested in using this as a test-case for the Magic Boyfriend theory. (Indeed, this was all my scheme, to set up a blogwar to test the theory... well, no, but it’s useful anyway.)

Thus far, no one has admitted that their SO’s popped in under a different name to argue on their behalf.


And yet, I’m told, it’s perfectly reasonable to believe Glenn Greenwald’s Magic Boyfriend does this CONSTANTLY.

See, it’s something that NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENS, but we should credit it as a perfectly plausible alternate theory, because the laws of the physical universe, as we currently conceive of them, do not expressly forbid such a thing from happening.



Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Bbeck,

I’m sorry to tell you this, but apparently your husband does not love you as dotingly, devotedly, selflessly, completely, and perfectly as Glenn Greenwald’s Magic Boyfriend loves his.

Because, you see, Glenn Greenwald’s Magic Boyfriend defends him on line day in, day out.

From home. During working hours.

I guess that’s his job— demonstrating his love for Glenn Greenwald on the internet.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
What do either sides gain from continuous flaming from this point on? As far as I can see - nothing. I understand that all of your egos were hurt by the name calling.

I don’t want to quibble, but I think this is more than just a simple case of name-calling. If Dale had just said "ace is a jackoff," that would be name-calling and really no big deal.

However, what Dale said is that ace is a liar. That’s not name-calling - that’s a statement intended to call another person’s integrity into question. Dale could have made his point without attacking ace’s character, but he did not.

Written By: Slublog
URL: http://
Nice try JWG, but everytime Dale submitted a claim, he was shut down
Hmmm, that must explain how we started with Ace only knowing about QandO through Instapundit to the updated version now.
I expect you to make something up.
Be specific. What have I made up? I used Ace’s own words. Please use mine.
If Ace is wrong, call him out, make specific claims and challenge him to defend.
That already happened. Ace said, "What I admitted to was loose language." Fine. We eventually got to what he really meant after working through his insults.

I’ve spent many comments responding to people other than Ace because they were distorting the facts.

JWG, if you’d post something more substantive than "DAAAAALE! ACE STARTED IT!
That evidence was in response to accusations that Dale was being mean to poor innocent Ace. I’ve also commented on Ace’s frequent threats to never link to QandO again and his repeated references to QandO being a third (or fourth) tier blog (Oooo...that’s gotta hurt). Those were more revealing about Ace’s character than his initial "loose language". Now he’s obsessing about the sock puppet thing again. I agree with his wife...you’ve made your point...complain about Greenwald’s IP address on your blog.

Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Look I started very symathetic to the Qo crew but you guy posted retared stuff. Blameing Ace for the attack, yes he started it, but McQ made it a gang attack. Jon tried to defuse it, but Dale would not back off. Ace, Megan and their crew own this one.


Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
Slublog,

Is that you or your beloved wife posting?

It’s so hard to tell these days, what with wives just taking over the computer to argue on one’s behalf in a meaningless jagoff internet flamewar.

Tell a secret? Ace has been candle-pin bowling since 3:00 PM. All of the "Ace" posts since then have been written by his buddy Stinky.

I just like the guy, I guess. Just wanted to give him some time off from fighting his own insipid, vapid, childish, ridiculous, absurd, meaningless, trivial, picayune internet retard-battles so he could have a few beers and knock down a few frames.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Okay, my fake-internet significant other Feisty just showed up to defend me....

IS THAT ALL I AM TO YOU? Heheh.

Okay, lemme try again.

Ace is a man of dignity and honor, a lover of small puppies and kittens, even smelly feral ones. Ace would do no ill to anyone. Ever. In this fake Internet oratorical brawl, Ace has not lied nor did he ever intend to. Ace was simply correctly using the term "read" as it is widely used when referring to publications. Additionally, Ace has backed up his claims of never reading this blogs with convincing evidence as follows:
I have said, repeatedly, that my links to his site came off of Instapundit, or from an email tip.

He attempts to rebut this by presenting me quoting his site above.

What does he somehow "forget" to include in the quote?

THIS:

Thanks to Instapundit for the QandO link.

Nice selective editing, McQ. I keep saying I only come here off an Instapundit tip, and, in order to rebut that charge, you deliberately omit quoting the part where I hat-tip Instapundit for pointing out the quote.

God. Damned. Liar.
This shows that Ace is "reading", using the commonly understood definition thereof, as he said, bigger bloggers, and tipping them to your post. Ace is, therefore, not a liar. The accuser is merely a poor reader of the subtle differences in the English language. Long live Ace.

That being said, Ace listen to your "real" girlfriend. ;-)


Written By: Feisty
URL: http://feistywhore.blogspot.com
Slublog:
I don’t want to quibble, but I think this is more than just a simple case of name-calling. If Dale had just said "ace is a jackoff," that would be name-calling and really no big deal.

However, what Dale said is that ace is a liar. That’s not name-calling - that’s a statement intended to call another person’s integrity into question. Dale could have made his point without attacking ace’s character, but he did not.
Oh hell no, bitch! It’s on! j/k :)

Look, does it matter if Dale called Ace a liar in the big scheme of things? If someone I’ve never heard of calls my integrity into question, I am not going to engage them in a war of words, just for the simple reason that it gives their words more importance than they deserve. IMHO, this was all about ego, nothing more.

I am glad to see Ace say it’s over. Hopefully, reason has prevailed over emotion, and the QandO guys will agree to stop this as well.


Written By: magnetism87
URL: http://
That already happened. Ace said, "What I admitted to was loose language." Fine. We eventually got to what he really meant after working through his insults.
I’ve spent many comments responding to people other than Ace because they were distorting the facts.



Distorting the facts my ass, Ave has been prtty clear to those of us that don’t ignore the fact that "Never do something in real life means something not so absolute..."

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
Is that you or your beloved wife posting?

Well, now that you mention it, it’s his wife.

I may not be your ’magic girlfriend,’ but I can’t forget that night in Reno together.

Are we still legally married, by the way?

Written By: Slublog
URL: http://
A vacationing penguin is driving through Arizona when he notices the oil-pressure light is on. He gets out to look and sees oil dripping out of the motor.

He drives to the nearest town and stops at the first gas station. After dropping the car off, the penguin goes for a walk around town. He sees an ice-cream shop, and being a penguin in Arizona, decides that something cold would really hit the spot. He gets a big dish of vanilla ice cream and sits down to eat. Having no hands, he makes a real mess, trying to eat the ice cream with his little flippers.

After finishing his cold treat, he goes back to the gas station and asks the mechanic if he’s found the problem.

The mechanic looks up from the engine and says, "Looks like you blew a seal."

"No, no," the penguin replies, "it’s just ice cream."

***

There’s a moral in there somewhere, boys.

Written By: krakatoa
URL: http://
I’m sorry to tell you this, but apparently your husband does not love you as dotingly, devotedly, selflessly, completely, and perfectly as Glenn Greenwald’s Magic Boyfriend loves his.

That’s it, then, I’m getting a divorce.

Excuse me a sec, be back in a few...

Written By: bbeck
URL: http://
Typed too fast Ave=Ace and prtty=pretty

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
I am glad to see Ace say it’s over. Hopefully, reason has prevailed over emotion, and the QandO guys will agree to stop this as well.

Killjoy. :-)

Written By: Slublog
URL: http://
Dale could have made his point without attacking ace’s character, but he did not.
Shame on Dale for not being nice to Ace after Ace came to his blog and called him a nobody, a jackass, an ignorant jackass, arrogant, self-righteous, morally-preening bit of masturbating, "F’ off and die alone", and claimed he had "never read you before, and I won’t be reading you again", as well as "your blog sucks and always has. Just wanted to point that out."

Why didn’t Dale just try to be nice? Bad, Dale, bad.

Written By: JWG
URL: http://

JWG, you’re the kind of guy who’s still trying to get a limbo line together while everyone’s getting their coats and keys, ain’t ya?

PS: This is still Stinky writing. Ace won’t be back tonight.

Anyway, we’ve given genius dale enough traffic for his asinine posts. Anyone want to go back to my place for some crack and bumper pool?

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
No, Bad JWG for not making the point that Dale should have adressed the arguement, not the poster but I hardly expect you to see that JWG. you and Dale are showing your ass.

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
Good night Ace.

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
Night all. ace rules you guys lose.

Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
This is truly a magical night. bbeck and I have put our petty squabble behind us. She’s finally decided to leave her husband.

And not one of you has figured this out. I am truly the master of the tubes.

Written By: JackStraw
URL: http://
WAIT! NOBODY MOVE!!!

Theres still a way we can salvage something positive out of this whole mess,



Oliver Willis posted a comment in the post on the top of the home page here and no one has pointed out to him yet that he is Fat and/or that he is a Moron.

What kind of even semi right wing blog can let something like this happen?!!!


I think we should join together, Republican and Libertarian, Ace and Dale and right this grievous wrong.

Whos with me?




Written By: Amish the Uniter
URL: http://
Being a small time blogger, I say I am disappointed in both Ace and Dale. Ace for using the size of his readership to slam Dale with (that wasn’t nice or something to be proud of). But in Ace’s defense, Dale you did call Ace a liar and implied that he was childish to pursue the GG’s sock puppetry.

What all this pissing in each other’s cereal has accomplished, is give the Kos Kommies and DU wankers a great laugh, we (we as in the Right side of the Sphere) all look bad, when in fact we should be posing a united front against them. Yes, we disagree in several areas and views, but that doesn’t mean should demean each other’s views (unless they are totally Leftist) or demean someone’s passion for finding the truth (such as the GG the Douchebag’s ability to use sock puppets).

You both have a WAY larger readeship than I do, but that doesn’t mean what I have to say is any less important or truthful or relevant. So don’t use readership numbers to prove the moral high ground. But also don’t snidely make someone’s search for the truth on a Leftie’s dishonorable way of boistering his own position, into something that is irelevant, because there are a whole plethera of bloggers interested in this affair (myself being one).

With that said, I will slide back into my little portion of the Sphere and be content.

Mr Minority

PS: In full disclosure, I have READ both blogs, but I don’t READ them all the time.

Written By: Mr Minority
URL: http://www.mrminority.blogspot.com/
Mr. Minority,

I’m sorry about that. I brought that up because it’s simply a fact that bloggers read two kinds of blogs: blogs they really like, no matter what the size, and bigger blogs, to see what’s going on in the blogosphere.

I am just pointing out that Q&O does not fall into the latter quality, though it may be a quality blog. And, as far as personal likes, it’s not a favorite of mine.

I only read about four blogs a day, TEN if I’m really ambitious, and Q&O just isn’t one of them. Mostly I read my email box and newsboards like lucianne.

Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
So, who wants to congo?

Written By: Tom M
URL: http://
Are the trolls getting tired and going to bed? Finally!

If they think declaring "Ace rules" and "Ace and megan win" makes it so, and are satisfied enough to leave, so be it.
But really, how can someone look at the above 100-something comments and say that anybody "won"? This is what winning looks like? This is what "people who rule" behave like?

I’ll just second magnetism87’s comments and call it a night.

Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
err, "110-something" =/ "200-something"
You knew what I meant.

Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
I just knew that all that excessive posting about "Randy" was going to land Ace in trouble.

...it does come as a surprise to me that Ace reads though ...who’d a thunk? - And I had to come here to find out this amazing bit of trivia! - Ace? You’re holding out on us!

(NOTE: Just doing my bit to increase Q&0’s hits for the day. As a loyal Ace minion(c) ...who can’t figure out any other reason at all for getting directed here. Actually, I do read Q&0 on occasion. Good reads. On occasion. Not this one, of course.)

Written By: davis,br
URL: http://fairwhether.blogspot.com
dawnsblood, please STFU and go sit down. If "Ace" was to stop, your head would go so far up his ass.

The only thing "Ace" has managed to do was come across as sounding like a b*tch.




Written By: Chuck
URL: http://
Now I see why we are warned away from blaming, faultfinding, backbiting, criticism and "...trivial, and often misdirected pleasures..."

But I also saw a Hero’s Journey for Dale; for Ace; for McQ...

These three, at least, had the integrity to acknowledge their shots-from-the-lip, and functionally retract them.

Now, a drive-by pimping: I don’t have any Ace-centric or McQ/Dale rants, but there ARE some tasty Glenn-sockpuppet recordings up at Brain Surgery With Spoons!

Karridine out

Written By: Karridine
URL: http://brainsurgerywithspoons.blogspot.com
Now I see why we are warned away from blaming, faultfinding, backbiting, criticism and "...trivial, and often misdirected pleasures..."

But I also saw a Hero’s Journey for Dale; for Ace; for McQ...

These three, at least, had the integrity to acknowledge their shots-from-the-lip, and functionally retract them.

Now, a drive-by pimping: I don’t have any Ace-centric or McQ/Dale rants, but there ARE some tasty Glenn-sockpuppet recordings up at Brain Surgery With Spoons!

Karridine out

Written By: Karridine
URL: http://brainsurgerywithspoons.blogspot.com
(laff, laff, laff)

240 comments at this writing. Never saw a number like that here before.

At least y’all aren’t dealing with the likes of John Huang and a "Back To Business Committee" like some people I know were back in ’96.

I think this is hilarious.

Going back up, now, to read the two hundred or so comments that I didn’t see before I raced to the bottom.


Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
As a liberal, I just wanted you all to know that I thought this was tons of fun.
Thanks!

BTW, Dale, props on the principled stand. Whatever your opinions on Greenwald, both he in person when he comments here, and his supporters, make their arguments with both greater lucidity and greater civility than the tribe of thugs at right-wing blog sites like Ace’s. Whatever he may or may not have done with sock-puppets, and I personally don’t give a d***, the Ace of Spades have helped make his larger point for him. Again.




Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Glasnost nails it. These guys pale in comparison to Glenn Greenwald.

Greenwald only has a New York Times Best Selling Book on the Bush Administration and its abuses of power. And he has one of the most-read blogs on the Interent, after 9 months of blogging. And Senators read from his blog at Senate hearings and his posts lead to front-page news stories in major newspapers.

Why would anyone think what he has to say matters? It’s not like anyone listens to him. It’s not like he’s Ace, or Jeff Goldstein, or Patterico, or Sister Toldjah or Glenn Reynolds, or someone who really matters.

Great advice, you super-important bloggers should only to each other and about each other. Don’t bother with anyone in the Left because if you ignore them, they’ll just go away.


Written By: ellison
URL: http://
the Ace of Spades have helped make his larger point for him.
What point is that?

Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
ORIGINAL POST

Well, if Ace, from Ace of Spades Blog, wanted to attract my attention, he did a very good job of it. You wanna play the blogwars game with me, Ace? OK. I’ll pitch in. Just this once, I’ll play an inning, and we’ll see how you like it.

In the comments to this post that decries the blogswarm against Glenn Greenwald, Ace, like the secretary in "Mission: Impossible", disavows any knowledge of QandO:
Because, you know, I really don’t ever think of this blog. If I didn’t see the letters Q and O occasionally on Instapundit, I never would have heard of it at all.
Ace is, you see, almost completely unfamiliar with QandO. Why, his only knowledge of it comes second-hand from occasional mentions at Insty! He is shocked—shocked—to learn of our existence!

Which is why it’s odd, indeed, to see a Google search result showing links to individual posts at QandO. And if you dig deeper, you see that it looks like QandO used to be a permanent fixture on Ace’s blogroll (although we’ve been recently removed), judging from the 100 pages of search results showing a link to QandO. Just look at any cached page from his weblog. In the cache of Jul 16, 2006 13:19:52 GMT, the permalink to QandO was still there in his blogroll.

Huh, so let’s see if we can recap (to coin a phrase). Ace of Spades’ blog archive goes back to April of 2004, and in August of 2004, he made a direct link to a QandO post. In September of 2004, he added us to his blogroll, a link that remained until at least 16 Jul 2006. And, he’s linked directly to a number of QandO posts, according to the Google Cache of his site. Posts such as these:
23 Aug 2004
7 Sep 2004 (The post in which he announces he’s added us to his blogroll.)
10 Sep 04
15 Nov 2004
16 Sep 2005

Indeed, as recently as 10 Feb 2006, a commenter left a link to QandO in his comments section. Presumably, Ace reads the comments to his own blog.

And I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that our own trackbacks show additional links from Ace of Spades:

Trackbacks from Ace of Spades HQ

Huh. What’d’ya know? There’s a link from Ace as recently as 13 Jul 06.

Oh, the conundrum! Whoever shall we believe? Ace, who proclaims hardly to have heard of us at all, or the Google results from Ace Of Spades, showing Ace announcing a permanent link to QandO beginning within seven months of the Ace of Spades Blog’s startup?

And not only has he really ever paid much attention to us, he just doesn’t like us. In fact, he never liked us, even on those very few occasions he saw something saw Instapundit linking to us:
PS, your blog sucks and always has. Just wanted to point that out.
No doubt the only reason he added us to his permanent blogroll in 2004 was to show an example of blog suckiness. It’s odd, though, that he seemed to agree with us in those posts where he directly linked to us. And, if our blog sucks like a twenty dollar whore, then how did we get that "Ace of Spades HQ stamp of approval" when you announced our addition to your blogroll? I mean, I see the "good links and interesting ideas" bit. I caught the "analysts" reference. Then there’s the "humorists" deal, and the "incorrigible rapscallions". I even see the kudos to the "ribald jackanapes". But, I don’t see the "ignorant asshats" reference. Maybe you can clear that up for me, too, Ace.
You’re a jackass, Dale. I’ve never read you before, and I won’t be reading you again.
You’ve never read me before? Ever? Then, how did this link get on your blog?

Now, a cynical observer would simply call Ace a damned liar. But, of course, that would be wrong. No doubt Ace has a perfectly acceptable and reasonable explanation that would clear up this strange discrepancy. Indeed, I await it with bated breath.

In the meantime, how’s that blogwar deal working out for you so far, Ace? You still got that "thrill of victory" thing goin’ on, my man? Are you enjoying my attention?

By the way, as an interesting gedankenexperiment in blog ethics—completely unrelated to any specific personalities, of course—which would be worse: Leaving comments as a sock puppet on someone’s blog, or telling outright lies, and amending one’s blogroll in order to support those lies?

Discuss among yourselves.

And, now, Ace, I’m done with you.

Divider

A commenter notes:
"Ace used to think your blog was decent, stuck it somewhere on his blogroll, and occasionally took a passing look at it; then he got pissed at you recently and yelled some sh*t he didn’t mean."
Hello! Exactly!

People get emotionally invested in their positions. When someone attacks their positions, they get angry. So angry that maybe they do silly things. Perhaps they write passionate comments that are demonstrably untrue. Perhaps they log on under an assumed identity, and argue passionately in support of their own positions.

Read the preceding paragraph again. Then think a bit, and try to put two and two together.

Divider

Ace also weighs in, again:
Can you find a single f’ing link which is NOT hat-tipped to Instapundit, a better blog, or a reader’s tip, or Allah?

...If anyone can find a Q&O quote I actually dug up myself, I’d be pretty surprised.
According to Ace, the five posts on his blog without attribution came from email tips from Jon and McQ. If so, then he has not dug up any links to QandO on his own. And obviously, he wouldn’t need to attribute a source in that case.

I do not solicit other bloggers to link to my posts, although I may have done once or twice a couple of years ago, so it didn’t occur to me that Jon & McQ do.

Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Point no one has addressed here:

An allegation of sock puppetry has been made. Mr. Greenwald categorically denies it. Alternative explanations exist.

The part in bold is a defense. You are saying that "alternative explanations" exists, and you’re saying they aren’t lame. Because if they were lame, you’d make fun of them.

The fact of the matter is that no worthwhile "alternative explanations" actually exist. Anyone who’s thought about it even a little bit can figure that out.

And to those people, you sound like you’re defending GG.

A worthwhle way to say what you tried to say would ahve been "Alternative explanations exist. They’re totally lame, but they’re sufficient for the GG true believer, and eveeryone else already realizes he’s guilty, so there’s no point in continuing this."

Of course, that would ahve required you to "take a side" (i.e. use your brain, think, exercise some actual judgement).

Your unwillingness to do that, however, is what earned you the attacks you’ve gotten.

Written By: Greg D
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools: Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment: