Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Children, In a SandBox: Greenwald’s Sock Puppet Celebrators
Posted by: Dale Franks on Friday, July 21, 2006

F or those of you who don't know—which I assume includes rather a lot of you—an Internet Protocol (IP) Address is a numerical code that uniquely identifies every device—computer, router, cable modem, etc.—connected to the Internet (or any computer network, for that matter). This address is expressed as four sets of numbers, each set of which may have up to three digits. Each set of numbers is separated by a period. An example of an IP Address might be "127.134.2.17". At any given time, an IP address refers to one—and only one—device with an Internet connection, worldwide.

Some ISPs, like mine, assign a static IP address; that is, my IP address is always the same (although there are circumstances in which it can be changed). Other ISPs use a block of IP addresses, and assign them randomly to their users whenever they log on, then free them up to assign to another user whenever a user logs off.

Usually, we think of IP addresses as being assigned to a particular computer. But this is often not true when it comes to internet connections. For instance, there are three computers in my house, all of which access the Internet through a router. The router serves as my Internet connection device, so the IP address of my Internet connection is assigned to my router. So, despite the fact that there are three computers, each with their own IP addresses on my internal network, and two users in my house, all of them access the Internet through the same IP address. If the Lovely Christine goes to a blog and makes a comment, her name and "my" IP address will appear.

So, here is what we know about the whole Glenn Greenwald "sock puppets" deal: At various times, under various identities, someone has commented at a number of blogs defending the arguments made by Glenn Greenwald. These comments all have the same IP address as that used by Glenn Greenwald. We also know that Mr. Greenwald doesn't live alone. Mr. Greenwald has, for his part, categorically denied ever leaving a comment at any blog, under any identity other than his own.
A new accusation is that I've been engaging in so-called "sock puppetry" by leaving comments in response to posts that attack me under other names., i.e., that I use multiple names to comment and the same comment was left at several blogs by the same IP address under different names.

Not frequently, I leave comments at blogs which criticize or respond to something I have written. I always, in every single instance, use my own name when doing so. I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging.
That is basically all we know.

There is, however, a blogswarm raging about this issue, the plain implication of which is that Mr. Greenwald is going about on other blogs, leaving favorable comments about himself while masquerading as some third party.

As part of that blogswarm, I have been contacted via email from a very prominent conservative blog:
Hi Dale,

We're putting a timeline together over at [prominent conservative blog], which you can check out here [No, you can't, because I won't link to it.—EDF], to nail down Glenn Greenwald's sock puppetry. It appears that one of his doppelgangers, "Thomas Ellers" commented to this post of yours:

http://www.qando.net/Details.aspx?Entry=4263

Any chance we could get timestamps on his comments? We'll add them to the post we already have up at [prominent conservative blog].

Thanks!

[Blogger person from prominent conservative blog]
No thanks. I'll pass.

This kind of childish personal animus is why I Left the Usenet, Yahoo! Groups, and the rest. This is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to in my post earlier this week. "Patterico is a doody-head!" "Uh-Uh! Glenn Greenwald is a doody-head!" "Is not!" "Is too!" Jebus Cripes. What's next? Is somebody gonna stick their finger two inches from Mr. Greenwald's nose and say, "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"

The deployment of US troops to Iraq continues. The Mideast is blowing up like somebody shot an inbred Austrian archduke. And nailing down a time line on Mr. Greenwald's alleged sock puppetry is worth this level of effort? Tracking down every available comment from "Thomas Ellers" in the blogosphere? Contacting who knows how many blogs to "nail down" some sock puppetry? That's worth your time?

I guess maybe it is, if you are so inflamed with personal animus for Mr. Greenwald that it fills you with glee to try and destroy his credibility. After all, here's an opportunity to discredit Mr. Greenwald "without all that tedious mucking about" with responding substantively to Mr. Greenwald's arguments.

Let's assume, arguendo, that Mr. Greenwald personally commented as, or directed the comments of, a sock puppet. That would be stupid, when knowledgeable bloggers know how to track IP Addresses, and potentially embarrassing. Personally, I wouldn't do it. But, when I call someone an ass, I want them to know it's me doing it. But that's just me. I'm considerate that way.

But, I can certainly construct a scenario in which Mr. Greenwald thinks, "If I comment as myself, it will only inflame people who already dislike me. I might get a better hearing by commenting as a third party, in which case other commenters won't have a visceral reaction to my identity, and will perhaps concentrate more on the substance of the comment itself." That may be bad judgment, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of bad faith.

Let's face it, people comment anonymously, or with false identities, on blogs all the time. Look through the comments here. Who is this "fersboo" person? Is "mkultra" this chap's given name or surname? Who are "looker", "h0mi", and "harun"? I dunno, and neither do you. People have been doing this ever since the Usenet days. So, let's not pretend that it's the ultimate crime. People use sock puppets to comment on blogs all the time.

In the proximate case, however, there is no direct proof at all that Mr. Greenwald personally engaged in sock puppetry. Mr. Greenwald has categorically denied the accusation.

True, he has also not volunteered the identities of any candidates for sock puppetry. That too, is understandable, however. If The Lovely Christine were to read something nasty about me, and wanted to personally respond to it, a similar firestorm could erupt, as bloggers learned that some commenter named "ChrisJo" was making pro-Dale comments, and that, suspiciously, "ChrisJo" and Dale Franks have the same IP Address. Frankly, I would respond pretty much the same way Greenwald has. I'd deny the accusations, but I wouldn't throw my chick under the bus, either.

Based on various things, this is what I suspect happened with Mr. Greenwald.

(This, by the way, is why my family has a standard order when it comes to blog arguments: Don't Help.)

Granted, Mr. Greenwald is at least partially responsible for this level of animus. Personally, I can't figure out whether the guy is just an ass, a crackpot, or some mixture of both. But, surely, he must know that his style of rhetoric is provocative, so I can only assume that his provocations are intentional. So, yeah, in a certain sense, he's reaping what he sows.

But the level of personal animus against Mr. Greenwald seems to have thrown the right side of the blogosphere into a Usenet flame war-style frenzy. Mr. Greenwald may be responsible for his provocative rhetoric, but the Right wing blogosphere is responsible for how they respond to those provocations. Now that the whole "Thomas Ellers" issue has appeared, these right-wing bloggers are responding with an orgy of unseemly personal glee at the opportunity to discredit Mr. Greenwald, despite that fact that they cannot show that Mr. Greenwald has personally engaged in sock-puppetry. All the IP address tells us is that Mr. Greenwald had the opportunity to engage in it. It also tells us, however, that at least one other person had the opportunity to do so, as well.

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.

Ignoring this, however, many prominent blogs on the right side of the blogosphere are engaged in what is nothing less than an attempt to discredit Mr. Greenwald out of what I can only attribute to sheer personal animus. So, they are descending on him like Kossaks on a Lieberman rally. They are writing with snarky glee that they've caught Mr. Greenwald with his hand in the cookie jar, despite the fact that a) they have done no such thing, and b) it's a stupidly trivial offense, even if true.

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.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Currently ground is being scorched at Wizbang. Seems a silly arguement to me.
 
Written By: dawnsblood
URL: http://
I don’t know Dale. Can’t we use the Oliver Willis defense? Are we supposed to stand there and take it? You know, all his complaints about the dishonesty of his opponents.

Okay, you make a good point and the Oliver Willis defense is a bad one. However, I actually think there is a good rationale for taking him to task, this being minor. I’ll have more to say on that later, but it is as critical of some of his targets as him.

I do have one nitpick with your argument despite my general agreement, but as you have no doubt noticed, I pick nits, even one’s you are probably well aware of:
Let’s face it, people comment anonymously, or with false identities, on blogs all the time. Look through the comments here. Who is this "fersboo" person? Is "mkultra" this chap’s given name or surname? Who are "looker", "h0mi", and "harun"? I dunno, and neither do you.
It is quite a different thing to post anonymously and to post anonymously to reinforce ones own arguments. We don’t know he is guilty of this, but it is rather questionable to post a comment and then post another one under a different name to defend yourself. It is no great crime, but says something about the individual.

I will admit that if you made a post and then defended yourself in your own comment section under a couple of different pseudonyms I would be disturbed. It wouldn’t necessarily change my opinion of your arguments, but I would begin to wonder about your credibility on other things. Are there other things where you express an opinion based on experience or other hard to evaluate factors that I can’t trust? I would probably move on. Anonymity and fraud are two different things. One doesn’t bother me, though it could make me more vigilant about some things. The second, even if it does no real harm to anyone else such as what Greenwald is accused of, should damage that person at least somewhat.

Or, to put it more personally, I would have a hard time leaving comments here under a different name and commenting on those same comments. I don’t think it is just because I might be caught. I would feel slimy. I don’t think you feel your reasons for not behaving that way are really just your preference. I think you would feel it was wrong.

Now that I think about it have thought about it I have another problem. If that very same blogger came onto my site and used the comment section to personally insult me, after I criticised his argument and found that while doing so he was posting under various pseudonyms while posting on the disagreement and sending his minions over to clog my comment section with his talking points emphasizing his integrity and my lack thereof, I might just have a fine time letting him twist in the wind by pointing out his perfidity. Actually, I probably wouldn’t do it except to link to others, still, I understand the urge, much more than I understand Greenwald’s behavior.

Anyway, I still think the thrust of what you say about the attention is true and we have no idea he is even guilty of this pathetic, petty behavior.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Good for you, Dale. Were I in your shoes I’d probably do the same thing, but perhaps for a slightly different reason: I believe entries in my server logs are a private matter between me and my visitors. One of the things I’ve found most disugsting about this whole affair is the way that many of Glenn’s attackers apparently didn’t even think twice before publicizing information essentially similar to that involved in the NSA wiretap controversy but without even that much of an excuse for doing so. Whatever your reasons, I believe you’re doing the right thing by opting out of that feeding frenzy.
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
I believe entries in my server logs are a private matter between me and my visitors.
Well, that’s just silly. Your computer broadcasts your IP address, location, browser type, computer type, operating system, and a bunch of other stuff to all and sundry every time you go online. There’s simply nothing private about it.
Are we supposed to stand there and take it?
Stand there and take what, precisely? If someone is using multiple identities with the same IP Address, and you don’t like it, then simply ban the IP address. Problem solved.

If you don’t like what Greenwald says, then...ignore him.

How is this difficult?

On the other hand, if you want to swarm the guy out of personal animus, simply to try and wreck his credibility—even though you know you have no direct evidence proving you’re point—then don;t come crying to me if the other side uses the same tactics.

Once you ebrace their tactics, you lose the right to complain about them.

Again, how is this difficult?
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Dale,
Can’t we use the Oliver Willis defense? Are we supposed to stand there and take it? You know, all his complaints about the dishonesty of his opponents.

Okay, you make a good point and the Oliver Willis defense is a bad one.
Obviously I did a bad job here, I was mocking Oliver. I am agreeing with you. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Lance you have not YET condemned Dale or Glenn, NOW I DEMAND YOU CONDEMN SOMEONE, RIGHT NOW!
BUT, you may not condemn ME... I saw a loophole in my contract, just before I posted.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Without entering the argument on the level of Greenwalds sockpuppetry, I will add a datapoint about the technical side, which may or may not be playing into this;

(Dale, I know you know this but others may not, and while I’ve seen others use this as a defense, there hasn’t really been a lot of epcplaining why this is important to understand... so....)

In the case of any major corp I’ve ever worked at that runs a firewall, and a single Point Of Presence (Pop), (Xerox, Kodak, B&L, most banks, etc)... anyone BEHIND these firewalls, will display the IP address of that single POP.

As an example, at one previous place of employment, the POP I usually used, made it appear for all the world that I was posting from Lower Manhattan... That pop went away when the world trade center came down. I was, in fact in Midtown Tower in Rochester, the whole time.

What I’m suggesting, here is that the IP address in the comment logs is not always the be-all and end-all.

Now, all that being said should not be taken as a defense of Greewald on my part, (Indeed, I’d sooner bury him than praise him, to borrow a phrase) nor is it an indication that I think this firewall/pop thing to be the case here. Indeed, what tracing and DNS work I’ve done seems to suggest the opposite. But it IS an argument that has been raised elsewhere, and it seems appropriate to make calm mention of it’s tech aspects.

All that said, let me offer another scenario for consideration. Is it possible, that given the forthcoming book and the needs of promotion for said book, that Mr. Greenwald or parties unknown made arrangements to post all these "defenses" from an address known to be his, so as to start a blogswarm, on the right side of the ’sphere, knowing that such could only increase sales? If that was the plan, after all, they could hardly have been more effective.

Just a thought.




 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
"Your computer broadcasts your IP address, location, browser type, computer type, operating system, and a bunch of other stuff to all and sundry every time you go online. There’s simply nothing private about it."

Not that this is more than tangentially related (at best) to the discussion, but most of that "broadcast" is trivial to fake.
Here’s a simple method: (this plugin does many other things as well)
http://prefbar.mozdev.org/index.html

Between proxy servers, NAT, dhcp (not to mention various "nefarious" tricks), IP address is hardly a source of identity.
 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
Platypus,

You contantly leak vast amounts of information when you go on the internet. For an example go to this address. The internet was designed for survivability, not anonymity.

Tito, you can only go so far with nefarious tricks before it renders you incapable of communicating at all. With NAT and proxy servers, you still have the public side of the address to trace with. The only sure fire way is to use something like a TOR anoymizer.

And Lance, I agree with your points about integrity.


 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Fine post, thanks.
 
Written By: rilkefan
URL: http://rosenschale.blogspot.com
Isn’t it just a bit rich that the same guy who posted a personal attack on Bithead (Right Wingnuttery at http://www.qando.net/trackback.aspx?Entry=4273) would be so outraged that the same happened to Greenwald? I’m not gonna defend Bithead for doing a poor job on a beheading story, but it sure seemed to me that Dale was personally attacking another blogger for something trivial. The Right Wingnuttery story certainly wasn’t an important story, so why did Dale post about it?

This is the same guy who wrote about those attacking Greenwald, "The deployment of US troops to Iraq continues. The Mideast is blowing up like somebody shot an inbred Austrian archduke. And nailing down a time line on Mr. Greenwald’s alleged sock puppetry is worth this level of effort? "

Gee, I’m not sure Dale. Was it worth your time to mock Bithead for a trivial post?

Here’s what Dale wrote about those attacking Greenie:

"I guess maybe it is [the most important thing], if you are so inflamed with personal animus for Mr. Greenwald that it fills you with glee to try and destroy his credibility."

Hmm. Now who was it who was trying to destroy another blogger’s credibility? Could it be .... DALE? ...

"Well, here’s a fellow that needs to do a little research before ramping up his irate little screeds. ... You know, when you hear about three police officers being beheaded, and it hasn’t made it into the news, then maybe you should, you know, try and google it.... Oh, by the way, apparently Bithead isn’t a whiz with that whole internet search engine thing either. ... That’s the type of keen research skill that really jumps out at you, isn’t it?"

Here’s Dale defending Greenster:

"Let’s face it, people comment anonymously, or with false identities, on blogs all the time. ... People have been doing this ever since the Usenet days. So, let’s not pretend that it’s the ultimate crime. People use sock puppets to comment on blogs all the time."

And here’s Dale defending an honest mistake by Bithead:

chirp chirp chirp Burp
(Sorry, I’m having a beer.)

It’s interesting, isn’t it? Bithead made a mistake that happens "all the time." It’s been happening (failing to do your research before writing) "ever since the Usenet days." But it’s a terrible, terrible thing to attack Greenwald, while it’s perfectly fine to ridicule Bithead.(I gotta admire that hyperbole and strawman, Dale - "pretend that it’s the ultimate crime." Who pretended that, Dale? Who? You are so smoooooth.)

Here’s what Dale says about those attacking Greenwald:

"Many prominent blogs on the right side of the blogosphere are engaged in what is nothing less than an attempt to discredit Mr. Greenwald out of what I can only attribute to sheer personal animus."

And, remember, here’s what Dale said about Bithead:

"Well, here’s a fellow that needs to do a little research before ramping up his irate little screeds. ... Oh, by the way, apparently Bithead isn’t a whiz with that whole internet search engine thing either. ... That’s the type of keen research skill that really jumps out at you, isn’t it?"

Sounds like an attempt to discredit, for a minor offense. I submit that Dale does not appreciate Bithead’s comments here, and I attribute his entire post to a personal animus he has for Bithead and a desire to discredit him in the blogosphere.

Dale says this about attacking Greenwald:

"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."

He should have followed his own advice when it came to Right Wingnuttery and Bithead.

Your own words, Dale, are quite eloquent: "You don’t care about substantive debate... Not when you can substitute overblown personal attacks.

"So, you can get down off your high horse."
 
Written By: SunBeltJerry
URL: http://
From all I’ve read of, and about Glenn Greenwald (gg), I’m not very impressed. And I am certainly not impressed with the supplicants that follow around those critical of gg, defending him at all intellectual cost. Now it appears that he has been using aliases to defend himself. That these defenses are coming from the same IP gg writes from are not necessarily proof that this megalomaniac sees fit to pretend he is someone else who agrees wholeheartedly with what gg says. If it were just that, he would be worthy of sound mocking. No, I’ll believe gg’s defense - someone else who has legitimate access to his router was posting comments lauding gg’s accomplishments and defending gg’s intellectual immensity.

But that raises a question even more central to gg’s character. Per gg’s defense, the person posting these defenses is a valued guest in the gg household. It is in fact, gg’s partner.

What I question is what kind of person chooses a partner so compelled to scour the internet lest no post anti-gg be without someone lauding the genius of gg?

Think about it.

Did you choose your wife because of her propensity to peruse random blogs lest they speak poorly of you? Did you choose your husband for his ability to regularly check all internet traffic for any negative comments regarding you? Do you choose a partner who has the uncanny insight to target precisely those internet sites which are lambasting you?

Would you choose as partner someone who, if you told them that the dogpoop in the garden was escargot, would sauté garlic in butter because they know that’s how you like your snails?

So gg’s not engaged in sock puppetry, as he assures us; that he would chose as partner someone so malleable, so subservient, speaks vacuous volumes in his defense.

It does, at the minimum, explain the Mona-Greenwald friendship.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
"But, I can certainly construct a scenario in which Mr. Greenwald thinks, "If I comment as myself, it will only inflame people who already dislike me. I might get a better hearing by commenting as a third party, in which case other commenters won’t have a visceral reaction to my identity, and will perhaps concentrate more on the substance of the comment itself." That may be bad judgment, but I’m not sure it rises to the level of bad faith."

Heh. The "substance" of the comments was: Glenn Greenwald is better than you, and you’re just jealous.

It’s the kind of thing he wanted to say without having it attributed to him.

I’m not the person who asked you for the information, but I have been seeking similar information from others, and I make no apologies. This guy has questioned my honesty and integrity, and lied doing it. He hasn’t done that with you. So you stand in a different position, and I think it affects your view, and allows you to take this noble and detached stand.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Patterico, Franks is in an unenviable position - Henke, who owns this site, is seemingly enamored with Greenwald. Franks not only had a post redacted when he disagreed with Henke, but had comments in other threads referencing that post deleted.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
SunBeltJerry - Hilarious!

That takedown was almost as funny as finding out that Greenwald — who was haughtily criticizing some bloggers for failing to condemn some other blogger’s post about a hot-sauce-ad style comment about ropes and judges — had voluntarily defended a neonazi who ended up actually being convicted of soliciting the murder of a federal judge, and was quoted doing so in the NYT.

(The only thing you lost points on was that Dale hasn’t had any sycophants and sockpuppets popping up to defend him in the comments like Glenn had.)

This is still one of the best comedy/parody blogs around, though; don’t change a thing, guys!
 
Written By: Shad
URL: http://
The "substance" of the comments was: Glenn Greenwald is better than you, and you’re just jealous.
Which I believe to be true. This bizarre, completely unhinged obsession gripping you, "Ace," and Dan Riehl, among a few others, vis-a-vis Glenn Greenwald is just plain creepy.

Significant numbers of ideological opponents do not focus dozens of posts, for weeks now (and commencing well before this sock-puppet insanity), on one other blogger — even if they have taken offense at his statements about them — unless they regard him as quite powerful. All the "douchebag" verbiage, homophobic references to him as a "she" or as GiGi, and endless (and overwhelmingly false) speculation as to his professional history, where he lives and for what portion of the year, his sexual orientation & etc. is just inexplicable coming from purportedly mature adults, other than in terms of people who are angry and very threatened by his intellect — which has moved everything from the NSA story, to a growing interest by the MSM on the eliminationist and/or otherwise extremist rhetoric spewing forth from significant sectors of the right-wing blogosphere.

While you are all posting three, six, twelve times a day about IP addresses and Brazilian cabana boys, he is keeping his blog updated on litigation relative to the warrantless wiretap controversy and working on a second book, this time commissioned by a major, "household name" publisher.

The most hilarious thing to me, tho, is this constant insistence that he is a left-winger. You really and truly have no idea, because you cannot wrap your head around the possibility that opposition to Bush and the contemporary GOP does not, standing alone, a left-winger make. (Among other venues, he was published recently in American Conservative magazine.)

In any event, Patterico, you and some others are behaving precisely like the commenters who claimed you were jealous; no matter who it is you think those commenters are (and you are wrong), they are manifestly correct. Irony is not dead.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
And here’s Mona

What a surprise...
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Bains writes:
Patterico, Franks is in an unenviable position -
I see. Dale Franks wrote a post criticizing the obsession with Greenwald only because he is slavishly enthralled, in the most base, craven and castrated way, to Master Henke. It has nothing to do with what Dale Franks might himself actually believe; Jon Henke own his balls.

That’s some respectful "defense" there, Bains.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
proving my point, mona responds...
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Bains:
proving my point, mona responds.
Which point? That Dale Franks has to supplicate Jon Henke to pretty please give him the keys to the cupboard where Jon keeps Dale’s balls, before Dale posts?
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
No Mona (or shall we say Glenn Greenwald using better IP protocol)

It is that you are indistinguishable from your hero.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Patterico, Franks is in an unenviable position - Henke, who owns this site, is seemingly enamored with Greenwald. Franks not only had a post redacted when he disagreed with Henke, but had comments in other threads referencing that post deleted.
You, sir, are an idiot.

In the first place, Jon didn’t redact sh*t. I deleted my own post, for reasons of my own, as I wrote at the time.

In the second place, I host this site through my own hosting company. I wrote the software it runs on. I administer the database that holds the content. Jon owns the QandO domain name, but as far as this web site goes, it sits on my server, and I have godlike control over it. Jon doesn’t even get billed for this site. I pay the hosting charges—or, more accurately, our advertising revenue pays for them. And, as it happens, I control all the advertising revenue, since the accounts are all in my mane, not Jon’s. If I wanted, I could permanently block Jon from accessing QandO. He couldn’t even delete my blogging account, without me correcting it in less than a minute.

If there’s anyone here who controls what does, or does not happen at QandO, it’s me.

For instance, I could ban your ass from commenting in less time than it takes me to light up a delicious little cigarette.

I won’t, of course, if for no other reason than I believe our readers often find such profound ignorance to be instructive.

That is, after all, why MK-Ultra is still around.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Mona,

I’ll have to step in for a second. Even if everything you say about Patterico and others were true, it comes down to his behavior of focusing on other people and those very same people focusing back on him. Therefore, why are you so busy defending him? He says nasty (and largely false, from having actually followed his links) things about other people, then those same people say largely false (according to you, I haven’t seen any, but let us take your word for it) things about him. Yet somehow your take is that his detractors are adolescents and Glenn is the put upon one. At best the response should be a pox on both their houses. They (falsely?) claim he is a left winger, he falsely claims Jane Galt is a hate monger. I don’t know what his politics really are, but I know Jane’s. He may not be a leftie (and I could care less) but he is definitely a liar. More importantly, being a leftie is not in my book in and of itself an insult. Calling someone a hatemonger cannot be construed as anything but.

Dale has it better, Glenn reaps what he sows.

Look, I love Andrew Sullivan and have been reading him for years, however he is often unfair to his opponents. Nowhere near as bad as Greenwald, but its true. I am not surprised at all when those same people turn their nose up at him. You won’t see me going on some website defending him when he misrepresents other people or if he appears to commit sock puppetry. It may not keep me from reading him, I have hung in with him for more than a decade, but I won’t defend him and I realize I have to allow for the occasional outburst with a jaded eye.

If you actually like Greenwald’s stuff, okay. I don’t see anything all that courageous in his expose’s of the administration, nor do I feel his arguments are all that authoritative, even if you accept his conclusions. You obviously feel different, but he has behaved badly towards many and it should hardly surprise you that they show no more mercy towards him than he has shown them. Actually many of his targets have been pretty darned restrained considering the outlandish things he has claimed about their beliefs and behavior.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Bains,

That was way out of line.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Bains writes:
It is that you are indistinguishable from your hero.
Piffle. Among other things, I’m female, heterosexual, and live in the United States 100% of the time — have never set foot in Brazil. He isn’t my hero, but I do have tremendous respect for advanced intellects, especially when applied to libertarian values I share. And, because he and I are both lawyers, I can fully grasp how finely his mind works when analyzing the relevant and controversial constitutional issues of the day.

But I don’t accept all of his rhetorical strategies, as I’ve stated many times, with specificity. He is a tad too aggressive in my view, suffering from a lesser case of toxic testosterone levels than the truly advanced stage of poisoning some of his obsessed, adolescent critics are afflicted with.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Isn’t it just a bit rich that the same guy who posted a personal attack on Bithead...
And you’re an idiot, too.

I posted a substantive attack. Bithead failed to research a post, and he got caught relying on a wingnut for his content. That’s not a personal attack. That’s an attack on content.

As such, it is perfectly acceptable to ridicule Bithead.
"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."

He should have followed his own advice when it came to Right Wingnuttery and Bithead.
Uh, I did. Bithead’s post was an afterthought put on the tail end of of a post that was mainly about someone else’s idiocy.

It mildly interested me, so I blogged about it.

What I didn’t do was to contact other bloggers in order to create a concerted attack on Bithead.

Apparently, you can’t understand the difference.
Was it worth your time to mock Bithead for a trivial post?
Yep. I was amused. That’s pretty much the only excuse I need to post something.

And, again, I didn’t attack Bithead’s motives. I attacked his failure to research the post.

Bithead, on the other hand, constantly refers to QandO, with particular animus directed at Jon, and he makes public comments about the internal dynamics of QandO, a subject about which he cannot possibly know anything.

Maybe, if Bithead doesn’t want us examining the credibility of his posts, he should sip on a nice hot cup of STFU when it comes to what goes on at QandO. Bithead has been acting like he wants my attention, so I gave him some.

Oh, and If you aren’t leaving long, snarky comments at BitsBlog about his constant, desperate obsession with what Jon is saying at QandO, then maybe you should pour a delicious mug of STFU yourself.

Are you picking up what I’m laying down?
And, remember, here’s what Dale said about Bithead:
"Well, here’s a fellow that needs to do a little research before ramping up his irate little screeds. ... Oh, by the way, apparently Bithead isn’t a whiz with that whole internet search engine thing either. ... That’s the type of keen research skill that really jumps out at you, isn’t it?"
Note the highlighted portion of the passage above. That wasn’t written about Bithead.

Reading for comprehension isn’t your "thing", is it?
It’s interesting, isn’t it? Bithead made a mistake that happens "all the time." It’s been happening (failing to do your research before writing) "ever since the Usenet days."
Yep. And people who post stupid sh*t have been rightly savaged for it ever since the Usenet days. Making some minimal effort to ensure you’re imparting facts correctly is a fundamental responsibility when writing for public consumption.

Hey, if you can’t even do a minimal bit a research before posting, then you are the one that’s harming your credibility, not the people who point it out.

Basically, in a 908-word post on this subject, Bithead wasn’t mentioned until the end of the post, and I devoted 32 words, in two sentences, of direct criticism.

<sarcasm>Yeah. That’s like, totally unreasonable.</sarcasm>

Thanks for your input, though, as worthless as it was.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Lance writes:
Dale has it better, Glenn reaps what he sows.
That isn’t what I took Dale to mean; he said Greenwald is provocative, and that is most assuredly true. Unless I missed it, Dale did not claim Greenwald lies about people, and I’ve seen no evidence that he does. (Opinions as to who is a "hate-monger" are just that, opinions.) Flat out, false facts, aka lies, have been spewed about Greenwald for weeks now, about his personal and professional life. Greenwald does not travel in that ad hominem gutter.

But Dale is correct that someone who is as aggressive in attacking the statements of other bloggers, and sometimes even their motives, is opening himself for counter-attack. Greenwald agrees with that and wrote he is not surprised that he is being attacked, and expects it.

But he did not expect the creepy fixation and endlessly false speculation about his private and professional history. Something is up with that, and we all know what it is.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Significant numbers of ideological opponents do not focus dozens of posts, for weeks now (and commencing well before this sock-puppet insanity), on one other blogger — even if they have taken offense at his statements about them — unless they regard him as quite powerful.
Oh, that’s rich. You’ve studied this, Mona? I’d love to see your data.

Deb Frisch must actually be Wonder Woman.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Dale, thanks for answering a lingering question.
QandO offered NO explaination as to why your post was removed. It just disappeared - along with my comment in another thread regarding it. Really cheezy from my standpoint. Given the public acrimony between you and Henke, and without explaination, even an idiot might think you had been smacked down.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Given the public acrimony between you and Henke, and without explaination, even an idiot might think you had been smacked down.
Obviously, since one did.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Mona,

If you say so. I say when you comnpletely misrepresent people’s views over and over it goes beyond an opinion. It is a form of lying, but I won’t argue that point anymore.

I didn’t say Dale said anything you are describing. For the record what Dale said was:
Personally, I can’t figure out whether the guy is just an ass, a crackpot, or some mixture of both.
I would say both, but either way I think he reaps what he sows. Also you are painting with a very broad brush on the creepy stuff. Most people, including Patterico haven’t engaged in that kind of thing. I can’t speak for Riehl. My guess is you can show a few blogs stepping over the line, but you’ll tarnish everybody, just like Greenwald. In fact, I went to the link Dale provided and read over Glenn’s defense and it is pretty self important and pompous of course. What I wasn’t able to find were the lies. I may have missed them, but mostly it was piffle about his exaggerations of his resume (who cares) and Riehl’s attempt to say he wasn’t a patriot. It was hardly the vicious assault I had assumed it was (Andrew Sullivan has some stuff to complain about.) Pointless, I’ll give you that, but the gay stuff was pretty unexceptional (mostly on the order of pointing out he had a partner, well I have a wife, what of it? Does Glenn imagine that mentioning his partner implies some kind of hostility? His partner was mostly mentioned because it was integral to who might have committed the heinous crime or piffle, depending on your viewpoint) the resume stuff petty. Nothing extreme. In fact, the real issue seems to be sock puppetry, which by linking to this post and following up on his complaints I found to show he is probably guilty, or at the least knew about it and worked on it. Still piffle, but hardly gutter stuff. Greenwald is once again exaggerating.

I do think everybody should stay out of his past, though he should probably cut down on the puffing his past up, and concentrate on his arguments. I would say the same for Glenn, but as far as I can tell he can’t tell what people believe in when he attacks or criticizes them, so maybe he should avoid that as well or those well known extremist hatemongers Reynold’s and McCardle will come over and pound him to death with vicious heh’s and recipes for banana bread.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
It’s quite simple. Greenwald lies about people. He lied about me, which is how he landed on my radar screen to begin with. I saw people coming to my site from his, and headed over to see what he was saying. It was a post falsely and ridiculously implying that I and many other bloggers were guilty of hypocrisy, for decrying the disgusting Deb Frisch, but failing to condemn vile right-wing rhetoric. Since this was untrue, at least about me (which even Mona and Henke admit!), I wrote an angry post. He came over in comments and turned it into a straight lie, saying I had never condemned "any" vile right-wing rhetoric.

I keep hearing how civil he is. Well, it’s easy to be civil when you lie about people, and when comments talking about great you are and how pathetic everyone else is come from your IP address under names other than yours.

So when Ace wrote me saying that he had comments that sounded like Greenwald, and asked me to check the IP — and when I did, what should pop up but a bunch of comments from Greenwald — I found it very curious and interesting.

I don’t otherwise read the guy, so this business about how his wonderful substantive arguments are "getting to me" is horsepoop. I have *occasionally* followed a link from Insty or Jeff G., only to conclude that the guy seemed dishonest. When he started getting dishonest about *me,* that’s what set me off. So I suppose he has gotten to me a little, not through the sheer brilliance of whatever the hell it is that he talks about on his blog, but just in the way that someone gets to you when they lie about you to a buncha people.

Apparently Dale is above that, and I think that’s a good thing to aspire to. I should ignore dishonest attacks on me, because I’ve come to see that responding to all of them can take over your life, and I don’t want that.

But when something falls into your lap that strongly indicates dishonesty on the part of someone who has lied about you in the past, it takes more restraint than I have to ignore it.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
By the way, I don’t plan to respond to Mona’s inevitable deconstruction of the comment I just left. The Internet (and the world) is for the most part filled with two kinds of people: 1) people who actually listen to you, concede your valid points, and respond to things they disagree with, and 2) people who are just waiting for their turn to talk, and become disengaged from rational thought when you hit on their hot-button issue or person.

I consider myself to be the first type. Mona pretends to be the first type, and very occasionally she actually resembles the first type. That’s how she sucks you in — and you argue with her endlessly, watching her obfuscate time and time again, until you realize that she’s really the second type and it was all a waste of time. I’ve seen it enough times, and done it enough times, to see it’s a waste of time.

(By the way, that’s called running away. When you refuse to engage in that counterproductive behavior, you are running away. Greenwald himself accused me of running away about a week ago, when I said I was going to try not to post about him any more. But then, of course, I did — and I became "obsessive." Either you’re a coward when you don’t engage, or you’re obsessive when you do. It’s a perfect example of the kind of crap hurled by people of the second type described above. I’ll be tarred with one or the other accusation — sometimes I’m accused of both on the same topic! — and this time I’ll err on the side of not engaging, despite the inevitable calls of cowardice.)

So: pardon me if I skip the particular pleasure of becoming embroiled in yet another sniping contest with someone of the second type described above.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
It’s quite simple. Greenwald lies about people. He lied about me, which is how he landed on my radar screen to begin with. I saw people coming to my site from his, and headed over to see what he was saying. It was a post falsely and ridiculously implying that I and many other bloggers were guilty of hypocrisy, for decrying the disgusting Deb Frisch, but failing to condemn vile right-wing rhetoric. Since this was untrue, at least about me (which even Mona and Henke admit!), I wrote an angry post. He came over in comments and turned it into a straight lie, saying I had never condemned "any" vile right-wing rhetoric.
And McQ stepped in to defend you. But, whether Greenwald is a nice guy or not, really isn’t the point.
Apparently Dale is above that, and I think that’s a good thing to aspire to. I should ignore dishonest attacks on me, because I’ve come to see that responding to all of them can take over your life, and I don’t want that.
Again, that’s not really the issue either. of course you can respond to attacks. That’s a given.

The nature of the response is important though.

The fact is, you don’t know the sock puppet comments came from Greenwald. Chris and I sit in the living room all the time, tippy-tapping away on our laptops. We each have our own couch. I don’t know what she’s doing at any given time, and vice versa.

But, whatever she’s doing, if she’s doing it on the Internet, she’s using the same IP Address I am.
What I question is what kind of person chooses a partner so compelled to scour the internet lest no post anti-gg be without someone lauding the genius of gg?
I dunno. Maybe they want a partner that really loves them, and feels invested in their success. I could think of worse partnerships.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Lance is right, my accusation was over the top. Dale, I appologize.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Maybe they want a partner that really loves them, and feels invested in their success.
I believe it is a tad dishonest, however, to laud the genius of someone without mentioning that you have a close, personal relationship with them.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Dale,

If Chris scoured the Internet looking for criticism of you, and did comments under various names that defended you and accuse other people of being jealous of you, and left comments talking about e-mails she sent to you and responses you sent, making it sound as if the two of you didn’t know each other . . . 1) do you think you’d know about it? and 2) would you approve of her pretending she didn’t know you, and that she is several different people defending you?

I’m also curious what you thought of the Hiltzik deal. He initially denied it (before my post, but after other bloggers had accused him of it on less evidence than I found) — and even after my post, he treated it like it was no big deal in his first blog post on the issue. Maybe you agree it was no big deal? Maybe you think I never should have posted about him? I’m curious.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
When I heard that "Thomas Ellers" was actually Greenwald (or possibly but not likely his boyfriend), and I read his post on this thread, I couldn’t help but find that highly underhanded and morally dirty. I immediately wondered how David S. would feel about the revelation, and said so on the thread.
David S. used to go to Greenwald’s blog every day and write paeans to Greenwald that made Mona’s praise look mild by comparison. Then one day, Greenwald ignored a bunch of questions David S. was posing and David S. had a very bruised ego ("I know he has 250 comments every day, but I’m different and must not be ignored!"). Then he announced he would never come back and now goes around the Internet bad-mouthing Greenwald. From a fan to a hater, overnight.
You take a guy you’ve had a falling out with and show up out of the blue to try to roil it all back up but you do so from behind the protection of a sock puppet so that the other guy can’t shoot back...well, that’s just scummy. And when the offeding party is a guy who spends so much time trumpeting his moral superiority over virtually everyone in comments such as this:
I simply don’t engage in behavior like that. I don’t write posts using childish insults of that sort, because I just don’t need to. It’s the sign of someone who has lost control over their emotions and has nothing of substance to say.
....I find it utterly hilarious. It’s a nice break from the constant drumbeat of real news, and it’s 100% funny. I like watching monster egos be deflated. It amuses me to no end.

Dale, can you read that "Ellers" post and actually believe that it was written by a native Brazilian who doesn’t spend an enormous amount of time on Greenwald’s blog? I mean it’s possible. But it’s also possible that he’s got a dachsund that’s learned to type. And reads blogs.

How would you feel about it if you were in David S’ shoes?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
What I didn’t do was to contact other bloggers in order to create a concerted attack on Bithead.
But just a point of order, Dale... do you really consider that the large rise this issue has gotten out of the sphere would have required the email contact you described to us? I don’t. This business is happening on the strength of the perceived offense alone... because as I’m sure you’ve considered, it will continue regardless of your responding to a mailnote, looking for facts.

Speaking of which;
Your objection to aiding in the collection of a timeline... and your characterization of this as part of a concerted attack, is a little confusing. Seems to me that the attempt to put a timeline together stands as much chance of exonerating the man as it does of convicting him, in the end. Facts have a funny way of taking turns nobody can predict. But finding them... and getting them right... is a laudable goal, or so I’m led to beleive by some comments I’ve read recently.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Mona:
Piffle. Among other things, I’m female, heterosexual, and live in the United States 100% of the time — have never set foot in Brazil.
Of course! Why didn’t everyone else catch that right off the bat? By the same logic, the world’s most famous sock puppet, Mary Rosh, couldn’t possibly be John Lott. After all, she’s female, much younger than Lott, and even had him as a professor. No student has ever had himself/herself as a professor, or vice-versa, so Rosh couldn’t possibly have been Lott, could she?

Just for the record, and to avoid starting any silly rumors, I don’t believe you are a sock puppet. For one thing, there’s no evidence that you are - or at least none I’m aware of. For another, you think Greenwald is a libertarian, while I have yet to see a shred of evidence that Greenwald thinks the same of himself. Presumably, he’d go a bit easier on people like Glenn Reynolds and Megan McCardle if he did.
Unless I missed it, Dale did not claim Greenwald lies about people, and I’ve seen no evidence that he does.
Sure you have, you’ve simply chosen to ignore it. Last week, Patterico pointed out the Greenwald had libeled him. Initially, you acknowledged as much and said Greenwald should apologize for this itsy bitsy boo-boo that could not possibly have been intentional and shouldn’t take anything away from the rest of his brilliantly insightful post. Then, rather than apologize, Greenwald doubled down with a more direct lie about Patterico, followed by lame references to a 2 1/2 year old, content-free comment, and that was all the cover you needed to switch gears, rehabilitate Lyin’ Glenn, and even accuse Patterico of dishonesty yourself.

Then, a few days later, I did what Greenwald routinely assumes no reader of his will ever do, and fact-checked every single verifiable assertion he had made in that same post, including following every link to a site other than his own to see if it bore his claims out. After observing his dishonest conduct toward Patterico, I fully expected this tedious task to reveal a little more fudging here and there, particularly with respect to his whopper about Dean Esmay. What I did not expect, however, was to find that almost every factually verifiable assertion the guy had made would turn out to be false or misleading. You have yet to address any of the major deceits I identified in that post. You quibbled with a trivial one here and there, but by and large, you fixated on the 100 words I used to say he was a douche, to the exclusion of the 4,900+ I used to show it.
(Opinions as to who is a "hate-monger" are just that, opinions.)
"Opinions" that other bloggers said things they didn’t actually say are not just "opinions," they’re libel. You’ve mentioned repeatedly that you are a lawyer. Assuming you got your law degree from any institution higher up on the food chain than Sears, Roebuck, then surely you know that nobody can "opinion" his way out of an otherwise valid defamation suit. If they could, no one would ever be successfully sued for libel. No matter how baseless a claim may be, you’re never going to prove it wasn’t an accurate statement of the guy’s opinion. "OK, your honor, so what if my neighbor doesn’t really molest children, and so what if I never had a shred of evidence he did. All I was doing was expressing my opinion that he was a kiddy diddler. I’m allowed to express my opinion, right?"

Dale:
Yep. And people who post stupid sh*t have been rightly savaged for it ever since the Usenet days. Making some minimal effort to ensure you’re imparting facts correctly is a fundamental responsibility when writing for public consumption.
Indeed. While this post misses the mark by a country mile, the earlier post was spot on. If there’s one thing more fundamental than conducting basic research, though, it’s honesty. What good is it if Greenwald researches everything to the hilt to determine whether or not it’s true, if we can’t count on him to use such determinations of truth as the criterion for deciding what he does or doesn’t say? It’s dishonesty, not pseudonymity per se, that is the issue with sock puppets.

Speaking of honesty, pseudonymity and sock puppetry, I’m going to let you all in on a little secret: my real name isn’t Xrlq. I know it sounds like a real name, right up there with Ryan, Wilson or Thomas, but actually, it’s a pseudonym. Sorry if that was misleading. I can assure you, however, that I have used the same pseudonym consistently enough that you can be reasonably certain that every comment you find in the blogosphere signed Xrlq is either from me, or from someone dishonestly pretending to be me. Conversely, you can rest assured that any comment from recent years that is not signed Xrlq isn’t mine. If Greenwald wanted to do the same, that would be fine. What’s not fine is creating multiple virtual fans to make himself look more popular than he is, and allow himself the luxury of privately engaging in the sleazy attacks he publicly disavows.
What I didn’t do was to contact other bloggers in order to create a concerted attack on Bithead.
This strikes me as a classic example of damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If a blogger or journalist writes some lame allegations without first conducting basic research to determine whether or not they are true, you bash him - and rightly so. But when bloggers instead choose to conduct such research by swapping notes rather than going public with any suspected but as-yet unproven allegations of misconduct, then you bash them for attempting to "create a concerted attack."

Few blogs, if any, display commenters’ IP addresses for all to see. Thus, short of engaging in the "concerted attacks" of which you complain, there is no way Patterico could ever have found out that his comments from "Glenn Greenwald" comments match up to Ace’s from "Ellison," or vice-versa. They didn’t need your time stamps to know for certain whether the sock puppets posted on Q&O; however, knowing that detail would result in a more accurate time line. That, in turn could prove helpful in assessing the plausibility, or lack thereof, of Glenn’s effective "I didn’t do it, the Brazil Nut did" defense. If, for example, the time line shows a back and forth of Glenn posting a comment here, Thomas Ellers there, Wilson in the other place, and the Glenn back here, all with the same IP, that doesn’t look good for Glenn. If, on the other hand, the time line showed Glenn posting a few comments from Telemar Norte Leste S.A. at almost exactly the same time a sock puppet posted from NET Serviços de Comunicação S.A., then the timeline you call a "concerted attack" would tend to exonerate him (assuming, of course, that two different ISPs means two different physical locations, i.e., there’s no reason Greenwald would subscribe to both services in the same location).

Thus, this elusive timeline could be the smoking gun, it could Greenwald’s alibi, or it could be just about anything in between. We don’t know, and can’t, simply because you won’t provide it. That’s your prerogative, of course, as would be sleuths in the blogosphere can’t issue subpoenas. It does beg the question, though, of what you hope to accomplish by not only refusing to provide neutral evidence, but mocking those who requested it in the first place. What exactly is your position? Are you saying that it’s not OK to expose sock puppeteers, or that it’s only OK to expose the ones like Hiltzik who were dumb enough to obviate the need for a concerted "attack" by dumping all the evidence you need in one place?

Lance:
Pointless, I’ll give you that, but the gay stuff was pretty unexceptional (mostly on the order of pointing out he had a partner, well I have a wife, what of it? Does Glenn imagine that mentioning his partner implies some kind of hostility?
He wasn’t responding to any smears, just playing the "I am a Gay American" card to garner cheap sympathy and bury the lede. Judging by some of the earlier comments, it actually worked for a little while.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Bithead, on the other hand, constantly refers to QandO, with particular animus directed at Jon, and he makes public comments about the internal dynamics of QandO, a subject about which he cannot possibly know anything.

Maybe, if Bithead doesn’t want us examining the credibility of his posts, he should sip on a nice hot cup of STFU when it comes to what goes on at QandO. Bithead has been acting like he wants my attention, so I gave him some.

Oh, and If you aren’t leaving long, snarky comments at BitsBlog about his constant, desperate obsession with what Jon is saying at QandO, then maybe you should pour a delicious mug of STFU yourself.
Objection, your honor.

My comments about Jon have been very much limited to positions on various topics. They have also related my perception as regards John’s leaning left. Looking at your own comments section I’m hardly alone in this.

Since you seem so prone to underestimating me, let’s be clear; I have made no comments as regards the man personally. Insofar as my comments related to Q&O, as a whole, they have been largely related to the quality of this place going up when you and McQ are posting, and making note of tha cat fights surrounding the same points I’ve already mentioned.

What you characterize as my constant, desperate, obsession with what Jon was saying here, is, in reality, no different than my attacking the point of view of any other leftist bloggers that I go after. And there have been many... invariably these have been taking positions on topics of the day that are not unlike Jon’s on many points.

Please don’t make the mistake of reserving to yourself the ability to separate the man and the position in your running commentary.

Thank you.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
You contantly leak vast amounts of information when you go on the internet. For an example go to this address. The internet was designed for survivability, not anonymity.
Actually I don’t, because I’m usually going through a filter (Proxomitron or Privoxy) and a NAT. Occasionally I even use a fully anonymizing proxy (Tor). Even if that weren’t the case, though, your point (or Dale’s which was the same) would still be invalid. Just because some information is made available to some parties doesn’t make the internet a total information free-for-all. Anybody who has ever bought anything online has divulged some information to someone, but that doesn’t mean they should expect their credit-card number to be posted on the virtual bathroom wall.

Many proprietors of online message boards and chat systems have been roundly and correctly condemned for divulging just this sort of information. It has long been considered a serious breach of netiquette to post personal email for the same reason, even if that email is unencrypted and went through multiple servers. The reason is that the expectation of privacy that I’ve alluded to is commonplace. Just because you can get your hands on certain information and provide it to others doesn’t mean you should, and the onus should not be on others to take active measures (such as encryption) and defeat all possible snooping methods if they want even a modicum of privacy.

Don’t tell me about what the internet was designed for, by the way. I’ve developed more network technology than you and Dale put together have ever even used, so I’m closer to its design than you are. Leave the technical explanations to the technical people. The world doesn’t need more "facts" from people who think that being able to find and read a server log represents the acme of technical knowledge.
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
A couple points echoed by Xrlq above most clearly (aside: as opposed to offhand by others):
pseudonym != sock puppet. Blogwise, I am a nobody and my real identity is not important as I do not bank on credibility. In real life, I also decline to be specific where it is not necessary, such as giving telephone numbers to retailers. (aside: I even wonder whether I should be giving out the previous information in the last sentence) Therefore my pseudonymity is not related to the act of suggesting readers take my statements as something other than what they would if they did know my identity. (aside: not the best of sentences, but I can’t readily improve it, so it will have to do)
Whereas the whole issue may or may not be a witch hunt, specifically asking for information that could shed light on the situation seems incompatible with complaining that they don’t have proof that anything happened. As with Xrlq, I am not saying you are obligated to do anything helpful for them.

I also am not sure I buy the "aren’t there more important things to be doing now" argument (aside: a generalized argument, not solely directed at this post, from "That’s worth your time?"). Pretty much whatever you do, there is something more important, yet other things need to be done for sustenance, relaxation and enjoyment. Yes, for example, you could say that eventually, it is obvious that you need to eat. <lightly facetious>But when? Another 5 minutes "fighting the power" isn’t going to kill you, so why do you have to eat now? Then, are you just going eat just enough of whatever to get by, or are you going to spend time or money to make something enjoyable?</lightly facetious> People also have different priorities, so I don’t see how you can tell someone else how order their them. You can say stuff about your own time, though. You can say "I have more important things to do right now", but it helps if it were obvious you didn’t spend a decent amount of time on it.
I suppose the best defense of this is that it is merely expressing an opinion based on your own values. Somehow, expressing opinions about other people is different than other things. Saying, "I like lutefisk" might be controversial or disgusting to some people and may cause the listener to not accept dinner invitations from the speaker, but that is different than saying "You are a twisted person for wanting to put that stuff in your mouth". (btw, I have never tried lutefisk, Anthony Bourdain did my trying for me) Whereas it is not indefensible to say, it says more about the speaker than the spoken to.
But I guess that is just my opinion(with requisite irony garnish)


nb - any pronouncements are relevant for now only, I may have a change of heart in the future
 
Written By: anomdebus
URL: http://
Oh, and yes, I am a much too delicate a flower for the internet :P
 
Written By: anomdebus
URL: http://
Don’t tell me about what the internet was designed for, by the way. I’ve developed more network technology than you and Dale put together have ever even used, so I’m closer to its design than you are. Leave the technical explanations to the technical people. The world doesn’t need more "facts" from people who think that being able to find and read a server log represents the acme of technical knowledge.
Thank YOU Vice President Gore. Just to let you know I LOVED your last movie and I KNOW you really won in Florida in 2000.

Alternatively as Dennis Leary said, "Pull that prentious bus over to the side of the highway."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
The reason is that the expectation of privacy that I’ve alluded to is commonplace.
For e-mail? Over the public internet?

You’re insane to think that.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Riiiight, "Dale" (whoever you are). Greenwald’s so lucky he has a Magic Boyfriend who obsessively scours the internet refuting attacks on him on other websites and bragging about his accomplishments. Furthermore, he fluently regurgitates each of Greenwald’s arguments verbatim, and in one case, he pregurgitates a Greenwald posting by writing it before Greenwald writes it on his blog.

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.
 
Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Oh, good luck on getting linked on this obvious, contrived bit of Insta-bait.

"Oh, look at me, I preen about what good manners we should all have! Let’s stick to the substance, guys!"

No one’s going to fall for it. If people fell for this sort of link-me-link-me preening, my every post would be "Let’s all hold hands and finger each other up the asses, fellers!"
 
Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
So, you can get down off your high horse.

Pot.Kettle.Black Some assembly required.

Or

So, you can get down off your high horse.

You keep saying that but I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Seriously, if you are so above all the nastiness and personnal attacks what do you call your post? It’s one long preening, self-righteous, holier than though flame on Ace. Why not just send him an e-mail denying his request or just ignore it? Instead you put up a post basically calling him a moron and an a#$hole who is unworthy of having the great thrill of engaging with the great and wise Dale Franks. You have engaged in exactly the behavior you are ostensibly condeming in your post. Why can’t you just look at the substance of his post instead of resorting to these personal attacks Dale? Oh the humanity.....

I’ll anxiously await you addressing why you felt the need to add the personal attacks to this post. You could easily have made your point without mentioning Ace’s email or any one blogger. You didn’t. Why?


 
Written By: Big E
URL: http://
That’s what annoys me; the smugly "above it all" call for civility while cutting people with knives.

And then, when asked why he ranks on Bithead, he said "Because it amuses me to do so." Oh, *well* then. If it amuses you, why then, have fun.

Incidentally, I didn’t send the email about the timeline to this guy. I don’t know his email and I never think of his site. It’s someone else’s idea and someone else’s email. I support the idea, and I’ve gotten the same email, but it wasn’t sent or forwarded by me.

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.
 
Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
I used to read this blog on occasion but not regularly. I stopped completely when one of the guys here went crazy about the NSA wiretap scandal. As I recall someone here also is in the Andrew Sullivan torture freak out mode. Or I could be thinking about another blog, like I said I never really read regularly.

Oh yeah, this is also the blog where one of these guys declared the global warming debate over. Like Arnold Schwartzenegger, only without all the gravitas or the political excuse for making inane statements. As a matter of fact while I’m at it I’m declaring the Glenn Greenwald sock puppet debate over. Hey Dale it’s science and everyone knows you can’t argue with science, what can you do?
 
Written By: Big E
URL: http://
I used to read this blog on occasion but not regularly. I stopped completely when one of the guys here went crazy about the NSA wiretap scandal.
So why are you still here? Why are you commenting?

Get out. Read some other blog.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
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.
But, here you are, commenting. How about that?

 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
And then, when asked why he ranks on Bithead, he said "Because it amuses me to do so." Oh, *well* then. If it amuses you, why then, have fun.
And again, my criticism of Bithead was a minor part of a post, but it concerned a basic failure to do simple factual research. That is not a personal criticism, but a substantive one. You act as if my point is that no intra-blog criticism is helpful. Nice straw man, though.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
It’s one long preening, self-righteous, holier than though flame on Ace. Why not just send him an e-mail denying his request or just ignore it?
I never got an email from Ace. Even Ace says that. So, we’ve established that you don’t have any f*cking idea what you’re talking about.
Why not just send him an e-mail denying his request or just ignore it?
I did send a reply to the blogger in question. I told him I’d blog it, too. Please refer to our privacy policy.
Any messages transmitted to the administrators of the QandO/Neolibertarian Network Web Site, or the authors of the QandO blog, whether transmitted electronically or by any other means, may be reprinted at our discretion, and used for purposes of commentary, debate, satire, or humor. Transmission of such messages constitutes implied consent to publicly reprint such messages.
If you don’t want an email publicized, then don’t send it.
You’re a jackass, Dale. I’ve never read you before, and I won’t be reading you again.


Yeah. well, that’s your loss, there, Ace.

On the other hand, I don’t read your blog either, so, there you go.

Still, for a blog post that wasn’t even written about you, you’ve had a very strong emotional reaction. And you keep commenting.

That’s curious. You don’t read us, but you keep leaving comments. Why is that, I wonder?
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
I used to read this blog on occasion but not regularly. I stopped completely when one of the guys here went crazy about the NSA wiretap scandal. As I recall someone here also is in the Andrew Sullivan torture freak out mode. Or I could be thinking about another blog, like I said I never really read regularly.

Oh yeah, this is also the blog where one of these guys declared the global warming debate over.
Funny, you talk about not reading this blog at all, then refer to a post from 5 weeks ago, then declare you stopped completely when we condemned the NSA wiretap program a few months ago.

Wow. For someone who "stopped completely" reading this blog, you sure know a f*ck of a lot about what we blog about. You must have amazing mental powers. Or, you’re a damned liar. One of the two.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
I’ll anxiously await you addressing why you felt the need to add the personal attacks to this post.
What personal attacks? Name one blogger who I attacked by name. Oh, wait, that’s right, you thought my post referred to Ace and you were wrong.

So much for your "personal attacks" bullsh*t.

If you want a personal attack, though, I’m game. You are a moron. Happy now?
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
You have engaged in exactly the behavior you are ostensibly condeming in your post.
Oh, yeah. Then name the blogger I was referring to in my post.

What’s that? You can’t? Oh. Then, I guess I didn’t engage in a personal attack did I?

Helpful hint: There’s a skill called "reading for comprehension". Maybe you should look into it.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
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.
Name the bloggers I attacked. Please. Review the text of my blog, and extract their names.

What’s that? You can’t?

Then your "point" is kinda stupid, isn’t it?

But, like "The Tell-Tale Heart", the guilty conscience will always out, won’t it?
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
This is all just too boring for words, and I don’t intend to spend any more time on it, but this...
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.
...doesn’t appear to be accurate. In fact, QandO was blogrolled on Ace of Spades for some time. Ace’s hysterics over this post appear to have caused a case of amnesia, as well.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
"Then name the blogger I was referring to in my post."

I could, and I didn’t get the e-mail. It’s pretty obvious. To me.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Also, it’s quite clear from the posts of anyone working on this that we have indeed been e-mailing other bloggers for information. So, in my view, you attack all of us when you criticize this activity.

By the way, I did that in the Hiltzik matter too: I received important IP information from Independent Sources. That’s what started the ball rolling. That exposed dishonest behavior from an L.A. Times columnist. But I guess you think that, too, was simply a personal attack by me — basically me being a jerk.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
I’m not sure if what Ace & Co. are doing is all that harmful. As entertainment, it beats You Tube. And since no one is claiming this investigation is anything except an attempt to expose Mr. Greenwald as a liar, I fail to see where that can be construed negatively.

And the reason for that is simple; Greenwald is a serial exaggerator, a venomous liberal partisan who piously masquarades as a "centrist," and a vicious hater whose over the top, hysterical rants against conservatives are so long and so full of lies that it is an impossibility to take them apart. The number of strawman arguments, dissociative examples, and outright fabrications contained in his 10,000 word posts make deconstructing him a full time job, something most righty bloggers don’t have the time or inclination to do.

Whenever someone does take the time to analyze his posts, they are found to be so laughably shallow and baseless that Greenwald feels he must use the sock puppets to support him. It is no accident that these fake commenters appeared on posts that knocked his silly, pretentious arguments into a cocked hat - he was probably too embarassed to use his own name.

I am sick and tired of the Greenwalds on the left being allowed to spout their nonsense about the right wanting to kill people who disagree with them or are serious about hanging judges or reporters, or "incite violence" as Mr. Greenwald so recently claimed. They are lies and they must be responded to. Anyone who believes these lies is out of touch with reality. And anyone who gives succor and comfort to the Greenwalds of the blogosphere should be ashamed of themselves.

Rick Moran
 
Written By: superhawk
URL: http://www.rightwingnuthouse.blogspot.com
Wow. For someone who "stopped completely" reading this blog, you sure know a f*ck of a lot about what we blog about. You must have amazing mental powers. Or, you’re a damned liar. One of the two.

Or I could have read about the global warming pronouncement on someone else’s blog. That a possibility Dale? Could that have happened? There’s a little skill you might want to look into Dale. It’s called "critical thinking". You seem to be pretty personnally invested in your theory that everyone who called you out on your hypocrisy is a liar. Maybe you need to take a step back.

Dummy.

A little re-write for ya:

He is writing with snarky glee that he’s caught Big E with his hand in the cookie jar, despite the fact that a) he has done no such thing, and b) it’s a stupidly trivial offense, even if true.

 
Written By: Big E
URL: http://
Who are all you people, and what is it are you arguing about?
 
Written By: Rollory
URL: http://
Greenwald uses posts from Sadly, No! as if they had evidentiary value. And he wants people to engage him on substance?

Okay, let me try. Not everyone who votes Republican or supports the war is a Bush Kultist. I know, because I’m not — though Greenwald often accuses me of being one. Therefore, one of Greenwald’s most linked posts was wrong on the substance. Q.E.D.

Listen: This guy was on the Townhouse list. He has a NYT best-seller (though just how influential it is is debatable). And a US Senator has read his stuff on the Senate floor.

I know all this because a guy named "Wilson," who addressed me as "Jeffy" and told me how insignificant I was compared to the mighty Greenwald told me so.

So it matters if Greenwald’s importance is coming from a false buzz — one that he may in fact be responsible for creating.

Just my two cents. And no, I didn’t email Dale, either.
 
Written By: Jeff G
URL: http://www.proteinwisdom.com
Hey Jeffy,

The Sadly No! post actually had quotes from your blog nicely gathered together. I had read most of them before on your blog. The few times I commented on your blog, you were always polite, kind and respectful — just like those quotes on Sadly No! illustrate.

Also, I judge you to be a Bush Cultists from reading your writing.

I bought Greenwald’s book. I have a dynamic IP. I have even commented on blogs from The Transamerica Hotel and The Royal Palm Plaza Hotel Resort.

And the buzz — it’s real.

Thanks for the space, Dale and Jon.

 
Written By: incontrolados
URL: http://
That is basically all we know.
No, it’s not. We know he lives in Brazil. When know that the "sock puppety" comments are written by someone with a US focus, and a coloquial command of American english. We know that one of the socks said it emailed GG for information (despite, at best, living in the same house with him), showing a basic dishonesty in the person doing the posting.

We know that the socks were often posted shortly after GG posted somewhere else. We know that GG read, but did not comment in, some of the threads where the socks posted (since he comment aboutthe thread on his blog). We know that the socks often parroted GG, and we even have a case where GG parroted a sock.

In short, we have a pretty rock solid case that GG was doing the sock puppetting, and that he is engaging in bald-faced lying now to try to cover it up.

Thus we know that GG is a shameless liar, and as such nothing he says can ever be trusted, that no claim of his can ever be taking on faith that he’s honestly reported the facts / law of the situation.

IOW we know the GG is completely w/o credibility. That’s useful to know, no?
 
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:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider