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

 
A few facts about QandO
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, July 22, 2006

In observing the reaction by many to Dale's points about the IP kerfuffle and sock puppetry alleged against the right-wing's favorite left-wing blogger (and don't bother Mona, I'm not buying the defense he's really a centrist), I was somewhat surprised to see some unfounded assertions thrown around concerning how QandO functions.

For instance, the assertion that Jon Henke has last say on content.

Are you kidding? Jon has never, let me repeat that word, never once attempted to control what anyone says on this blog. Not once. Ever.

Clear enough?

Had he tried, he'd most likely be blogging alone. Do you really believe two strong personalities like mine and Dale's (not to mention Jon's) would even consider being a part of a blog partnership which demanded that? From the beginning of this partnership (note the word), the three authors of this blog have had complete and total autonomy on subject matter and content. And nothing has changed.

That brings me to another unfounded assertion - that Dale removed a post at Jon's behest a few weeks ago during the "global warming" discussion (or that Jon, in a fit of temper, removed it himself). Utter and complete nonsense. A) Jon never said a word about the post in terms of it being something which didn't need to be up there, and B) Dale, after reflection, decided it wasn't in the best interests of the blog to escalate the disagreement and, as a mature adult, made the decision to remove the post, on his own, and defuse the situation.

As should be apparent to anyone who reads this blog regularly, we three do not agree on everything. We squabble. We argue. We get snippy with each other. But we keep those disagreements, for the most part, in the comments section. Every now and then the arguments spill out on to the front page, but even then, we try to be as respectful as as possible to our blogging partner and his opinion. A perfect example of that is the post I mentioned above where Dale unilaterally withdrew his post because he was interested in defusing the situation, not escalating it.

One of the reasons I chucked the whole USEnet/yahoo groups scene was because it basically had devolved into what you see in this sock puppet blowup: personal attacks and obsessive behavior. Discussion was impossible.

One of the things that most appealed to me about QandO was the opportunity to create an environment in which civil discussions about important subjects could be made by people of differing moral, political and cultural persuasions and backgrounds. We have a world-wide forum here. For the most part I'm very gratified with the result. I think, on the whole, we have an excellent group of regular commenter's who are thoughtful and do want to exchange ideas and discuss subjects honestly.

What I want no part of are the blog wars and blog swarms which focus on the personal destruction of other bloggers. And make no mistake, I think the blogger now under attack, and who is now trying on the victim's mantle for size, is as guilty as anyone on the right for starting and perpetuating those sorts of attacks. (I put that in bold so you wouldn't miss it.)

That doesn't excuse the reaction however. Given, there's been sock puppetry. That's embarrassing enough whether it was the blogger or someone else. But soliciting information to build a time line of comments from the sock puppets? That's obsessive behavior and over the top.

I think Patterico has a point when he says "this guy has questioned my honesty and integrity, and lied doing it." Most honest people who have looked into it agree with his point. But after the argument has been countered, does it require others to then to embark on a campaign of personal destruction?

And before the possible implication becomes an assumption, I'm not talking about Patterico in this case as the one who contacted us about constructing a time line. It wasn't him. I'm simply nodding "yes" to his point and to why he feels compelled to defend himself.

I also understand Patterico's point about the anger that sort of implication or accusation can generate and how, if you're not careful, it "can take over your life." He's justified in his anger. We've all been there at some time in our life over something. But we also know that the obsession under which we were operating at the time wasn't particularly healthy. Patterico knows that too.

That's why this time line Dale was contacted about becomes worrysome. Again, this isn't an effort by Patterico, but instead another. The question is why? At the point you're out soliciting information from other bloggers about times for various users of a particular IP address, you're beyond trying to refute an allegation. You're now looking for information in which to personally attack someone else. And it is no more attractive when the right does it than when the left does it.

Interestingly Ace issued a satirical and funny "stand down" post a week or so ago which essentially said, "why are you people blogging about this guy, all it does is give him the higher visibility he wants". Exactly. And so is this evolving blog swarm over sock puppets.

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.

UPDATE: I've been taken to task that my definition of "sock puppetry" is too broad. Since that wasn't the main point of the post, let's deal with it. Consulting Answers.com, the term is defined thusly:
[Usenet: from the act of placing a sock over your hand and talking to it and pretending it's talking back] In Usenet parlance, a pseudo through which the puppeteer posts follow-ups to their own original message to give the appearance that a number of people support the views held in the original message.
Given that definition, my definition which is "anyone who assumes numerous aliases to push a particular POV in a discussion" would appear in error, I'll amend my conclusion above, even though the concluding point remains the same.

Fact: Sock puppetry is alleged, but not proven. The possiblity exists that it was another person who wrote the comments attributed to the IP. The intent was obvious. Point made. Let him deal with the questions and move on.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
No, your definition of sockpuppetry is far too broad and in error.

Sockpuppetry is when a single individual attempts portray himself/herself as several different individuals in an attempt to make it appear there is broader support than actually exists. A classic example is the John Lott/Mary Rosh case; Mary Rosh claimed to be a student of Lott’s and presented a picture of Lott that was completely fabricated.

In this instance, you’re trying to make the case that a single IP address is specifically tied to just one individual. That is just erroneous.

Let’s be clear: Greenwald is being attacked on this frivolous and bogus issue because those on the right cannot refute the substance of his arguments.
 
Written By: jadegold
URL: http://
Are you kidding? Jon has never, let me repeat that word, never once attempted to control what anyone says on this blog. Not once. Ever. [...] Every now and then the arguments spill out on to the front page, but even then, we try to be as respectful as as possible to our blogging partner and his opinion.
Take this down immediately, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! Take it down or I shall taunt you a second time!
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
In this instance, you’re trying to make the case that a single IP address is specifically tied to just one individual. That is just erroneous.
In fact, precisely the opposite argument has been made here ... but knee’s jerk and reading for comprehension apparently continues to be a problem for some.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Take it down or I shall taunt you a second time!
OK, wait ... doesn’t this have something to do with hamsters and elderberries?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
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.
Are you saying that it has become obvious to all reasonable people that Greenwald himself made self-serving posts using aliases in a sort of internet astro-turfing campaign? Because the guys over at Wizbang are still not buying into the sock-puppetry.

To me, if some guy broadcasts to the world that I am a liar and a hypocrite, it doesn’t seem "obsessive" to try to build an airtight case that my accuser is himself the dishonest party.

Now, if a year from now, Ace and Patterico are STILL tracking comments and the like, your charge of obsession will ring more true.
 
Written By: CNH
URL: http://
In fact, precisely the opposite argument has been made here ... but knee’s jerk and reading for comprehension apparently continues to be a problem for some.
Reading comprehension is easier if terms employed have a common definition. I disagree with jadegold on most of his/her post, but your post did not address her definition of sock-puppetry, with which I DO agree:
Sockpuppetry is when a single individual attempts portray himself/herself as several different individuals in an attempt to make it appear there is broader support than actually exists.
Either 1) Greenwald himself made those posts, or 2) someone with a personal attachment to him did. Only in the first scenario has sock-puppetry occured. You stated in this post that:
Fact: That’s sock puppetry.
But in these comments you seem to be saying that we don’t really know if this is the case, because we can’t tie one IP to one single person.

Which is it?
 
Written By: CNH
URL: http://
Are you saying that it has become obvious to all reasonable people that Greenwald himself made self-serving posts using aliases in a sort of internet astro-turfing campaign?
I said clearly that sock puppetry took place whether by the blogger or someone else (sock puppetry is, as I understand it, one person assuming numerous aliases to support a POV). What is not clear is whether it was the blogger or someone else with access to the same IP. Dale noted that it is entirely possible that it was someone else given the blogger’s living arrangements, where the IP is located and how IP addresses are assigned. So the allegation that it was the blogger remains just that ... an allegation.
To me, if some guy broadcasts to the world that I am a liar and a hypocrite, it doesn’t seem "obsessive" to try to build an airtight case that my accuser is himself the dishonest party.
I think I was very clear that I understood where Patterico was coming from (and I support him in his contention) and why and I also was clear in noting when and where I thought that crossed into obsessiveness.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Let’s be clear: Greenwald is being attacked on this frivolous and bogus issue because those on the right cannot refute the substance of his arguments.
And this bit of cosmic wisdom derives from what logic?

It’s perfectly possible to completely dismantle someone’s argument, then call them a douchbag, and then point out examples of their dishonest behaior. Patterico has just demonstrated it. QED.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
I said clearly that sock puppetry took place whether by the blogger or someone else (sock puppetry is, as I understand it, one person assuming numerous aliases to support a POV). What is not clear is whether it was the blogger or someone else with access to the same IP. Dale noted that it is entirely possible that it was someone else given the blogger’s living arrangements, where the IP is located and how IP addresses are assigned. So the allegation that it was the blogger remains just that ... an allegation.
OK, so sock-puppetry has happened. But who is responsible for it? If people are left with the belief (as appears to be the case with jadegold) that Greenwald is not the puppetmaster, then he’s essentially off the hook. Were I the one he had accused of dishonesty, this would seem a rather unsatisfactory endstate.
I think I was very clear that I understood where Patterico was coming from (and I support him in his contention) and why and I also was clear in noting when and where I thought that crossed into obsessiveness.
Yes, you were:
I think Patterico has a point when he says "this guy has questioned my honesty and integrity, and lied doing it." Most honest people who have looked into it agree with his point. But after you’ve countered the argument, does it require one to then to embark on a campaign of personal destruction?


I just don’t think that "the argument" has been "countered" to the fullest extent possible. Meaning, if a timeline can prove to be additionally persuasive, I don’t see it’s construction as being obsessive.

I fully realize this may just come down to personal preferences, each as valid as the next.
 
Written By: CNH
URL: http://
I just don’t think that "the argument" has been "countered" to the fullest extent possible. Meaning, if a timeline can prove to be additionally persuasive, I don’t see it’s construction as being obsessive.
Well, let me just point out that it isn’t Patterico who’s attempting to construct it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
For instance, the assertion that Jon Henke has last say on content.
We all know that the reclusive Mr. Qando, whom named this site after himself, has final say on the content.

I wonder why Mr. Qando never deigns to post here though...

:)

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
McQ writes:
the right-wing’s favorite left-wing blogger (and don’t bother Mona, I’m not buying the defense he’s really a centrist)
I never proffered that "defense." He holds substantially the same views as: David Weigel, Jacob Sullum, Jesse Walker, Matt Welch, Radly Balko, James Bovard, Jim Henley and...me. We are libertarians.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Well, let me just point out that it isn’t Patterico who’s attempting to construct it.
That’s true.

So here are some questions for us:

1) Would it be a legitimate extension of his defense if Patterico WAS doing the constructing?

2) If it would be a legitimate extension for Patterico, why would it not be for Ace?

3) If it is not a legitimate extension when made by Ace, did he merely cross some line, or was his the entirety of his contribution illegitimate?

I’d like to hypothesize the following. That Patterico would have been justified if he was constructing the timeline, and that Ace was perfectly justified in taking up his banner for him in the beginning and in the extension.

Why?

Because if these guys wanted it to be a personal affair conducted solely between the two of them, they could have had it out in email. I submit that if you post anything on your blog, you have constructively invited the comment and participation of every man, woman, and child worldwide. This seems to me to be a much easier general rule to apply. And if Patterico wants Ace to butt out, he need only say so.
 
Written By: CNH
URL: http://
Mona, any idea how Glenn got his invite to the Townhouse list and why he decided to join it?

That’s a liberals only club, isn’t it?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
1) Would it be a legitimate extension of his defense if Patterico WAS doing the constructing?
To what end would it aid his refutation. I think it is pretty well understood, given what Patterico has produced to this point, that he is right about the allegations leveled against him and the person who leveled them is wrong.
2) If it would be a legitimate extension for Patterico, why would it not be for Ace?
What has Ace to do with allegations against Patterico? Patterico has very skillfully handled those allegations and refuted them.
3) If it is not a legitimate extension when made by Ace, did he merely cross some line, or was his the entirety of his contribution illegitimate?
I’m saying the pursuit of a time line is what "crosses the line". The point about sock puppetry has been made, and most people understand the point and accept that something unethical happened. Again, point made. How a time line adds anything to this discussion is beyond me and it smacks of obsession and other motives.
Because if these guys wanted it to be a personal affair conducted solely between the two of them, they could have had it out in email. I submit that if you post anything on your blog, you have constructively invited the comment and participation of every man, woman, and child worldwide. This seems to me to be a much easier general rule to apply. And if Patterico wants Ace to butt out, he need only say so.
I don’t disagree. But that doesn’t mean at some point the pursuit can’t become obsessive or cross the line from a rational defense to a personal attack.

Oh, and one last thing: it isn’t Ace who contacted us about the time line either.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
That Patterico would have been justified if he was constructing the timeline, and that Ace was perfectly justified in taking up his banner for him in the beginning and in the extension.
One little problem. The Blogger in question constructing the timeline is likely Bryan at Hot Air, and not Ace. I won’t link to it in deference to our host’s wishes, but the post is titled "Greenwald’s defense: Musical Chairs"

From the post, I’ll let Bryan explain:
Why do we care about this? Honestly, this is only the second post on Greenwald I’ve ever written, the first being the initial sock puppet post. As a typical lefty, I don’t find him particularly enlightening or interesting, as he’s more content to wage war on Bush than on jihad. Been there, read that. But he’s a blogger whose writings lecture everyone else on civility, honesty and the like, yet it turns out he’s engaging in this dishonest sock puppet devilry. Just like his book on how to be an American patriot turns out to be the work of an ex-pat living in Brazil. Etc. He’s a bit of a gasbag and a hypocrite.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
This:
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.
... makes about as much sense to me as this:
C’mon guys, it’s clear that there’s been a murder, so can’t we just leave it at that? Rather than wasting all that time, energy and taxpayer money arguing over who killed who, can’t we find more important things to do in this one horse town? Maybe our chief suspect was guilty, and we’ve just set a killer free for no good reason. Sh*t happens. Or maybe he was innocent after all, and by halting this investigation prematurely we’ll leave him to live the rest of his life as a murder suspect in the eyes of the public. Eh, that’s his problem. Let him explain himself to the public, or not. I’m bored. Let’s go get a beer.
The fact that someone was a sock puppet does not, in and of itself, matter. What matters is whether or not that individual happened to be Glenn Greenwald, or someone acting with his knowledge and consent. A more thorough, accurate time line could help in that regard, not only to "get" Greenwald if he turns out to be the culprit, but also to help exonerate him if he’s not. For all I know, a more complete time line might show that Glenn and the sock puppets accessed two different blogs through two different ISPs at the same time, thereby all but proving that Glenn wasn’t home when the socks ran amok. If so, why withhold this potentially exculpatory information? And if not, why help him cover up his misconduct?

We’re not talking about super, private, double-secret personal information here. We’re talking about dates and times, for chrissakes - two tidbits of info that are so friggin’ "private" that they display automatically every time you post a comment to almost any blog except this one. If commenters have a reasonable expectation of privacy about anything, it sure as hell ain’t dates or times.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
If so, why withhold this potentially exculpatory information?
Because that’s not the intention of the time line construction, it’s simply something which is a possibility of any such endeavor. And to pass it off as something other than that is simply disengenuous.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ, thanks for the explanation.

I was clearly wrong in my accusation against Dale, and once again I will apologize.

Dale, I am sorry for my accusation that you are subservient to another’s POV.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
That is very considerate and honorable of you, Bains.

Has Glenn Greenwald apologized to Patterico yet?
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
To what end would it aid his refutation. I think it is pretty well understood, given what Patterico has produced to this point, that he is right about the allegations leveled against him and the person who leveled them is wrong.
Maybe it won’t help at all. But I can see how to a party making the case that Greenwald posted those comments, the fact that people over at Wizbang still aren’t convinced, additional effort to strengthen the case is not unwarranted. Put plainly, if Patterico is on the "Right" and Greenwald is on the "Left", then I can see how frustrating to the case maker it would be for a "Right" blog like Wizbang to side with Greenwald.
What has Ace to do with allegations against Patterico? Patterico has very skillfully handled those allegations and refuted them.
I’m using Ace as shorthand for Generic-Blogger-Making-Greenwald-Sockpuppet-Case. And again, Wizbang has obviously not found Patterico’s refutations skillful to the point of persuasion.
I’m saying the pursuit of a time line is what "crosses the line". The point about sock puppetry has been made, and most people understand the point and accept that something unethical happened. Again, point made. How a time line adds anything to this discussion is beyond me and it smacks of obsession and other motives.
There’s a hell of a lot of passive voice in this paragraph. And that’s a problem when the point Ace or whoever is trying to make is not that "sock puppetry has been made", but that Glenn Greenwald is personally responsible for the sock-puppetry.

"sock puppetry has been made" is almost the desired point, but nine yards is not a first down.

So, essentially, unless and until you state that you believe Greenwald himself made the posts, you have not stated that the point Ace is trying to make has indeed been made.
I don’t disagree. But that doesn’t mean at some point the pursuit can’t become obsessive or cross the line from a rational defense to a personal attack.
That’s true. I just think that the character of the pursuit is largely of the same character as the original accusation. (Greenwald accused Patterico of dishonesty, Patterico and others responded that Greenwald was the dishonest party, and are marshalling factual evidence to buttress their reply).

To me, obsession would look something like this: Greenwald makes a statement on a totally unrelated matter, identifying relative facts and explaining his reasoning. Patterico/Ace/whoever then posts that is just wrong and anyway is a "liar, liar whose sock-puppet is on fire", and then doesn’t address the substance of the post.

Granted, the border of Obsessionania has long since been crossed in this example.
 
Written By: CNH
URL: http://
Bains,

Since nobody has acknowledged your apology I will. I think they were pretty steamed and understandably so. Since we all show our ass every once in a while it is nice to see a real pullback on your part, few will do so, as this latest kerfuffle shows. Pogue forgave me.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
McQ, thanks for the explanation.

I was clearly wrong in my accusation against Dale, and once again I will apologize.

Dale, I am sorry for my accusation that you are subservient to another’s POV.
Bains ... thanks for the apology (for whatever reason you are one of few commenters who’s comments don’t show up in my email so it wasn’t until Lance’s comment that I knew you’d posted). Appreciate the integrity which it took to post it.

And, as I said, no one in this crew is subservient to anyone’s POV. "Cat fights ’R us". Big cats, but cats none the less.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
That is very considerate and honorable of you, Bains.

Has Glenn Greenwald apologized to Patterico yet?
Don’t know and not pertinant to my intellectual honesty.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Maybe it won’t help at all. But I can see how to a party making the case that Greenwald posted those comments, the fact that people over at Wizbang still aren’t convinced, additional effort to strengthen the case is not unwarranted. Put plainly, if Patterico is on the "Right" and Greenwald is on the "Left", then I can see how frustrating to the case maker it would be for a "Right" blog like Wizbang to side with Greenwald.
I’m not sure we’re on the same page here. Greenwald essentially accused Patterico of something which wasn’t true. Patterico was able to refute the accusation. None of this had anything to do with sock puppetry that I know of.

What has Whizbang upset is the sock puppetry aspect of this which is a completely different subject and has nothing at all to do with the initial assault on Patterico’s honor and integrity. As far as I know that’s been settled to Patterico’s advantage.
I’m using Ace as shorthand for Generic-Blogger-Making-Greenwald-Sockpuppet-Case. And again, Wizbang has obviously not found Patterico’s refutations skillful to the point of persuasion.
Again, I’m missing something here ... the sock puppet case may be related in general, but as I understand it, it has nothing directly to do with the initial accusation against Patterico which Greenwald made (when lumping him in, carelessly, with other "right wing bloggers" in his screed about denouncing viscious language on the right.

So, again, I’m not sure how any generic blogger helps that case.
There’s a hell of a lot of passive voice in this paragraph. And that’s a problem when the point Ace or whoever is trying to make is not that "sock puppetry has been made", but that Glenn Greenwald is personally responsible for the sock-puppetry.
Right. And they’re not going to prove it even with a time line. As Dale pointed out, he and Chris can be entering messages at the same time from different computers and have almost the same time/date stamp and the same IP but be from completely different people. And obviously this could be happening in different rooms in the same house. So other than repeating an allegation over and over again, how do you suppose he’s going to prove anything?
"sock puppetry has been made" is almost the desired point, but nine yards is not a first down.
Then tell me how this time line is going to prove anything given what I’ve just said above?
So, essentially, unless and until you state that you believe Greenwald himself made the posts, you have not stated that the point Ace is trying to make has indeed been made.
Ace is welcome to pursue his point, but unless he can magically go back in time and be present at the place where the comments were entered, how does he propose to prove anything? And at what point to continued attempts become obsessive?
I just think that the character of the pursuit is largely of the same character as the original accusation. (Greenwald accused Patterico of dishonesty, Patterico and others responded that Greenwald was the dishonest party, and are marshalling factual evidence to buttress their reply).
Given what would be necessary to prove the point, how does a time line advance that?
To me, obsession would look something like this: Greenwald makes a statement on a totally unrelated matter, identifying relative facts and explaining his reasoning. Patterico/Ace/whoever then posts that is just wrong and anyway is a "liar, liar whose sock-puppet is on fire", and then doesn’t address the substance of the post.

Granted, the border of Obsessionania has long since been crossed in this example.
Agreed. That’s my point.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Put plainly, if Patterico is on the "Right" and Greenwald is on the "Left", then I can see how frustrating to the case maker it would be for a "Right" blog like Wizbang to side with Greenwald.
You mean like this?
I’m not standing up for Greenwald. I already said he was a lying piece of dung. (Did you read my first post? If not, scroll down... It will offer more perspective.)
With friends like that...
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
I wrote:
Has Glenn Greenwald apologized to Patterico yet?

Bains replied:
Don’t know and not pertinant to my intellectual honesty.

Sorry, that was intended to be a general question, not specifically directed at you. I should have been more clear.
:)
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
Right. And they’re not going to prove it even with a time line.
Have you been by Ace’s this morning, McQ? It seems they’ve found what is either direct evidence of Glenn himself playing sock puppet, or Glenn plagarizing the boyfriend playing sock puppet.

If it isn’t him, it’s him by proxy via the Magic Boyfriend. Neither of the two reflect well, and one of them is a fact.

I’m 97% certain of which is which, and 100% certain that it really doesn’t matter which it is.

Considering the guy has done more than his fair share of bald faced lying to smear other bloggers, schadenfreude is most certainly appropriate, and not particularly obsessive.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Glenn Greenwald is a talented and accomplished individual. He’s brighter and SMARTER and more handsome that all of you put together! This is all jealousy, anger and paranoia on the part of vicious Right-wing thugs.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Glenn Greenwald is a talented and accomplished individual. He’s brighter and SMARTER and more handsome that all of you put together! This is all jealousy, anger and paranoia on the part of vicious Right-wing thugs.
Now this is a perspacacious comment. I echo it’s sentiments
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I would haveto put the last two commenters into the same pantheon of intelligence and handsomeness as Glenn Greenwald. All three of them are Gods amongst men...I would say Lance is a hypocrite because he never condemns anyone.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Let me just say that I really apreciate Q and O and I think you guys do a great job. It was many year that I did not even know there were other people in the world who had similar view to me, and now there is a whole web site.
thank you-kyle
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Have you been by Ace’s this morning, McQ? It seems they’ve found what is either direct evidence of Glenn himself playing sock puppet, or Glenn plagarizing the boyfriend playing sock puppet.
Yeah, I have Pablo. It assumes that A) his partner couldn’t have first noticed what Sullivan did and commented on it to begin with and B) that he couldn’t have pointed it out to Greewald as something worthy of blogging about. (Oh, and it isn’t plagerizing if you have permission ... but immediately the plagerism accusation is trotted out ... again, without any evidence).

Instead the instant conclusion is it has to be all Greenwald.

Unless there is some blogging code of honor that says you can’t take tips from your partner, the two quotes have a reasonable alternative explanation.

So what we’re left with is conclusion jumping based on heavy conjecture about a relationship and how it works without a scintilla of supporting evidence.

And that’s OK with you?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I’m not sure we’re on the same page here. Greenwald essentially accused Patterico of something which wasn’t true. Patterico was able to refute the accusation. None of this had anything to do with sock puppetry that I know of.

What has Whizbang upset is the sock puppetry aspect of this which is a completely different subject and has nothing at all to do with the initial assault on Patterico’s honor and integrity. As far as I know that’s been settled to Patterico’s advantage.
I’ll admit that I haven’t examined every post and every supposed sock-puppet comment. My understanding, possibly ill-founded, was that Greenwald made the accusation of dishonesty, Patterico refuted, but that Greenwald allegedly prolonged the discussion through constructed commenters. If Greenwald were trying to counter Patterico’s fact based refutation by using an astroturf campaign, I didn’t see any problem with Patterico (or anyone) countering the counter.
Again, I’m missing something here ... the sock puppet case may be related in general, but as I understand it, it has nothing directly to do with the initial accusation against Patterico which Greenwald made (when lumping him in, carelessly, with other "right wing bloggers" in his screed about denouncing viscious language on the right.

So, again, I’m not sure how any generic blogger helps that case.
I’m not saying that others coming to Patterico’s defense bolsters that defense in and of itself. Nor am I using a "generic blogger" to demonstrate a link between the initial accusation and the sock puppetry.

I’m just saying that whether Ace was the one who asked for the timeline is irrelevant to the point I’m making re: who is justified in blogging/commenting about the issue. I think it’s fine for anyone to opine, whether it’s Ace, Bryan from Hot Air, or the rotting corpse of Yassir Arafat.

Sorry if I was unclear, and sorrier still if I remain so.
Right. And they’re not going to prove it even with a time line. As Dale pointed out, he and Chris can be entering messages at the same time from different computers and have almost the same time/date stamp and the same IP but be from completely different people. And obviously this could be happening in different rooms in the same house. So other than repeating an allegation over and over again, how do you suppose he’s going to prove anything?
You can use the time/date info to build a colorable argument like this:



That post is a little long, but the essentials are that "Rick Ellensburg" makes a point in comments on RightWingNutHouse blog. The next day, Greenwald makes the same point on his blog.

"So what?", you might say. "Maybe he came up with it on his own."

Sure, but he also approvingly quotes and links to commenters on that very thread, but NOT to the comment by Ellensburg. As Ace notes, "You usually hat-tip other people. You don’t, however, hat-tip yourself."

Now, is that definitive proof? No, but it is evidence tending to prove the allegation, and it does make use of time stamp data.


Pablo,
You mean like this?
That’s the point. Wizbang thinks Greenwald is a lying piece of dung, but he still doesn’t believe Patterico’s charge of sock-puppetry. That perversely provides MORE incentive to Ace et al. to continue their efforts to dig for proof. If it were just Greenwald’s fans of the left scoffing at stocking-gate, many would probably just dismiss them as invulnerable to any level of evidence.
 
Written By: CNH
URL: http://
Oh, and it isn’t plagerizing if you have permission
It’s plagarism if you don’t credit your source. Permission has nothing to do with it.

Instead the instant conclusion is it has to be all Greenwald.
No, as I said it’s either Greenwald or someone with Greenwald standing over their shoulder. Ethically, it really doesn’t matter which it is.

So what we’re left with is conclusion jumping based on heavy conjecture about a relationship and how it works without a scintilla of supporting evidence.
I’m not the least bit interested in how Greenwald’s relationship works. I’m interested in a smear merchant engaging in unethical behavior. And I’m utterly amused at his having been caught at it. And I’m wondering why the Magic Boyfriend hasn’t offered a mea culpa.

Is that OK with you?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Because that’s not the intention of the time line construction, it’s simply something which is a possibility of any such endeavor.
What’s your point, that exonerating the innocent is a worthy endeavor, but convicting the guilty is not? If there is anything improper that can be done with the timeline you won’t provide, I have no clue what it is, and don’t appreciate being accused of being disingenous for failing to divine it.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Now, is that definitive proof? No, but it is evidence tending to prove the allegation, and it does make use of time stamp data.
See above comment to Pablo. It does not "tend" to prove anything if a reasonable alternative explanation exits and you have nothing to discredit it. Proof means there is no other explanation or that the explanation given is definative because evidence shows it to be so.

There is no evidence that the explanation given is true nor does it prove anything. It simply points to a possibility among many (and one that is obviously favored over others for obvious reasons).
That perversely provides MORE incentive to Ace et al. to continue their efforts to dig for proof.
To the point of obsessiveness. I’d still appreciate an explanation as to how they’re going to prove anything without an eye-witness or a confession.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
What’s your point, that exonerating the innocent is a worthy endeavor, but convicting the guilty is not? If there is anything improper that can be done with the timeline you won’t provide, I have no clue what it is, and don’t appreciate being accused of being disingenous for failing to divine it.
I didn’t say you were disengenous (and if that was how you read it, I apologize). I said that those who claim to be doing this for that reason are being disengenous. They’re doing it to nail Greenwald, but there is the chance it may exhonorate him as well. But it is the former, not the latter reason for which they’re pursuing it since they have no vested interest in exhonorating him.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Yeah, I have Pablo. It assumes that A) his partner couldn’t have first noticed what Sullivan did and commented on it to begin with and B) that he couldn’t have pointed it out to Greewald as something worthy of blogging about. (Oh, and it isn’t plagerizing if you have permission ... but immediately the plagerism accusation is trotted out ... again, without any evidence).

Instead the instant conclusion is it has to be all Greenwald.

Unless there is some blogging code of honor that says you can’t take tips from your partner, the two quotes have a reasonable alternative explanation.

So what we’re left with is conclusion jumping based on heavy conjecture about a relationship and how it works without a scintilla of supporting evidence.

And that’s OK with you?
I’ll agree that it’s not dispositive, but I disagree that this doesn’t even amount to a scintilla of evidence. To me, it at least rates a raised eyebrow.

Maybe the partner mentioned the link. Maybe Greenwald somehow missed "Rick Ellensburg’s" comment and found the Sullivan link on his own. But are you really saying that this information doesn’t do anything at all to indicate Greewald is Rick Ellensburg?
 
Written By: CNH
URL: http://
My understanding, possibly ill-founded, was that Greenwald made the accusation of dishonesty, Patterico refuted, but that Greenwald allegedly prolonged the discussion through constructed commenters.
Incorrect. He did that under his own name. And he’s wrong, Patterico is right. Patterico is owed an apology that he has not received.
Wizbang thinks Greenwald is a lying piece of dung, but he still doesn’t believe Patterico’s charge of sock-puppetry.
Right. Paul thinks it was Greenwald’s boyfriend, because Greenwald says it was his boyfriend.

While that is certainly possible, I find it unlikely and even if that is the case, it’s clearly being done with Greenwald’s knowledge, in which case it’s a very small distinction from Greenwald doing it himself. I think it’s Greenwald and not the boyfriend because whoever it is writes like Greenwald and not someone for whom English is a second language. But it really doesn’t matter whether Bonnie or Clyde is doing the typing, AFAIC.

What I don’t get is why anyone would come down one one side or another based on the word of someone you refer to a lying piece of dung.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
It’s plagarism if you don’t credit your source. Permission has nothing to do with it.
Well first, plagarism is directly copying someone’s work, and while the two quotes are similar, they’re not copies. They espouse similar ideas but they are certainly not copies of each other.
No, as I said it’s either Greenwald or someone with Greenwald standing over their shoulder. Ethically, it really doesn’t matter which it is.
Apparently neither does proof. On what PROOF do you base that accusation? And up front, conjecture about the two messages and the one possible scenario (among many) as to their genesis isn’t proof of anything. I’ve offered an alternative explanation which is just as viable as this one.
I’m not the least bit interested in how Greenwald’s relationship works.
Well you wouldn’t know that by the accusations that are being thrown around. Seems to me many think they know exactly how it works and what it has produced in this case. Unless someone knows all this how do they make the assumptions necessary to reach the conclusion they have, given that there are many other reasonable possible explanations?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I’ll agree that it’s not dispositive, but I disagree that this doesn’t even amount to a scintilla of evidence. To me, it at least rates a raised eyebrow.
It is a possibility but it isn’t proof. It’s not even evidence. While it is reasonable conjecture, it is still just conjecture.
Maybe the partner mentioned the link. Maybe Greenwald somehow missed "Rick Ellensburg’s" comment and found the Sullivan link on his own. But are you really saying that this information doesn’t do anything at all to indicate Greewald is Rick Ellensburg?
Yes. Because those other "maybes" exist and no one is going to ever be able to prove otherwise short of a confession by Greewald or his partner. For all we know, it may have been a third party in the house which wrote the message in question.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
See above comment to Pablo. It does not "tend" to prove anything if a reasonable alternative explanation exits and you have nothing to discredit it. Proof means there is no other explanation or that the explanation given is definative because evidence shows it to be so.

There is no evidence that the explanation given is true nor does it prove anything. It simply points to a possibility among many (and one that is obviously favored over others for obvious reasons).
Greenwald read the comments. He approvingly cited one of the commenters (#10), but he did not approvingly cite ANY of "Rick Ellensburg’s" comments, even though they were comments #5, 6, and 7, and in comment #7, Rick makes the same Sullivan linked point that Glenn makes a day later.

Sure, maybe Greenwald already knew about the Sullivan link, and therefore didn’t feel obligated to reference comment #7 when blogging about it the next day. Maybe Rick Ellensburg is his partner, and Greenwald didn’t want to draw attention to him. But the phrasing Ellensburg uses when referencing the Sullivan link is similar to the phrasing Greenwald uses when making the same point. And we know that Greenwald read the comment thread that included the Ellensburg comment. And maybe Glenn and his partner are so close and of such like mind that they have similar posting compositional styles... but it’s an explanation that depends upon an growing pile of coincidences. The higher that mound grows, the more precarious is the position that Greenwald was not the puppeteer.

.
.
.
But trying another tack, what if you learned that time/stamp data indicated that Greenwald had blogged on subject at five different times on five different days, and that a "sock-puppet" had commented on the same subject on each of those days within ten minutes of Greenwald’s post for that day. Would you consider that to be evidence that Greenwald was more likely the puppeteer than his partner?
 
Written By: CNH
URL: http://
When’s this blog gonna post anything relevant to the real world again? All this inbred chickensh!t mickeymouse he said she said gossip collumn is getting p!ssing old fast. Take it to the chatroom.
 
Written By: Sluggo
URL: http://
The higher that mound grows, the more precarious is the position that Greenwald was not the puppeteer.
My goodness ... you don’t think the fact that he is somehow, even obliquely, involved in this is enough of a blow to his credibility?
But trying another tack, what if you learned that time/stamp data indicated that Greenwald had blogged on subject at five different times on five different days, and that a "sock-puppet" had commented on the same subject on each of those days within ten minutes of Greenwald’s post for that day. Would you consider that to be evidence that Greenwald was more likely the puppeteer than his partner?
Evidence? No. Evidence and "more likely" aren’t compatible.

Would I consider it likely scenario? Yes ... among many.

Without knowing what his partner and he had going on, I certainly would have no evidence that anything other than what your present (5 posts, 5 days and 5 comments) occurred. Everything else, barring further information, is conjecture.

Look, until you can tell me the lay out of the house in Brazil, who all lives there and when, who has access to the computer or computers, what was discussed among those living there as it pertains to this subject (if anything) and what plan of action they decided upon, there is no ’evidence’ available.

There is only conjecture based on speculation as to how this all might have occurred. We have posts. We have comments. We have suspicions. But to this point we have no evidence. And as I’ve stated, unless Greewald or his partner confess to doing all of this, there isn’t going to be any come out of this detective work.

That, apparently, certainly won’t stop the speculation, however.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
...Actually, isn’t the original charge (from this blog) of "obsession" on the part of Ace et al vulnerable to the same "admits of alternative explanations" riposte that you have employed against the usage of time stamp evidence? After all, your primary piece of evidence that they are obsessed is that they asked for time stamp data.

Assuming, arguendo, the time stamp data proves nothing, maybe they aren’t obsessed, maybe they’re just mistaken in their belief that it does prove something.

Isn’t that a possible alternative explanation?
 
Written By: CNH
URL: http://
Evidence? No. Evidence and "more likely" aren’t compatible.
Huh? I don’t think the word "evidence" means what you think it means. Any facts which, if known, make it appear either more or less likely that Greenwald did what he’s accused of are, by definition, evidence.

Let me ask you this. Based on what we know, and we don’t know, do you it is more likely that Greenwald (A) was or (B) was not the author of the comments in question?
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
...Actually, isn’t the original charge (from this blog) of "obsession" on the part of Ace et al ...
Actually it wasn’t "Ace et al" at all. It was about the time line.
Isn’t that a possible alternative explanation?
Of course. And when they’re finally made aware of what it will or won’t yield, further pursuit becomes obsessive.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
George Harleigh just told me that Greenwald is someone we should trust. ;)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Huh? I don’t think the word "evidence" means what you think it means. Any facts which, if known, make it appear either more or less likely that Greenwald did what he’s accused of are, by definition, evidence.
Evidence provides an indication that something (an event, an act, etc) happened a certain way. The more indicators (evidence)the better. Eventually enough evidence will rule out other possibilities.

Something is established as proof when unimpeachable evidence is provided (something, other than the IP address, which hasn’t been present in this particular case). Proof makes invalid all other possibilities and leaves as the only valid possibility that which the proof supports. No one is even close to doing that in this case. And a time line isn’t going to do it either.
Let me ask you this. Based on what we know, and we don’t know, do you it is more likely that Greenwald (A) was or (B) was not the author of the comments in question?

Given what we know I don’t have enough information (evidence/proof) to answer the question. I certainly have an opinion, but I haven’t seen any hard evidence and certainly no proof either way.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Actually it wasn’t "Ace et al" at all. It was about the time line.
I meant, didn’t you originally say that the request by whomever for the time data was, in and of itself, an act of obsession? Am I misreading this part of your post:
That doesn’t excuse the reaction however. Given, there’s been sock puppetry. That’s embarrassing enough whether it was the blogger or someone else. But soliciting information to build a time line of comments from the sock puppets? That’s obsessive behavior and over the top.
But now it appears you’re moving the goalposts a little:
Of course. And when they’re finally made aware of what it will or won’t yield, further pursuit becomes obsessive.
So now the original request for the data is not the evidence of obsession, but further pursuit of their quest once the uselessness of the data has been explained to them is obsessive?

And as an aside...
Something is established as proof when unimpeachable evidence is provided (something, other than the IP address, which hasn’t been present in this particular case). Proof makes invalid all other possibilities and leaves as the only valid possibility that which the proof supports. No one is even close to doing that in this case. And a time line isn’t going to do it either.
I’ll disagree with this definition of "proof". There are different levels of proof, which is why we have different "burdens of proof", from a simple preponderance of the evidence, to beyond a reasonable doubt. You seem to recognize only the "beyond a reasonable doubt" variety, but many (including our legal institutions) would disagree with you.
 
Written By: CNH
URL: http://
"Fact: Sock puppetry is alleged, but not proven. The possiblity exists that it was another person who wrote the comments attributed to the IP. The intent was obvious. Point made. Let him deal with the questions and move on."

But he hasn’t really dealt with the questions, has he? He denied doing it; I’ll give him that. But he hasn’t explained what’s going on. He has only insinuated, in a deniable way.

Strangest of all, this super-duper-obsessive boyfriend of his — the one who follows his critics all over the Internet to defend the good name of Glenn Greenwald — he seems to be MIA. This is, I’m guessing, the most serious issue Greenwald has had to deal with, and yet the incredibly protective boyfriend isn’t standing up to explain what happened.

Very uncharacteristic of him, I have to say.

P.S. I’m not comfortable with the insinuation that I’m not contacting bloggers to look into these allegations. I am indeed doing that. I’m not the one who sent the e-mail to Dale Franks that he posted about, but (as I said in Dale’s thread) I have been sending out e-mails and looking into this. There’s solid evidence that Greenwald, the self-appointed scold of the right-wing blogosphere, has comments puffing him up coming from his IP under other names. Circumstantial evidence is building that makes it seem much more likely that it was him and not someone else. I find that interesting — and if he didn’t do it, then the facts should exonerate him. Either way, I am indeed looking into it, and I don’t want to leave the implication out there that I’m not. That would be dishonest. It’s the way Greenwald would do it. I don’t do it that way.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
But he hasn’t really dealt with the questions, has he? He denied doing it; I’ll give him that. But he hasn’t explained what’s going on. He has only insinuated, in a deniable way.
And that leaves the ball in his court and the doubt on his shoulders.

That’s my point, Patterico. Why isn’t that enough?
Circumstantial evidence is building that makes it seem much more likely that it was him and not someone else. I find that interesting — and if he didn’t do it, then the facts should exonerate him. Either way, I am indeed looking into it, and I don’t want to leave the implication out there that I’m not. That would be dishonest. It’s the way Greenwald would do it. I don’t do it that way.
And likely as not it will remain circumstantial at best (unless he confesses). Again, point made. He’s the one with the explaining to be done.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
So now the original request for the data is not the evidence of obsession, but further pursuit of their quest once the uselessness of the data has been explained to them is obsessive?
I never said the request for data wasn’t obsessive, especially for someone not directly involved in the dust up. I’d say both indicate a level of obsession.
I’ll disagree with this definition of "proof". There are different levels of proof, which is why we have different "burdens of proof", from a simple preponderance of the evidence, to beyond a reasonable doubt. You seem to recognize only the "beyond a reasonable doubt" variety, but many (including our legal institutions) would disagree with you.
Let’s go with your explanation then. Point to any level of proof, from "preponderance of evidence" to beyond which supports the conjecture now being made concerning Greenwald to the exclusion of any other explanation.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Is this a QandO Blog or the Department of QandO? I can not escape the conclusion that I back in the Department of Poli Sci at my Alma Mater, and we’re debating whether Dr. Gross’ example was INAPPROPRIATE or if indeed Bob received his graduate assistantship because he’s gay.....

Suffice it to say I believe Joe to Head and Shoulders above you folks and that even if his hair IS thinnng he’s a talented and handsome man.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"Let’s go with your explanation then. Point to any level of proof, from "preponderance of evidence" to beyond which supports the conjecture now being made concerning Greenwald to the exclusion of any other explanation."

Well, we don’t have videotape evidence. But have you been reading Ace on this?

Here is some of the evidence. I can’t say it’s all of it.

Someone has been posting comments complimentary about Greenwald all over the Internet, from Greenwald’s IP address, but under several different names. The comments all praise Greenwald. Many are similar in content, emphasizing the same four points about Greenwald’s alleged greatness. Several of the commenters’ names are similar: Ellison, Rick Ellersburg, and Thomas Ellers. Some of the commenters act as though they don’t know Greenwald; one quotes an e-mailed response from Greenwald to an accusation.

Greenwald denies that he made the comments and insinuates (but does not affirmatively claim) that it is someone else in the household. Without videotape of someone making the comments, it can’t be established beyond all doubt that he did it. But all the evidence points either to Greenwald, or to a person who is his carbon copy in personality, writing style and verbal tics. His English is flawless and idiomatic. He loves to say "to recap" at the end of his arguments. He is Greenwald-like in his obsessive interest in (and encyclopedic knowledge of) Greenwald.

Also, the commenter knows intimately the details of Greenwald’s site, including Greenwald’s arguments, his commenters, and the content of his posts and updates. He is savvy about the Internet and knows the names of all Greenwald’s critics. He finds all of the posts criticizing Greenwald’s arguments and makes Greenwald’s arguments for him. Although Greenwald often defends himself under his own name, Greenwald doesn’t feel the need to defend himself in the same threads where the same-IP commenter shows up to defend Greenwald. The commenter says things in comments one day, and these observations show up in Greenwald’s posts the next day.

Moreover, the commenter says the things about Greenwald that Greenwald probably wants to say — but that it would be unseemly for him to say. Greenwald is great. Senators read his stuff. It makes the papers. His 9-month rise has been meteoric. His book is a best-seller. Other bloggers — and he knows all their names — are just jealous morons.

And Greenwald sits back and says nothing — in threads we know for a fact that he has read, because he talks about them elsewhere.

It could be that Greenwald has found a boyfriend who is a carbon copy of himself, and is this obsessive about defending him. Interesting that we haven’t heard from him, then.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Greenwald denies that he made the comments and insinuates (but does not affirmatively claim) that it is someone else in the household. Without videotape of someone making the comments, it can’t be established beyond all doubt that he did it. But all the evidence points either to Greenwald, or to a person who is his carbon copy in personality, writing style and verbal tics. His English is flawless and idiomatic. He loves to say "to recap" at the end of his arguments. He is Greenwald-like in his obsessive interest in (and encyclopedic knowledge of) Greenwald.
You had me till here. Agreed someone has made comments and they’re similar, and, even, have the same style and hit the same points. But Greenwald’s English is not flawless. The one thing I noticed about the commenters as opposed to Greenwald is they said in a couple of hundred words what would take Greenwald a thousand. He is not succinct. He is verbose and he goes over points again and again. There is no reason to believe that were he doing the sock puppet thing he’d change that much.

Secondly whoever was writing the comments wrote more clearly than does Greenwald. As one of our commenters once pointed out to Greenwald in a comment, 100+ word sentences are not impressive, just confusing.

So, I see nothing in particular, to include an "obsessive interest" (which might very easily be explained as someone who loves him very much and would display such an interest), which says "Greenwald did it". And it certainly wouldn’t surprise me to find that he might be involved with someone who had a personality very much like his.
Moreover, the commenter says the things about Greenwald that Greenwald probably wants to say — but that it would be unseemly for him to say. Greenwald is great. Senators read his stuff. It makes the papers. His 9-month rise has been meteoric. His book is a best-seller. Other bloggers — and he knows all their names — are just jealous morons.
Sounds like something my wife would say, or my mother ... or, in his case, his partner. No doubt Greenwald would love to say it. That, of course, doesn’t mean he did. And, to this point, no one is even close to providing a compelling case that he has.
And Greenwald sits back and says nothing — in threads we know for a fact that he has read, because he talks about them elsewhere.

It could be that Greenwald has found a boyfriend who is a carbon copy of himself, and is this obsessive about defending him. Interesting that we haven’t heard from him, then.
Yeah ... it could also mean Greenwald doesn’t want to expose him to what we see going on now and additionally he doesn’t want to throw him under the bus. Greenwald has picked this venue and what comes with it. And, as someone suggested, he’s reaping what he has sown.

His partner hasn’t chosen to exist in this venue simply risen to defend someone he loves. If that is the case, I can respect Greenwald’s desire not to expose him to this if he can help it.

But again, I want to ask:
But he hasn’t really dealt with the questions, has he? He denied doing it; I’ll give him that. But he hasn’t explained what’s going on. He has only insinuated, in a deniable way.
And that leaves the ball in his court and the doubt on his shoulders.

That’s my point, Patterico. Why isn’t that enough?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I mean it’s flawless in the sense of relative to a non-native speaker. See e’s post.

Look at Ryan, commenting from Greenwald’s IP:

"You people are morons, seriously. You run around claiming things without having any idea if there true. And then when you get exposed as liars, you slink away and repeat the next lie."

"Slink away" is totally idiomatic. But the commenter says "there" when he means "they’re." So yes, flawless is an overstatement. But it’s pretty good and idiomatic for a non-native speaker.

But fine. You say the commenters’ English is too good. Others say it’s not good enough. Obviously we won’t get everyone to agree on this.

But read Ace’s post.

"Yeah ... it could also mean Greenwald doesn’t want to expose him to what we see going on now and additionally he doesn’t want to throw him under the bus. Greenwald has picked this venue and what comes with it. And, as someone suggested, he’s reaping what he has sown.

"His partner hasn’t chosen to exist in this venue simply risen to defend someone he loves. If that is the case, I can respect Greenwald’s desire not to expose him to this if he can help it."

Assuming the boyfriend theory is true, he has simply risen, time and time and time and time again, to defend someone he loves. By calling bloggers like me jealous morons. And now he is making the decision not to say anything about it, but rather to leave his boyfriend Glenn twisting.

I mean, he’s an adult. He can make his own choices. And if the boyfriend theory is true, it’s all his fault for going around saying stuff under various names from the same IP.

It’s not just Greenwald’s choice. It’s his boyfriend’s. And if his boyfriend is really the personality you claim he is, you’d think we’d hear from him. If he cares that much about Greenwald’s reputation, why remain silent?

(I still think we might. But I think that if we do, it will be a prepared statement. No questions afterwards. And it won’t answer all the questions.)

Finally, as to why it isn’t enough: because some people say the case isn’t proven. So why not get more evidence? Ace is doing that, like gangbusters. And he’s got a lotta convincing stuff.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
"You people are morons, seriously. You run around claiming things without having any idea if there true. And then when you get exposed as liars, you slink away and repeat the next lie."

"Slink away" is totally idiomatic. But the commenter says "there" when he means "they’re." So yes, flawless is an overstatement. But it’s pretty good and idiomatic for a non-native speaker.
And "there" may be an indication of a non-native speaker since it is not a mistake I’ve observed Greenwald making in his thousands of words.

The argument goes on, and, as you can see, nothing is settled, nor is it likely to be.
Assuming the boyfriend theory is true, he has simply risen, time and time and time and time again, to defend someone he loves. By calling bloggers like me jealous morons. And now he is making the decision not to say anything about it, but rather to leave his boyfriend Glenn twisting.

I mean, he’s an adult. He can make his own choices. And if the boyfriend theory is true, it’s all his fault for going around saying stuff under various names from the same IP.

It’s not just Greenwald’s choice. It’s his boyfriend’s. And if his boyfriend is really the personality you claim he is, you’d think we’d hear from him. If he cares that much about Greenwald’s reputation, why remain silent?
Because maybe that’s the way Greenwald prefers it and, frankly, it makes more sense than having him speak up. This is Greenwald’s world, not his partner’s. Again, if I were in Greenwald’s situation I’d most likely want precisely that ... silence. There’s no upside here for Greenwald and, leaving it as nebulous as it is (vs. confirming anything) is a much smarter tactical move than involving his partner... if the ’boyfriend theory’ is true.
Finally, as to why it isn’t enough: because some people say the case isn’t proven. So why not get more evidence? Ace is doing that, like gangbusters. And he’s got a lotta convincing stuff.
Why does the case have to be ’proven’? That was what I was asking ... there’s enough laying at his feet now (in terms of questions he won’t answer), isn’t the point pretty much sufficiently made? Isn’t that enough?

As for Ace, he better be digging up a lot more convincing stuff than I read this afternoon if he hopes to be taken seriously.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
You say in one comment that I lost you by saying that the English in the same-IP comments is too flawless. Now I give you an example of idiomatic English in which a mistake is made and you say it proves the English in the same-IP comments is not flawless enough.

I perfectly understand the difference between "there" and "they’re" and yet I’ve made the mistake before. The real question is the way of saying things. If you really go look at the Ellersburg and Ellison and Ellers comments, they’re very idiomatic. That’s the point.

Greenwald’s point is that no compelling case has been made that it’s him. Therefore, the implication goes, he shouldn’t have to respond. You think he should have to respond but don’t want anyone to work on gathering more evidence to put pressure on him to respond.

I don’t get it, really.

Let me ask you this: what factors would you look at in a situation like this to decide whether he is the guy hiding behind these pseudonyms or not?

I laid out a whole huge set of factors, and you picked at one: the idiomatic nature of the English, first telling me that the comments were too flawless, then not flawless enough. What about my other points? And what *should* we be looking at?

Or should we just let it drop, as Greenwald would so dearly like? Because he’s never going to address this stuff without more pressure.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Take a sample phrase without knowing who wrote it:

"It would also return the country to the pre-FISA era when the executive branch could eavesdrop on Americans with no meaningful oversight or limits, a situation which led to widespread abuse. It is critical that this bill be blocked and, surprisingly, there seems to be real opportunities to do just that."

No subject-verb agreement. But it’s otherwise, well, not flawless, but quite good English for a non-native speaker.

This was written either by Greenwald or a suspected sock-puppet. I’m not telling you which. Too flawless? Or not flawless enough?
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Oh for god’s sake, look, Brazilians speaking sophisticated, colloquial English have openly commented at Glenn’s blog. The one thread I recall best is from April — because the subject of crucifixion has a way of sticking in one’s mind — and included these comments, by a Brazilian familiar with Glenn, and with American political controversies.

Lookie here, here, and here.

There are some cosmopolitans in Brazil, you know, and not to put to fine a point on it, but these are Glenn’s peer group, world-wide. Whether Glenn wishes to elaborate on how he knows some of these Brazilians — who have commented at his blog — is up to him. I doubt he will, since he has actually important matters to address, including deadlines for commissioned articles and a book, and I also glean there are some privacy interests at play.

But Patterico et al., just have at it boys, go crazy with timelines and what not. Glenn almost certainly won’t respond, but it keeps you all out of mischief like, say, promoting World War III.

This is also likely to be the last substantive thing I will have to say about this absurd obsession y’all have.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Luckily, the point about the idiomatic nature of the suspected sock-puppets’ speech is the only piece of evidence that exists.

Except for the twenty or so others I mentioned above. Which have been ignored by everyone.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
You say in one comment that I lost you by saying that the English in the same-IP comments is too flawless. Now I give you an example of idiomatic English in which a mistake is made and you say it proves the English in the same-IP comments is not flawless enough.

I perfectly understand the difference between "there" and "they’re" and yet I’ve made the mistake before. The real question is the way of saying things. If you really go look at the Ellersburg and Ellison and Ellers comments, they’re very idiomatic. That’s the point.

Greenwald’s point is that no compelling case has been made that it’s him. Therefore, the implication goes, he shouldn’t have to respond. You think he should have to respond but don’t want anyone to work on gathering more evidence to put pressure on him to respond.

I don’t get it, really.
Well that makes two of us, because I don’t recognize much of anything I’ve argued in the above.

And it is not only Greenwald’s point but mine as well - no compelling case, to this point, has been made that it is him.

Frankly, I don’t think he should have to respond nor do I think it is worth anyone’s time to gather anything further in an attempt to force him to do so. This little dance is over. And unless Greenwald is a fool, you’re not going to hear a single solitary word from the man regardless of what you manage to dredge up. Because he, like me, knows that there’s nothing out there, short of a confession or a video tape, which can pin this on him with any credibility.
Let me ask you this: what factors would you look at in a situation like this to decide whether he is the guy hiding behind these pseudonyms or not?
Style. He has a distinct style and regardless of how careful he is, it will out. I’ve seen it happen before to others who’ve tried sock puppetry.

Spelling. People have a tendency to make the same small spelling mistakes over and over. Had a guy once who played sock puppet games who constantly typed "teh" for "the" when he was in a hurry. That with his distinct style finally busted him. Of course his style didn’t become obvious until he was convinced he’d fooled everyone, but the spelling mistake was what alerted us in the first place.

Those are two very common indicators of sock puppetry. And I don’t see them indicated in the comments you guys keep putting up there. While the ideas are similar, the style isn’t. And, like I said, "there" for "their" isn’t a Greenwald spelling mistake that I’ve ever seen.
Or should we just let it drop, as Greenwald would so dearly like? Because he’s never going to address this stuff without more pressure.
Do whatever you feel compelled to do Patterico. But if he has a brain in his head, you’re never going to hear a word from him and, as usually happens with this sort of stuff, at some point people are going to tire of it and begin to feel this is indeed becoming an obsession you just can’t find it in yourself to let go.

Oh and this:
"It would also return the country to the pre-FISA era when the executive branch could eavesdrop on Americans with no meaningful oversight or limits, a situation which led to widespread abuse. It is critical that this bill be blocked and, surprisingly, there seems to be real opportunities to do just that."

This was written either by Greenwald or a suspected sock-puppet. I’m not telling you which. Too flawless? Or not flawless enough?
Greenwald ... without a doubt. Check the style.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I’m guessing you checked before you said that. But let’s try another couple of examples. See if you can guess without checking.
I love how you criticize the post for being too long and then criticize it for not including enough examples.

. . . .

The article about Barr makes clear that the whole room hated Barr for criticizing Bush, not just one imbecile.

And if you’re not familiar with the way in which even life-long conservative Senators are no longer conservative when they jump out of line, it’s only because you don’t read the papers. . . .

And Michelle Malkin already advocates internment camps. It’s hardly “baseless” to think she would advocate new ones.

And you need to learn to read. . . . You mock that statement as some sort of contradiction. Do you really not understand the difference between advocating further powers but not advocating absolute powers? Apparently not.

And they just had a conservative event and the whole place erupted in cheers when Ann Coulter urged violence on ragheads and called for the deaths of liberal supreme court justices and bill clinton. Is that conservative to you or a cult?
Or this:
And despite your petulant and shrieking denials that this applies to you, it turns out that you are the Poster Child for the very hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty which Greenwald was highlighting.

Apology and retraction, indeed. I wouldn’t hold my breath for those if I were you. But I will give you credit for one thing - you picked an excellent time to declare your obsessive battle to be at an end.
or this:
And one other thing – in my update, I provide an example of conservatives who HATED FISA under Clinton and thought that eavesdropping on Americans, even with judicial oversight, was a dangerous threat to freedom.

Now, under Bush, conservatives not only love eavesdropping, but think that it’s fine that Bush is eavesdropping with no judicial oversight.

To recap:

Conservatives under Clinton – “eavesdropping with judicial oversight = fascism”

Conservatives under Bush – “eavesdropping with no judicial oversight = OK”

if you’re going to argue my point, you should argue the points, instead if pretending I had none.
The only thing I may have changed in the above posts is references to who’s talking.

Can you easily identify who wrote what on the basis of style?
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
I’m guessing you checked before you said that.
Really? And I’m guessing this assumption pretty much exemplifies what is going on with the great "Greenwald investigation."
But let’s try another couple of examples. See if you can guess without checking.
Uh, no, let’s not. I’m sure if I got them right I’d be accused of checking again. Obviously there can’t be any other explanation.

Sheesh.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Luckily, Greenwald focuses on the issues and not personalities. I haven’t read the guy, but as I browse through his site I see how clear it is. Here is his civil and urbane post mocking Karol of Alarming News for being wowed when she met Instapundit:
It’s hard to know what to even say about this, because every sentence mocks itself so enthusiastically and thoroughly that it leaves no room for added ridicule. But it’s also too extreme not to post about, so I think it’s best to just pass it along.

It’s a drooling report from a young woman named Karol at AlarmingNews.com. She apparently attended the blogger bash celebrating the launch of that new, monumentally revolutionary site, Open Source Media, and she is simply besides herself at having met all of her favorite blogging stars.

Here is an excerpt of Karol, bubbling over with a truly toxic mix of glee and awe:

[quotes Karol]

It is too pure to add anything to. It deserves to stand alone, as a monument to so many things.
Because it’s about the substance!

Yeah, it would be just *awful* to learn that this guy is a dishonest weasel posting self-congratulatory fluff behind other people’s names. We should really leave this one alone, despite the facts — letting our silence be a monument to the great, honest, substantive, and above all CIVIL Glenn Greenwald. All hail Glenn!
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
McQ, if you say you really didn’t check I’ll believe you.

I find your hyper-focus on only one small part of the many pieces of evidence I cited to be puzzling. But I think you’re an honest guy. And I really am interested in your view.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
We’ve lasered in on style, so here’s another quote:
Notice how "suspected enemy combatants" morphed right into "enemy combatants" - no evidence, no trial, no conviction - nothing needed. Just the decree of the Leader is enough to remove all of your rights. "Supected (by the president) enemy combatant" = "enemy combatant" = "no rights of any kind." That is their vision of the United States, in a nutshell.
In some ways, this is the most important example of the ones I’ve cited so far. So if you respond to just one, respond to this one. Who wrote it?
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Another example of the important kind:
In case you didn’t notice, I didn’t write about that topic, even though one of his posts included a reference to something I wrote, because the notion that liberal bloggers write what Kos tells them too is, in my view, too stupid to merit a response.

But what does merit examiniation is why this "journalist" published a fake e-mail in TNR in order to advance his anti-blogger crusade, and how it could possibly be the case that he was telling the truth that the e-mail camse from "three sources." I can’t imagine anyone not thinking that those questions need to be answered.
Too flawless, or not flawless enough?
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
I find your hyper-focus on only one small part of the many pieces of evidence I cited to be puzzling. But I think you’re an honest guy. And I really am interested in your view.
I’ve given it. Don’t know what else to say. I’ve read the "evidence". As I said I was "with you" until you got to the comparisons and my experience with past users who’ve used sock puppets just didn’t track with what you were contending. I didn’t see what you thought I should see.

I think it is the the partner. I think he got tired of seeing Greenwald abused and tried to help. It was obviously a bad idea.

I think Greenwald is bright enough to know that no matter what you contend or assert you will never have enough to say definitively one way or the other what really happened. He is also bright enough to know that saying nothing is absolutely his best defense.

So, I think this goes nowhere but highlighting what some may find to be obsessive behavior on the part of those who continue to chase and post and chase and post and chase and post about something the object of their chasing and posting is ignoring and has moved beyond.

Your point has been made. Accept that (and it’s limits) and do the same.

If you’re really interested in my view, that’s it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
It’s possible. If his boyfriend is just like him in every respect, it’s possible.

But you’ve lasered in on style as the benchmark, and you know his writing better than I do, so I would be curious to know if you think you can discount or accept any of the examples I have given.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
If Greenwald doesn’t have sock puppets he has groupies.

We may be witnessing the birth of a new phenomenon in the blogosphere: the first blogger to develop his own cult of personality.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
In some ways, this is the most important example of the ones I’ve cited so far. So if you respond to just one, respond to this one. Who wrote it?
Greenwald.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
So you haven’t replied on:
And one other thing – in my update, I provide an example of conservatives who HATED FISA under Clinton and thought that eavesdropping on Americans, even with judicial oversight, was a dangerous threat to freedom.

Now, under Bush, conservatives not only love eavesdropping, but think that it’s fine that Bush is eavesdropping with no judicial oversight.

To recap:

Conservatives under Clinton – “eavesdropping with judicial oversight = fascism”

Conservatives under Bush – “eavesdropping with no judicial oversight = OK”

if you’re going to argue my point, you should argue the points, instead if pretending I had none.
But you confidently said "Greenwald" on this:
Notice how "suspected enemy combatants" morphed right into "enemy combatants" - no evidence, no trial, no conviction - nothing needed. Just the decree of the Leader is enough to remove all of your rights. "Supected (by the president) enemy combatant" = "enemy combatant" = "no rights of any kind." That is their vision of the United States, in a nutshell.
I am wondering what about the second comment allows you to say, with confidence, that it was written by Glenn Greenwald — and whether that logic applies to the first comment.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
So you haven’t replied on:
No ... you asked if I was going to reply on one, to make it that one, so I did. I knew when I did it I probably shouldn’t have, but then it was fairly obvious so I noted the author.
I am wondering what about the second comment allows you to say, with confidence, that it was written by Glenn Greenwald — and whether that logic applies to the first comment.
The style and the use of the word "Leader". I recall him using "Leader" mockingly before.

I’m tired of this Patterico. I didn’t plan to spend the night trying to satisfy you that I am able to identify Greenwald’s style.

I’ve had my say. You’ve had yours. Ironically I said these very words (or very similar words) to Greenwald last week as I ended an exchange with him.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ,

Since you’re buddies with Greenwald, why don’t you ask him what the Magic Boyfriend does for a living?

See, the Sock-Puppet posts often occur during working hours. Unless he, like Glenn, can work from home, he can’t have posted from home, no?

Oh, wait— let’s not ask questions like that. Let’s just take Greenwald’s word for it. It’s so obvious that a boyfriend would be this dedicated to not only defending someone on other blogs, but also remaking all of their arguments, and in some cases making their arguments *before* the actual blogger gets around to it.

 
Written By: acd
URL: http://www.ace.mu.nu
Mona says:
Glenn almost certainly won’t respond, but it keeps you all out of mischief like, say, promoting World War III.
Ahhhh, but will he keep his hatchet handy? You know how he loves swinging it. Will his terribly oppressive schedule still allow for smearing other bloggers?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Patterico says:
Yeah, it would be just *awful* to learn that this guy is a dishonest weasel posting self-congratulatory fluff behind other people’s names. We should really leave this one alone, despite the facts — letting our silence be a monument to the great, honest, substantive, and above all CIVIL Glenn Greenwald. All hail Glenn!
I believe that according to that bastion of Libertarianism, the Townhouse mailing list, the proper terminology is that the story should be "starved of oxygen".
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
McQ,

Since you’re buddies with Greenwald, why don’t you ask him what the Magic Boyfriend does for a living?
I love perfect examples and this is a perfect example of why I’m simply not impressed with most of what you have to say.

So back to your little scavenger hunt ... away with you now. Shouldn’t waste time dropping little word bombs on other’s lawns when you have a big lawn of your own already studded with them.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Your comment sounds like you think that was me.

That was Pablo.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Oh, and: hey, Glenn.

I mean, I know you’re reading this. Just thought I’d say hey.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
That was Pablo.
No, it wasn’t.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Okey-dokey then.

Anyway, it wasn’t me.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Your comment sounds like you think that was me.
It was Ace. The same guy who said he’d never heard of us after linking to stories of ours numerous times.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Oh, right. Got mixed up on the comments.

See my comment at Dale’s new thread. I see you’re signing onto the effort to discredit another blogger by doing Internet research to expose what you believe is his dishonesty about you and/or your site. If I were the sarcastic type, I’d decry this and tell you to move on dot org, but I have a serious response to it at Dale’s thread which I don’t want to repeat in its entirety here.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
I think Patterico has a point when he says "this guy has questioned my honesty and integrity, and lied doing it." Most honest people who have looked into it agree with his point. But after you’ve countered the argument, does it require one to then to embark on a campaign of personal destruction?
Yes, it does. What GG did was utterly outside the pale. For that he should be crushed, mocked, and treated like the contemptible worm that he is.

I wouldn’t support a right-wing blogger who did something like that, I don’t see any reason why we should cut a leftie who did that the slightest bit of slack.
 
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