For Whom Does the Paperboy Toll?

Blogosphere • Views: 18,928

Shrieking harpy said what? “He’s a traitor, a turncoat, a plant. We may not know for years what actually happened.”

Insert sigh.

I have a few significant disagreements with the angle taken by Jonathan Dee in his profile for the New York Times, most of all his willingness to accept unverifiable anecdotal information from people who post comments on the Internet under fake names, to claim that their LGF accounts were blocked simply for disagreeing with me — a claim which, in the vast majority of cases, is simply not true.

It’s a little odd to point out at the beginning of the article that there were extremist comments posted at LGF in the early days of the blog, but then turn around and imply that I’m over-reacting today by taking a firmer hand toward policing said comments and commenters. Damned if you don’t, then damned if you do.

And it’s pretty surreal for a writer in the New York Times to be treating anti-Muslim Birther nutjobs like Pamela Geller as if their opinions are credible. Geller and the others Dee quoted in his article are the kind of people the Times would normally assign to the “wacko far right bigot” category.

Another nitpick: Dee implies that I link too much to blog posts and articles about myself — does that mean I shouldn’t link to his NYT article? Since I’m the guy whose name is on this blog, should I just ignore everything written about me? Or should I occasionally respond to the posts on other blogs that call me out by my real name?

A while back I decided it’s best to occasionally respond, especially when there are factual issues at stake (not just ad hominem nonsense), because the best way to deal with defamatory statements on the Internet is to make sure your defense shows up in a Google search too.

Note that if you go through the articles that appear on LGF’s front page, only a very tiny percentage fit Dee’s description; I consciously try to keep those “meta” posts to a minimum.

Guess I shouldn’t complain too much, though; I expected a negative tilt after some of the things I’ve written about the New York Times over the past decade. Could have been worse.

Jump to bottom

253 comments
1 albusteve  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 6:58:50pm

I'm thinking key chains, pens, tee shirts...that sort of thing...maybe a book

2 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:00:40pm

Wow. For a blog that is circling the drain, loosing all relevance, and getting barely any visitors anymore, you sure do get a lot of press coverage Charles.
/

3 albusteve  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:01:31pm

Charles is dragged into the limelight, rather that pursuing it....his commenters may be a bit narcissistic tho

4 albusteve  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:02:24pm

I'm working on a new hair do...like it?

5 freetoken  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:02:39pm

I like the little graphic that accompanies the article.

6 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:02:41pm

I love when people try to tell others what 'should' be on their blogs.


If charles wanted to write about knitting, or even about the neccesity of Jihad, he'd be totally in his rights ;)

7 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:03:41pm

What is that sulfuric reek I detect?

Could it be seething from the JW camp?

8 shala  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:04:11pm

Always a little jarring to see newspapers running stories about internet blogs...

9 brookly red  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:04:25pm

I won't sit down in the subway if a NYT has touched the seat.

10 Dancing along the light of day  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:04:41pm

LOL!
You're over the target when you're receiving the most flak!
So irrelevant, that your statistics are pretty damn big!

11 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:04:46pm

re: #3 albusteve

Charles is dragged into the limelight, rather that pursuing it...his commenters may be a bit narcissistic tho

What?

re: #4 albusteve

I'm working on a new hair do...like it?

Oh.

12 albusteve  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:04:51pm

re: #7 Cato the Elder

What is that sulfuric reek I detect?

Could it be seething from the JW camp?

either that, or it's GB leaving the podium

13 ryannon  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:05:35pm

re: #9 brookly red

I won't sit down in the subway if a NYT has touched the seat.

I drop whatever it is I'm going and go home to take a shower if one so much as crosses my path.

14 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:06:31pm
willingness to accept unverifiable anecdotal information

From the NYT? Neverrr.

15 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:08:01pm

re: #9 brookly red

I won't sit down in the subway if a NYT has touched the seat.

What if you can use it to sponge up a stain?

16 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:08:20pm

You grew up in Hawaii after being born in New York... doesn't that make you like the Anti-Obama?

17 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:08:33pm
Johnson, an agnostic and a Gentile, is a fierce supporter of Israel, mostly on account of the affection he developed for it as a touring musician


Uh, I suspect there are larger reasons.

18 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:09:19pm

re: #17 Killgore Trout

Uh, I suspect there are larger reasons.

Yeah. I'm still scratching my head over that one.

19 brookly red  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:09:48pm

re: #15 Slumbering Behemoth

What if you can use it to sponge up a stain?

there are no longer any puppies in my home... I need not the Times.

20 Ojoe  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:10:39pm

I find the NYT insufferable except for the science section.

21 MittDoesNotCompute  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:11:18pm

re: #18 MandyManners

Yeah. I'm still scratching my head over that one.

Some highly cloaked anti-Semitism from Dee and the NYT on the sly, perhaps?

/color me cynical...

22 albusteve  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:11:25pm

re: #17 Killgore Trout

Uh, I suspect there are larger reasons.

that is so shallow it's laughable

23 brookly red  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:12:01pm

re: #20 Ojoe

I find the NYT insufferable except for the science section.

kinda makes you doubt that section too...

24 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:13:41pm

heh, I've never actually read a NYT, but the hardcore emotional reaction it gets from people is always amazing >>

25 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:13:44pm

re: #19 brookly red

there are no longer any puppies in my home... I need not the Times.

No, I mean stains on subway seats. If there is one seat with a stain, and one with the NYT on it, do you sit in the stain? Stand? Use the NYT to soak up the stain, and then stand anyhow?

26 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:14:06pm

re: #21 talon_262

Some highly cloaked anti-Semitism from Dee and the NYT on the sly, perhaps?

/color me cynical...

Not too much on the sly.

27 brookly red  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:14:29pm

re: #25 Slumbering Behemoth

No, I mean stains on subway seats. If there is one seat with a stain, and one with the NYT on it, do you sit in the stain? Stand? Use the NYT to soak up the stain, and then stand anyhow?

stand or change cars...

28 MittDoesNotCompute  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:15:25pm

re: #23 brookly red

kinda makes you doubt that section too...

I put the NYT and her ilk in the same category as Wikipedia nowadays...on subjects with hard, verifiable facts (such as science and tech), it's a good reference, but on "softer" subjects (like politics, religion, or anything else subject to an injection of the author's opinion), it ain't worth a shit.

29 brookly red  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:17:03pm

re: #28 talon_262

I put the NYT and her ilk in the same category as Wikipedia nowadays...on subjects with hard, verifiable facts (such as science and tech), it's a good reference, but on "softer" subjects (like politics, religion, or anything else subject to an injection of the author's opinion), it ain't worth a shit.

corrupt is corrupt, I won't touch it.

30 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:17:07pm

I am particularly disappointed that Dee seems to take the word of a notoriously deranged loon like Pam "Smearnoff" Geller as a reliable source without so much as a glance at the crazy hall of mirrors that is her site.

Do NYT reporters actually use the web when reporting on it?

31 lawhawk  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:17:21pm

Seems that more time was spent trying to find detractors than to find supporters out there. Pulling the derogatory quotes from the various threads by posters, and then not mentioning that many of them were banned for pushing those kinds of comments (like the genocidal crap). It was quite superficial over how the VB stuff went down, and how and why you implored Spencer and Geller and the rest to shy away from the Eurofascists.

32 recusancy  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:17:28pm

re: #28 talon_262

I put the NYT and her ilk in the same category as Wikipedia nowadays...on subjects with hard, verifiable facts (such as science and tech), it's a good reference, but on "softer" subjects (like politics, religion, or anything else subject to an injection of the author's opinion), it ain't worth a shit.

So they're good journalists, you just don't like their opinions on things. That's fine. I wish more on the right could differentiate like that instead of writing the whole thing off because of perceived liberal bias.

33 brookly red  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:18:01pm

re: #30 Cato the Elder

I am particularly disappointed that Dee seems to take the word of a notoriously deranged loon like Pam "Smearnoff" Geller as a reliable source without so much as a glance at the crazy hall of mirrors that is her site.

Do NYT reporters actually use the web when reporting on it?

only to download their orders...

34 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:18:17pm

re: #30 Cato the Elder

Am I alone in always immediately thinking of Uri Geller when I hear that name?

35 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:18:44pm

re: #32 recusancy

So they're good journalists, you just don't like their opinions on things. That's fine. I wish more on the right could differentiate like that instead of writing the whole thing off because of perceived liberal bias.

Reporters should not let their opinions come through.

36 albusteve  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:18:51pm

the ranch boss here at Ft Willow is a New Yorker and has read the Times his entire life...a liberal, artist, and scholar, he laughs at their coverage and openly derides their fall....but he still reads it everyday

37 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:19:12pm

The author doesn't think much of bloggers and the internet in general. He did a pretty thorough writeup but the assignment probably should have gone to someone with better knowledge of blogs.

38 MittDoesNotCompute  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:19:20pm

re: #24 windsagio

heh, I've never actually read a NYT, but the hardcore emotional reaction it gets from people is always amazing

The Old Gray Lady has shown what an opportunistic attention whore she is in her old age.

/my apologies to any other opportunistic attention whores out there...

39 albusteve  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:21:10pm

re: #38 talon_262

The Old Gray Lady has shown what an opportunistic attention whore she is in her old age.

/my apologies to any other opportunistic attention whores out there...

$5 a share!...hahaha!...okay, I haven't checked recently

40 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:21:17pm
He has turned forcefully against Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, nearly every conservative icon you can name.

If those are today's conservative icons, then the movement died with Buckley and Goldwater.

:sigh:

41 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:21:52pm

re: #35 MandyManners

All reporters do, one way or another.

There's a groupthink hatred of the NYT that's just silly.

re: #38 talon_262

Or, maybe people are selling a line of goods to discredit something they perceive as an enemy :p

+ for the apology tho ;)

42 albusteve  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:23:01pm

re: #41 windsagio

All reporters do, one way or another.

There's a groupthink hatred of the NYT that's just silly.

re: #38 talon_262

Or, maybe people are selling a line of goods to discredit something they perceive as an enemy :p

+ for the apology tho ;)


good one

43 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:23:07pm

re: #41 windsagio

All reporters do, one way or another.

There's a groupthink hatred of the NYT that's just silly.

re: #38 talon_262

Or, maybe people are selling a line of goods to discredit something they perceive as an enemy :p

+ for the apology tho ;)

No. When I was a in school and when I was a reporter, we were allowed to have opinions but we were not supposed to show them.

44 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:23:14pm

re: #21 talon_262

Whoa. Beyond dogwhistle. Ultrasonic anti semitism?

45 MittDoesNotCompute  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:23:22pm

re: #32 recusancy

So they're good journalists, you just don't like their opinions on things. That's fine. I wish more on the right could differentiate like that instead of writing the whole thing off because of perceived liberal bias.

A writer's opinions in an article are just fine, so long as those articles are opinion pieces (clearly marked as such) and are not been passed off as news pieces. Personal bias does not belong in news stories...

/just the facts, ma'am

46 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:23:50pm

re: #30 Cato the Elder

No

47 BruceKelly  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:23:57pm

re: #32 recusancy

So they're good journalists, you just don't like their opinions on things. That's fine. I wish more on the right could differentiate like that instead of writing the whole thing off because of perceived liberal bias.

The bias isn't so much in the reporting itself but in what stories they choose and where they place them within the paper.

48 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:24:07pm

re: #31 lawhawk

Seems that more time was spent trying to find detractors than to find supporters out there. Pulling the derogatory quotes from the various threads by posters, and then not mentioning that many of them were banned for pushing those kinds of comments (like the genocidal crap). It was quite superficial over how the VB stuff went down, and how and why you implored Spencer and Geller and the rest to shy away from the Eurofascists.

I know that both Thanos's and Sharmuta's comments were left on the cutting room floor.

49 recusancy  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:24:14pm

re: #43 MandyManners

No. When I was a in school and when I was a reporter, we were allowed to have opinions but we were not supposed to show them.

Yes. But you're human. So eventually a bias will show through every once and a while that you are unaware of.

50 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:24:20pm
Spencer says: “I have actually had people contact me and say, ‘I understand you’re the American representative for Vlaams Belang.’ And that is because of Johnson.”


Lol

51 recusancy  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:24:37pm

re: #44 Rightwingconspirator

Whoa. Beyond dogwhistle. Ultrasonic anti semitism?

What?

52 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:24:51pm

re: #34 windsagio

Me too. i guess he ruined the brand.

53 brookly red  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:25:25pm

re: #48 Charles

I know that both Thanos's and Sharmuta's comments were left on the cutting room floor.

no they were filed in case they were useful later...

54 recusancy  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:25:33pm

re: #47 BruceKelly

The bias isn't so much in the reporting itself but in what stories they choose and where they place them within the paper.

Yes. That can often be the case.

55 jaunte  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:25:33pm

Not impressed with Jonathan Dee the reporter. Maybe he's too busy being a novelist.

56 MittDoesNotCompute  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:25:40pm

re: #50 Killgore Trout

Lol

He and the Shrieking Harpy might as well be the US reps of VB with their track records...

57 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:26:11pm

re: #8 shala

Always a little jarring to see newspapers running stories about internet blogs...

As opposed to print blogs?

58 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:26:17pm

re: Charles

most of all his willingness to accept unverifiable anecdotal information from people who post comments on the Internet under fake names, to claim that their LGF accounts were blocked simply for disagreeing with me — a claim which, in the vast majority of cases, is simply not true.

What nonsense is this? I observed closely the account blocking process during the height and I did not witness a single case in which a poster was blocked simply for disagreeing with Charles.

Moreover I have frequently disagreed with Charles quite vocally on hot issues such as AGW and I've never been blocked or even had it hinted as possible!

What sort of a lazy hack would write such a thing without seeking comments from the active posters here? Oh yes, a member of the vile main stream media.

I am not amused.

59 Varek Raith  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:26:29pm

re: #50 Killgore Trout

Lol

HAH!
You reap what you sow, Spencer!
HAH!

60 BruceKelly  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:26:43pm

re: #40 Slumbering Behemoth

If those are today's conservative icons, then the movement died with Buckley and Goldwater.

:sigh:

God I wish it wasn't true.

61 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:26:45pm

re: #49 recusancy

Yes. But you're human. So eventually a bias will show through every once and a while that you are unaware of.

Two ways in which bias is present are what stories are covered and who is quoted.

62 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:27:14pm

re: #40 Slumbering Behemoth

They are Not. Unless you ask the critical left.

63 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:27:43pm

re: #43 MandyManners

Thats unfortunately not reality in any Journalism. Look up Mark Twain's writings on journalism sometime, very interesting (if 150 years out of date :p)

re: #44 Rightwingconspirator

Who is that anti-semitism supposed to appeal to? They sell alot of the NYT in Palestine?

I'm confused.

64 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:27:56pm

re: #60 BruceKelly

God I wish it wasn't true.

It's not true.

65 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:28:00pm

re: #44 Rightwingconspirator

It might just be typical progressive dislike for Israel but I think it's probably just his attempt do look down and belittle the Charles' opinion. I was going to attempt to be nicer but the...... (rest of this comment has been redacted).

66 laZardo  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:28:19pm

re: #50 Killgore Trout

ROFLMAO and now I need surgery ):

67 albusteve  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:28:27pm

re: #58 Bagua

What nonsense is this? I observed closely the account blocking process during the height and I did not witness a single case in which a poster was blocked simply for disagreeing with Charles.

Moreover I have frequently disagreed with Charles quite vocally on hot issues such as AGW and I've never been blocked or even had it hinted as possible!

What sort of a lazy hack would write such a thing without seeking comments from the active posters here? Oh yes, a member of the vile main stream media.

I am not amused.

did you expect something different?...sit back and have a good laugh bro

68 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:28:34pm

re: #63 windsagio

Thats unfortunately not reality in any Journalism. Look up Mark Twain's writings on journalism sometime, very interesting (if 150 years out of date :p)

re: #44 Rightwingconspirator

Who is that anti-semitism supposed to appeal to? They sell alot of the NYT in Palestine?

I'm confused.

Are you or have you ever been a reporter? I was for a long time.

69 brookly red  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:29:05pm

re: #41 windsagio

All reporters do, one way or another.

There's a groupthink hatred of the NYT that's just silly.

I am born and raised NY and I don't need no groupthink to tell me that they are tools.

70 MittDoesNotCompute  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:29:06pm

re: #49 recusancy

Yes. But you're human. So eventually a bias will show through every once and a while that you are unaware of.

And a good reporter will recognize that and minimize injecting their personal biases into their work, if they're writing hard news...amoral and no-talent hacks just don't give a f**k.

/not a J-school graduate, but I have a B.S. in mass comm (which included journalism courses)

71 Dr. Shalit  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:29:53pm

re: #51 recusancy

What?

Kinda Like the Stuff the ADL/Abe Foxman unleashed today against Rush Limbaugh? Discussion? -S-

72 BruceKelly  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:30:08pm

re: #49 recusancy

Yes. But you're human. So eventually a bias will show through every once and a while that you are unaware of.

That's what editors are for.

73 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:30:50pm

re: #72 BruceKelly

That's what editors are for.

The problem is when editors share the same biases.

74 MittDoesNotCompute  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:30:51pm

re: #72 BruceKelly

That's what editors are for.

DING DING DING...we have a winnah!1!!!1!

75 brookly red  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:31:04pm

re: #63 windsagio

Who is that anti-semitism supposed to appeal to? They sell alot of the NYT in Palestine?

I'm confused.

they sell a lot of Palestine in the NYT though...

76 albusteve  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:31:08pm

re: #63 windsagio

Thats unfortunately not reality in any Journalism. Look up Mark Twain's writings on journalism sometime, very interesting (if 150 years out of date :p)

re: #44 Rightwingconspirator

Who is that anti-semitism supposed to appeal to? They sell alot of the NYT in Palestine?

I'm confused.

I'll bet...you've never noticed the Time is read world wide and there are millions of Jew haters here in the states alone?...pretty confusing I guess

77 MittDoesNotCompute  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:31:14pm

re: #73 MandyManners

The problem is when editors share the same biases.

Exactly...

78 recusancy  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:31:31pm

re: #72 BruceKelly

That's what editors are for.

And sometimes the truth won't be down the middle of the political spectrum.

79 mich-again  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:31:46pm

I thought the history part of the saga of LGF was pretty well balanced, but the author went off in the weeds when he tried to analyze Charles' motives and tactics. He's been listening to that whack job Gellar too much. She's been working that guy a while to get her story out like that.

80 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:32:12pm

re: #68 MandyManners

Yes, because that gives you perfect knowledge. Consider what you're arguing. As I understand it you're arguing that the NYT is bad because it lets its opinion drive its reporting, but other newspapers don't do that.

Thats not a very good position to take.


re: #73 MandyManners

Or are worse :p

81 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:32:24pm

If the NYT has problems grokking Charles, I'd love to see what would come of a full-blown look-see at the myriad miasmas surrounding "Atlas Shrugs".

82 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:32:58pm

re: #76 albusteve

so you think they believe they'll sell more papers by being antisemetic than they would the other way around?

Ok, if you say so.

83 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:33:01pm

re: #77 talon_262

Exactly...

Another problem is when the biases aren't noticed by either because they're part of their Weltanschauung.

84 jaunte  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:33:27pm

Some funny lines from the piece:

"...the anecdotal evidence to the contrary..."
"It has been suggested online..."
"Many on the Internet cite as evidence..."


Is this a newspaper report?

85 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:33:56pm

re: #80 windsagio

Yes, because that gives you perfect knowledge. Consider what you're arguing. As I understand it you're arguing that the NYT is bad because it lets its opinion drive its reporting, but other newspapers don't do that.

Thats not a very good position to take.


re: #73 MandyManners

Or are worse :p

I've never said other MFM don't do it. Quite a few of them do.

86 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:34:11pm

Mr. Dee seems to have a serious hate-on for "new media".

87 mich-again  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:34:34pm

re: #84 jaunte

Is this a newspaper report?


I saw it on the internet so it must be true.

88 jaunte  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:35:15pm

re: #87 mich-again

"In some research I did one afternoon..."

89 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:35:17pm

re: #86 Slumbering Behemoth

Mr. Dee seems to have a serious hate-on for "new media".

Because it challenges the old MFM.

90 BruceKelly  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:35:41pm

re: #64 MandyManners

It's not true.

I didn't mean the movement. It's so called icons that bother me.

91 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:35:52pm

re: #84 jaunte

Some funny lines from the piece:

Is this a newspaper report?

I'd flunk him.

92 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:36:14pm

re: #48 Charles

First article I have read about you I did not like. Just from my chair-You were more open with this writer than others, and got rewarded by a slap from a condescending anti blog fool.

The insights into where you grew up were interesting. Classy & classical liberal. With a keen sense of self defense. For some reason that keen sense, or the "9/11 conservative" just shows another odd media bias that defense is conservative. Self defense is universal. Protecting ones nation or family is just basic human behavior.

93 Dancing along the light of day  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:36:23pm

re: #81 Cato the Elder

If the NYT has problems grokking Charles, I'd love to see what would come of a full-blown look-see at the myriad miasmas surrounding "Atlas Shrugs".

I'd read it, if you wrote it!

94 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:36:26pm

re: #90 BruceKelly

I didn't mean the movement. It's so called icons that bother me.

Don't let the MFM tell you who your icons are.

95 albusteve  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:37:16pm

re: #82 windsagio

so you think they believe they'll sell more papers by being antisemetic than they would the other way around?

Ok, if you say so.

anti-Semitism is a world wide multi billion dollar industry...readership, hits, advertising, the UN, Gaza...Jews are a real moneymaker...like that

96 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:37:53pm

re: #85 MandyManners

I've never said other MFM don't do it. Quite a few of them do.

(spam ahead)

re: #32 recusancy

So they're good journalists, you just don't like their opinions on things. That's fine. I wish more on the right could differentiate like that instead of writing the whole thing off because of perceived liberal bias.

re: #35 MandyManners

Reporters should not let their opinions come through.

re: #41 windsagio

All reporters do, one way or another.

...

re: #43 MandyManners

No. When I was a in school and when I was a reporter, we were allowed to have opinions but we were not supposed to show them.

~~~

You're clearly implying that the NYT is worse than other newspapers for letting their opinions show. I'll admit that you didn't use 'all', tho'

97 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:38:26pm

re: #86 Slumbering Behemoth

yeah, what Mandy said. He sees his rent money about to go up in smoke >>

98 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:38:30pm

re: #62 Rightwingconspirator

They are Not. Unless you ask the critical left.

There certainly are many on the right who think they are. I don't, and I can't really be surprised when those on the left take that ball and run with it. It's a friggin' "gimmie" wrapped in a pretty bow.

99 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:39:00pm

re: #51 recusancy

I was responding to
Some highly cloaked anti-Semitism from Dee and the NYT on the sly, perhaps?

100 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:39:05pm

re: #93 Floral Giraffe

I'd read it, if you wrote it!

It would at the very least give me a rare opportunity to use the word "mephitic" in a sentence.

101 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:39:44pm

re: #86 Slumbering Behemoth

Mr. Dee seems to have a serious hate-on for "new media".

Not surprising. Sites like this have cut greatly into the NYT's circulation. The NYT has a major case of butthurt where blogs are concerned.

102 brookly red  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:40:05pm

as a New Yorker I reserve the right to just gag & wretch when the times is mentioned... sorry that's all for now see y'all tomorrow.

103 recusancy  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:41:32pm

re: #99 Rightwingconspirator

I was responding to
Some highly cloaked anti-Semitism from Dee and the NYT on the sly, perhaps?

I said "what" because I thought it was ridiculous. You're looking around every corner and shadow for antisemitism. No different then Alex Jones looking around every corner for teh joos.

104 MittDoesNotCompute  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:41:40pm

re: #102 brookly red

as a New Yorker I reserve the right to just gag & wretch when the times is mentioned... sorry that's all for now see y'all tomorrow.

GN red...

105 Dr. Shalit  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:41:53pm

re: #75 brookly red

Who is that anti-semitism supposed to appeal to? They sell alot of the NYT in Palestine?

I'm confused.


they sell a lot of Palestine in the NYT though...

Brookly Red -

Understand the concept of "?" First, Jewish second. In, and before the 1939-41 era, my Grandfather bought bananas from "Rosen the Communist"
for his grocery store. Rosen was a Communist before the Ribbentrop Pact and after - UNTIL - the USSR was invaded. Rosen then joined the "War Effort" about 6 months BEFORE Pearl Harbor. His "Religion" was clear -
COMMUNISM before JUDAISM.
After the War, Grandpa helped run guns to the Hagannah at personal Legal Risk. Rosen did nothing, HIS 'religious' leaders gave no clear direction in the USA. Hope you get the idea from this reply.

-S-

106 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:43:42pm

re: #75 brookly red

hah missed that. I don't agree, but brilliantly said :)

107 BruceKelly  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:43:46pm

re: #81 Cato the Elder

If the NYT has problems grokking Charles, I'd love to see what would come of a full-blown look-see at the myriad miasmas surrounding "Atlas Shrugs".

First "Kilroy" and now "grokking." I'm starting to feel at home here.

108 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:45:55pm

re: #103 recusancy

Downding for comparing RWC with Alex Jones. That is insulting.

109 BruceKelly  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:46:37pm

re: #80 windsagio

Yes, because that gives you perfect knowledge. Consider what you're arguing. As I understand it you're arguing that the NYT is bad because it lets its opinion drive its reporting, but other newspapers don't do that.

Thats not a very good position to take.

Of course they do , but we're talking about the NYT tonight.

110 BruceKelly  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:47:47pm

re: #86 Slumbering Behemoth

Mr. Dee seems to have a serious hate-on for "new media".

A hate-on!? Damn that must hurt.

111 MittDoesNotCompute  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:47:48pm

re: #103 recusancy

I said "what" because I thought it was ridiculous. You're looking around every corner and shadow for antisemitism. No different then Alex Jones looking around every corner for teh joos.

The Old Gray Lady's history of printing her writers'/editors'/owners' anti-Semitism (however cloaked or cryptic) for all the world to read is wide and deep...

112 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:48:28pm

re: #111 talon_262

The Old Gray Lady's history of printing her writers'/editors'/owners' anti-Semitism (however cloaked or cryptic) for all the world to read is wide and deep...

And well know.

113 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:48:49pm

known

114 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:49:04pm

re: #109 BruceKelly

arrgh, as per the following thread, I don't wanna be 'that guy'... That being said, PLEASE be freakin' careful with the stupid tags. Its agonizing!


as to the content, the point is the demonization of the NYT. Its not a better paper, but its also not the awful propaganda rag people like to depict it as.

115 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:49:06pm

Criticism for someone who speaks against anti-Semitism? I wonder *that* is called.

116 SpaceJesus  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:49:14pm

what the hell is the pile of bullshit in front of me here

117 MittDoesNotCompute  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:49:19pm

re: #108 Dark_Falcon

Downding for comparing RWC with Alex Jones. That is insulting.

Actually, I believe recusancy was initially referring to me, but no matter...

118 Dr. Shalit  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:49:22pm

re: #111 talon_262

talon_262 -

"?" first, Jewish Second - 'Ya think?

-S-

119 BruceKelly  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:49:40pm

re: #94 MandyManners

Don't let the MFM tell you who your icons are.

Thanks, I needed that.

120 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:49:53pm

re: #110 BruceKelly

A hate-on!? Damn that must hurt.

If you experience a hate-on lasting more than 4 hours, or one accompanied by butthurt, seek immediate psychiatric help.

121 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:50:03pm

re: #114 windsagio

arrgh, as per the following thread, I don't wanna be 'that guy'... That being said, PLEASE be freakin' careful with the stupid tags. Its agonizing!


as to the content, the point is the demonization of the NYT. Its not a better paper, but its also not the awful propaganda rag people like to depict it as.

How do you know? Per your No. 24, you've never read it.

122 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:50:20pm

re: #58 Bagua

Hmm. I had promised myself not to get into this... I had a rough start as a noob. After a mere week or so commenting my account was blocked. My own fault. I got caught up in a dozen plus flounce a thon Rush thread. By mistake. With some encourage ment from one of the nicest people (R.D.T.) I wrote him an explanation via email and asked for the account to be re-instated. To Charles full due credit, enigmatically without a word back, the account was un blocked. Cool.

My point is even in a flouncy thread, angry, profane etc, the man is fair. Some of us do disagree. Well click Show Users and they are there. I know you are a good example.

Thousands of blocked accounts over mere disagreement? I call bullshit.

123 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:50:27pm

re: #119 BruceKelly

Thanks, I needed that.

You're welcome!

124 Dancing along the light of day  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:51:04pm

re: #100 Cato the Elder

It would at the very least give me a rare opportunity to use the word "mephitic" in a sentence.

LOL!
You keep making me look words up!

me⋅phit⋅ic  /məˈfɪtɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [muh-fit-ik] Show IPA
–adjective
1. offensive to the smell.
2. noxious; pestilential; poisonous.

125 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:51:23pm

re: #116 SpaceJesus

what the hell is the pile of bullshit in front of me here

Don't worry, just use a copy of the New York Times to scoop it up.

The New York Times: All The News That's Fit To Wrap A Fish.

126 BruceKelly  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:51:26pm

re: #96 windsagio

You're clearly implying that the NYT is worse than other newspapers for letting their opinions show. I'll admit that you didn't use 'all', tho'

/how very kind of you.

127 Dr. Shalit  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:52:13pm

re: #115 MandyManners

Criticism for someone who speaks against anti-Semitism? I wonder *that* is called.

MandyManners -

Does "Volkisch" ring any bells? -S-

128 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:52:25pm

re: #126 BruceKelly

/how very kind of you.

I had to put my GAZE on for that post.

129 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:52:45pm

re: #127 Dr. Shalit

MandyManners -

Does "Volkisch" ring any bells? -S-

Something German about people?

130 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:53:05pm

re: #121 MandyManners

bazing! Good one!


Of course, I've read alot of references to it, and several articles of theirs on the web. I've never felt the need to buy or read the actual paper, and that was my point.

131 MittDoesNotCompute  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:54:01pm

re: #122 Rightwingconspirator

Hmm. I had promised myself not to get into this... I had a rough start as a noob. After a mere week or so commenting my account was blocked. My own fault. I got caught up in a dozen plus flounce a thon Rush thread. By mistake. With some encourage ment from one of the nicest people (R.D.T.) I wrote him an explanation via email and asked for the account to be re-instated. To Charles full due credit, enigmatically without a word back, the account was un blocked. Cool.

My point is even in a flouncy thread, angry, profane etc, the man is fair. Some of us do disagree. Well click Show Users and they are there. I know you are a good example.

Thousands of blocked accounts over mere disagreement? I call bullshit.

Charles has shown himself to be a (more than) reasonable host these many years...if someone got the boot and stayed banned, chances are they deserved by being a total jackhole.

132 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:54:15pm

re: #130 windsagio

bazing! Good one!


Of course, I've read alot of references to it, and several articles of theirs on the web. I've never felt the need to buy or read the actual paper, and that was my point.

Bullshit. You said in No. 24 that you've never read it. Yet, now you've suddenly read it on the Internet?

133 recusancy  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:54:20pm

re: #115 MandyManners

Criticism for someone who speaks against anti-Semitism? I wonder *that* is called.

Just remember that next time you tell Jackson or Sharpton to shove it because you think they're going overboard on perceived racism.

134 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:55:10pm

re: #24 windsagio

heh, I've never actually read a NYT, but the hardcore emotional reaction it gets from people is always amazing >>

That doesn't seem to stop you from making a spirited defence of a paper you've never read.

Seriously windsagio, what's up with this?

135 BruceKelly  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:55:24pm

re: #120 Dark_Falcon

If you experience a hate-on lasting more than 4 hours, or one accompanied by butthurt, seek immediate psychiatric help.

Cracked me up. I saved the keyboard but the cat is pretty pissed off.

136 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:56:04pm

re: #128 MandyManners

I had to put my GAZE on for that post.

Locked on from now on.

137 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:56:27pm

re: #135 BruceKelly

Cracked me up. I saved the keyboard but the cat is pretty pissed off.

Get a soft paper towel and whipe the cat gently, if it will let you.

138 MittDoesNotCompute  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:56:35pm

re: #133 recusancy

Just remember that next time you tell Jackson or Sharpton to shove it because you think they're going overboard on perceived racism.

Jackson and Sharpton, by and large, have been total jackholes their entire "careers"...IMO, they're done more damage to the cause of civil rights in America than anyone else.

139 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:58:06pm

re: #132 MandyManners

re: #134 Bagua

It was one of those things I put in and shouldn't have.

I was concerned about being accused of being accused of prejudice and wanted to insulate myself from that. I should have thought of a more secure way to get at what I was trying to say, but I blew it.

It was wrong to put in there.

That clear enough? ;)

140 recusancy  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:58:42pm

Criticism for someone who speaks against racism? I wonder *that* is called.

141 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:59:19pm

re: #139 windsagio

re: #134 Bagua

It was one of those things I put in and shouldn't have.

I was concerned about being accused of being accused of prejudice and wanted to insulate myself from that. I should have thought of a more secure way to get at what I was trying to say, but I blew it.

It was wrong to put in there.

That clear enough? ;)

No, what do you mean?

142 MittDoesNotCompute  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:59:48pm

re: #140 recusancy

Criticism for someone who speaks against racism? I wonder *that* is called.

Why don't you tell us?

143 Dr. Shalit  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 7:59:53pm

re: #129 MandyManners

Something German about people?

Not Entirely -

Self-Hating "Part Jews" like Jughashvili (a/k/a Stalin) might have had something to do with it as well. Look it up, in Georgian, his name means "Son of a Jew." That is all.

-S-

144 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:02:12pm

re: #140 recusancy

Criticism for someone who speaks against racism? I wonder *that* is called.

That's not what I said at all and you know it.

145 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:02:37pm

re: #141 Bagua

It wasn't accurate and I shouldn't have said it, especially since what I was trying to get at with that line had nothing to do with the subject at hand, making it wrong for multiple reasons.

It actually opened me up for a criticism worse than that which I was trying to avoid.

How many mea culpas does it take? >>

146 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:03:37pm

re: #145 windsagio

One is enough. I just didn't understand your point.

147 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:03:40pm

re: #143 Dr. Shalit

Not Entirely -

Self-Hating "Part Jews" like Jughashvili (a/k/a Stalin) might have had something to do with it as well. Look it up, in Georgian, his name means "Son of a Jew." That is all.

-S-

Now, that's a concept I've read about here. I've never understood it.

148 recusancy  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:04:14pm

re: #144 MandyManners

That's not what I said at all and you know it.

That's exactly what you said. One word changed. I even left in your grammatical error.

149 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:05:35pm

re: #148 recusancy

That's exactly what you said. One word changed. I even left in your grammatical error.

No. 115: Criticism for someone who speaks against anti-Semitism? I wonder *that* is called.

150 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:06:23pm

Its a tricky subject.

To be frank, "Anti-semite!" is often used the way "Communist!" was used in the '50s, and "Witch!" was used in the 1000 years before that.

I had never heard per some of you guys that the NYT's ownership had longstanding anti-semitic leanings, and if its true thats something. (A quick google search didn't bring anything credible up, so a good source would be nice).

151 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:07:09pm

re: #146 Bagua

Fair enough :)

152 recusancy  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:07:23pm

re: #149 MandyManners

No. 115: Criticism for someone who speaks against anti-Semitism? I wonder *that* is called.

Yup. I took out anti-Semitism with racism.

153 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:08:04pm

re: #150 windsagio

Oops, also, before anyone says it, I'm not denying Anti-semitism, its common and its a problem.

Witch-hunts are bad tho'

re: #152 recusancy

*cough* that's technically 2 words!

154 Dr. Shalit  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:08:43pm

re: #147 MandyManners

Now, that's a concept I've read about here. I've never understood it.

MandyManners -

Think of it as a rebellious teenager, weren't we all, that never "Grew up" and beyond that, was able to command the levers and firearms of a government.

-S-

155 prairiefire  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:09:43pm

re: #134 Bagua

I'll defend the New York Times from here till Domesday. The paper of record. What's left of it.

156 recusancy  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:10:30pm

re: #153 windsagio

re: #152 recusancy

*cough* that's technically 2 words!

It's correctly spelled as one word without the hyphen. Although with the hyphen is acceptable. I just copy and pasted.

157 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:14:22pm

re: #155 prairiefire

I'll defend the New York Times from here till Domesday. The paper of record. What's left of it.

When is domesday?

158 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:14:55pm

re: #155 prairiefire

I'll defend the New York Times from here till Domesday. The paper of record. What's left of it.

It often has got the record wrong, though. They thought the surge in Iraq would not work, they sneered at the Bush Tax cuts, they have opposed every smart security measure the US has undertaken. The NYT is a leftwing rag on politics. It does sometimes really shine, and some of those times even I will buy a copy, but too often it simply sinks in the left-wing morass.

159 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:16:11pm

re: #158 Dark_Falcon

You're going back to conflating their editorial positions with their reporting.

2 very different things.

160 Dr. Shalit  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:16:46pm

re: #152 recusancy

Yup. I took out anti-Semitism with racism.

recusancy -

FOR THE RECORD, my take on conventional "RACISM" is that it is a HUGE waste of time and effort.
FWIW - just look at dogs. My "Melech" is an A.K.A. Pedigree Male German Shepherd.
In the building he has two friends, both female and much smaller, a Daschund and a little "mutt." Dogs "get it" on this score. Would that their "Masters" did as universally as well. Quite Enough. -S-

161 prairiefire  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:19:00pm

re: #157 Bagua

I don't know. It's supposed to occur like a thief in the night.

162 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:20:19pm

re: #159 windsagio

You're going back to conflating their editorial positions with their reporting.

2 very different things.

Incorrect, as you'd know if you actually read the paper, instead of just the occasional article that appealed to you online.

Personally I've always preferred the NYT over all other papers and read it daily and completely for many years. I would read it in its entirety, not just occasionally. During that time I have also witnessed an overwhelming Liberal bias and anti-Israeli bias among other vile attributes.

The problem is not confined to the editorial section, the problem is that the reporting is an extension of the editorial section due to bias and agenda. They do this in a variety of ways, all of them dishonest.

163 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:20:23pm

re: #159 windsagio

You're going back to conflating their editorial positions with their reporting.

2 very different things.

Not necessarily. I grant that the NYT's reporting can often be very good, that's why I still sometimes buy it. But when they out any intelligence gathering program they run across, they are letting their left-wing agenda get in the way of a proper job of reporting (which sometimes means not reporting something).

164 The Left  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:24:18pm

Welp, I thought the NYT could have done a much better job here. It's always extremely annoying to see a piece about the internet or blogging or bloggers written by someone who doesn't get it.

It's unbelievable to me that anyone would uncritically cite Pam Gellar for anything. Five minutes on her website would convince anyone that she's in need of mental health help.
Same for Spencer too. Both of them have written many unhinged rants about Charles-- to pretend that this has all been a 'flame war' implies that Charles has posted like that about them-- and that's simply not true. It makes me angry that this guy didn't look at that, or he did and chose to portray it this way.
Same goes for taking the words of anonymous haters who've been banned. Who does that?

Oh well. Could have been worse, yes. And it many ways it was nice.

BTW, did this part get discussed already? Charles has a fiancee!
Congratulatutions Charles! Many best wishes to you both and all the happiness in the world!

165 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:25:15pm

re: #161 prairiefire

I don't know. It's supposed to occur like a thief in the night.

Let me clue you in then, the book was completed in the year 1086, so you can stop defending the vile New York Times.

166 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:25:37pm

re: #162 Bagua

Almost all papers are that way, and some are worse (*cough*washingtontimes*cough*). The Times has been singled out because it was considered for a long time the pre-eminent paper in the US, and it has a liberal editorial bias. The campaign against it has been remarkably effective, I admit.


Also, yer just gonna keep hammering that other bit aren't ya? I guess I can't complain, tho'... I'd jump on a slip like that the same way :p

167 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:26:41pm

re: #164 iceweasel

Welp, I thought the NYT could have done a much better job here. It's always extremely annoying to see a piece about the internet or blogging or bloggers written by someone who doesn't get it.

It's unbelievable to me that anyone would uncritically cite Pam Gellar for anything. Five minutes on her website would convince anyone that she's in need of mental health help.
Same for Spencer too. Both of them have written many unhinged rants about Charles-- to pretend that this has all been a 'flame war' implies that Charles has posted like that about them-- and that's simply not true. It makes me angry that this guy didn't look at that, or he did and chose to portray it this way.
Same goes for taking the words of anonymous haters who've been banned. Who does that?

Oh well. Could have been worse, yes. And it many ways it was nice.

BTW, did this part get discussed already? Charles has a fiancee!
Congratulatutions Charles! Many best wishes to you both and all the happiness in the world!

But how will we ever round up enough trolls for his wedding feast? It'll take at least 25 trolls to provide enough Gamey Buttocks for all the guests.

168 The Left  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:28:03pm

re: #167 Dark_Falcon

But how will we ever round up enough trolls for his wedding feast? It'll take at least 25 trolls to provide enough Gamey Buttocks for all the guests.

Aw come on DF, with you on the case that'll happen in an afternoon, even if we have to club them and keep them in captivity for freshness. DF: Troll Warrior!

169 The Left  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:29:22pm

I have to take off, just popped in to read the NYT piece.

Congrats again on the engagement Charles!

Have a great night everyone!

170 prairiefire  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:31:27pm

re: #165 Bagua

The New York Times is not vile.
Congratulations, Charles! A Cyber Welsh Love Spoon to you both. I'm looking forward to her introduction to LGF.

171 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:31:32pm

re: #166 windsagio

Almost all papers are that way, and some are worse (*cough*washingtontimes*cough*). The Times has been singled out because it was considered for a long time the pre-eminent paper in the US, and it has a liberal editorial bias. The campaign against it has been remarkably effective, I admit.

Also, yer just gonna keep hammering that other bit aren't ya? I guess I can't complain, tho'... I'd jump on a slip like that the same way :p

Not hammering on it mate, rather, using it factually.

And yes, the other papers are that way and some are worse, the MSM is vile in general, but none has the potential, history, influence and foundation that the NYT does, which is why it deserves special mention in the same way we are more horrified and more judgemental when a Harvard graduate is thrown in jail than when some high school drop out meets the same fate.

We expect better and are thus more disappointed.

172 MittDoesNotCompute  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:31:57pm

re: #169 iceweasel

I have to take off, just popped in to read the NYT piece.

Congrats again on the engagement Charles!

Have a great night everyone!

Seconded, ice...congrats to Charles and his bride-to-be!

/congrats also to ice and Jimmah also once again

173 recusancy  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:32:41pm

So is every Jewish writer, editor, and the publisher at NYT self hating or ignorant?

174 prairiefire  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:33:39pm

What exciting news! I think it will surprise some lizards.

175 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:35:24pm

re: #170 prairiefire

The New York Times is not vile.

Your opinion, mine is that it is, and this hack job on Charles is simply one more case in point. But then I am speaking to someone committed to defend the NYT until Domesday, so I do not expect other than a partisan opinion from you.

176 prairiefire  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:35:51pm

re: #175 Bagua

Great.

177 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:37:40pm

re: #173 recusancy

So is every Jewish writer, editor, and the publisher at NYT self hating or ignorant?

First:

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Second:

Who said every?

178 Gus  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:46:29pm

Jonathan Dee provides the reader with an obviously slanted view of Charles and Little Green Footballs. Not once does he quote those that are now aligned with Charles and instead chooses to quote Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. He even has the audacity to present a one sided view of the stalker blog. Jonathan Dee himself is also clearly biased in his writing.

The uninitiated reader will go away with a very distorted view of LGFs past and present.

179 solomonpanting  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:46:50pm

BACK TO THE FUTURE:

A version of this article appeared in print on January 24, 2010, on page MM40 of the New York edition.

180 windsagio  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:54:35pm

re: #177 Bagua

in fairness, thats something you have to prove the positive of, not the negative :p

181 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:55:42pm

re: #179 solomonpanting

BACK TO THE FUTURE:
A version of this article appeared in print on January 24, 2010, on page MM40 of the New York edition.

LOL I saw that.

Wasn't that a Twilight Zone episode? The newspaper that told the future?

182 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:56:28pm

re: #178 Gus 802

Jonathan Dee provides the reader with an obviously slanted view of Charles and Little Green Footballs. Not once does he quote those that are now aligned with Charles and instead chooses to quote Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. He even has the audacity to present a one sided view of the stalker blog. Jonathan Dee himself is also clearly biased in his writing.

The uninitiated reader will go away with a very distorted view of LGFs past and present.

Exactly, and this is very typical behaviour on the part of the vile New York Times which I have personally observed routinely over a period of years. They push their preconceived agenda and frame the story accordingly, using a variety of dishonest techniques typical of the MSM but mastered by the New York Times.

You and I reckongnise this in this article because we are both familiar with this blog, most aren't and accept the NYTimes version because it is well written style wise and it is the 'paper of record', a now debased record.

183 Pete(Detroit)  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:57:10pm

For the record - over the past many years I've disagreed w/ Charles on several occasions, some implicitly, some explicitly, but we've always been civil (well, *I* have - he typically ignores me, but I suppose that counts as "civil") and I've never been banned.
Well, not yet, anyway..
((-'pb

184 Pete(Detroit)  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:58:11pm

re: #4 albusteve

I'm working on a new hair do...like it?

No - go back to your basic 'bush' cut..
>weenk

185 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:58:14pm

re: #183 Pete(Detroit)

For the record - over the past many years I've disagreed w/ Charles on several occasions, some implicitly, some explicitly, but we've always been civil (well, *I* have - he typically ignores me, but I suppose that counts as "civil") and I've never been banned.
Well, not yet, anyway..
((-'pb

How dare you! Get off my blog.

/I kid

186 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:59:18pm

re: #180 windsagio

in fairness, thats something you have to prove the positive of, not the negative :p

Nope, words put in one's mouth have only to be spit out, not proven positive or negative.

187 prairiefire  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 8:59:49pm

That NYT article exposes Geller by just letting her talk. You know, actual sourced and quoted "quotes".

188 Gus  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:01:21pm

re: #182 Bagua

Exactly, and this is very typical behaviour on the part of the vile New York Times which I have personally observed routinely over a period of years. They push their preconceived agenda and frame the story accordingly, using a variety of dishonest techniques typical of the MSM but mastered by the New York Times.

You and I reckongnise this in this article because we are both familiar with this blog, most aren't and accept the NYTimes version because it is well written style wise and it is the 'paper of record', a now debased record.

It's like working backwards in physics class. That is you start off with the expected results then fit the data to create the appearance of arriving perfectly towards the results.

189 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:01:56pm

re: #187 prairiefire

That NYT article exposes Geller by just letting her talk. You know, actual sourced and quoted "quotes".

Only for those who have actually observed the blogwar in question. Those who haven't followed it won't understand how bad Geller really is. The Times should have brought that to light. The piece was basically a gloved hit piece.

190 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:04:55pm

re: #188 Gus 802

It's like working backwards in physics class. That is you start off with the expected results then fit the data to create the appearance of arriving perfectly towards the results.

Exactly, and then you telephone a couple of reliable rent-a-quotes from your Rolodex, insert a couple of silly and patently misrepresented opposing quotes to create the illusion of balance, use framing techniques, not the least of which choosing what to report on and what to ignore, and voila, the New York Times in action pretending to report the news while actually seeking to distort it.

191 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:06:36pm

re: #187 prairiefire

Note please that I do not accuse the NYTimes of antisemitism, that is not an allegation from me and my comments are not meant to allege that.

192 Aye Pod  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:07:44pm

Ok - woke up a little while ago, (temporarily I hope) got my self some coca and had a read of this NYT article here...

First of all, this claim that Charles bans people merely for disagreeing -utter crap. Almost without exception, people were banned for insulting Charles or fellow posters, or proposing positions so offensive or nutty that no reasonable self respecting blog owner should feel obliged to host on his site.

Dee seems to have a bit of an underlying dislike of the online world in general. He implies that the web is a place where linking replaces thinking, and makes use of this caricature in promoting Spencer's lame defence against the quite clearly valid charge that he has through his association supported European far right racist groups.

Dee also seems to be seriously underinformed about the blogosphere in general. Taking the shrieking harpy seriously was a bit of a give away on that. His regarding the mere existence of complaints from banned posters as evidence that the complaints are valid seems like a more wilful misjudgement. A very poor article.

193 shai_au  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:07:55pm

Hey, you should thank Pam. It's her insanity that recently attracted me here! :)

194 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:11:12pm

re: #192 Jimmah

Ok - woke up a little while ago, (temporarily I hope) got my self some coca and had a read of this NYT article here...

First of all, this claim that Charles bans people merely for disagreeing -utter crap. Almost without exception, people were banned for insulting Charles or fellow posters, or proposing positions so offensive or nutty that no reasonable self respecting blog owner should feel obliged to host on his site.

Dee seems to have a bit of an underlying dislike of the online world in general. He implies that the web is a place where linking replaces thinking, and makes use of this caricature in promoting Spencer's lame defence against the quite clearly valid charge that he has through his association supported European far right racist groups.

Dee also seems to be seriously underinformed about the blogosphere in general. Taking the shrieking harpy seriously was a bit of a give away on that. His regarding the mere existence of complaints from banned posters as evidence that the complaints are valid seems like a more wilful misjudgement. A very poor article.

Quite Concur. The NYT has never liked any part of the blogosphere. They hate it for stealing their readers, as they see it. The truth is that their readers left because people like Charles stayed fresh and curious while the Times lapsed into droning leftism.

195 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:12:28pm

re: #189 Dark_Falcon

Only for those who have actually observed the blogwar in question. Those who haven't followed it won't understand how bad Geller really is. The Times should have brought that to light. The piece was basically a gloved hit piece.

Yea it was.

But the whole thing seems silly to write about. Especially for a paper like the NYT (although I do suppose there's nothing such as bad publicity!). Those who haven't followed it, don't give a rat's behind in the first place. Those who have followed it have long drawn sides. It's really very old news and news based on some very twisted opinions.

And weren't there a couple digs about Charles just being a guy who finds other people's news to report? Kind of an attack on the whole blogging/commenting experience if you ask me.

Maybe one day some big flashy news reporter will have the guts to write about why Charles still has 1000s of members still active and happy at the changes.

196 Aye Pod  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:13:04pm

re: #164 iceweasel

BTW, did this part get discussed already? Charles has a fiancee!
Congratulatutions Charles! Many best wishes to you both and all the happiness in the world!

Seconded :)

197 Pete(Detroit)  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:13:24pm

re: #96 windsagio

~~~

You're clearly implying that the NYT is worse than other newspapers for letting their opinions show. I'll admit that you didn't use 'all', tho'

Er, I read it as she was saying the NYT were A$$hats, and never said anything at all about anyone else, until MUCH later - correct me if I'm wrong?

198 Aye Pod  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:16:26pm

re: #192 Jimmah


Almost without exception, people were banned for insulting Charles or fellow posters, or proposing positions so offensive or nutty that no reasonable self respecting blog owner should feel obliged to host on his site.

Just to point out that the exceptions are instances where Charles has caught someone using multiple nicks dishonestly, posting on stalker sites or some other serious rule breach.

199 Gus  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:19:50pm

re: #192 Jimmah

Ok - woke up a little while ago, (temporarily I hope) got my self some coca and had a read of this NYT article here...

First of all, this claim that Charles bans people merely for disagreeing -utter crap. Almost without exception, people were banned for insulting Charles or fellow posters, or proposing positions so offensive or nutty that no reasonable self respecting blog owner should feel obliged to host on his site.

Dee seems to have a bit of an underlying dislike of the online world in general. He implies that the web is a place where linking replaces thinking, and makes use of this caricature in promoting Spencer's lame defence against the quite clearly valid charge that he has through his association supported European far right racist groups.

Dee also seems to be seriously underinformed about the blogosphere in general. Taking the shrieking harpy seriously was a bit of a give away on that. His regarding the mere existence of complaints from banned posters as evidence that the complaints are valid seems like a more wilful misjudgement. A very poor article.

Good points. He barely has a web presence. He's primarily a fiction writer struggling to make his mark with the literati. Five books and a fellowship with a couple of graduate teaching gigs behind his belt. He's either very young or not very productive. I would say the latter because he wasn't very energized to seek the truth or even balance in his article.

200 palomino  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:20:18pm

Anyone remember the reaction at CPAC last year when Tucker Carlson merely mentioned the NYT? The crowd went berserk, booing so loudly he stopped his speech.

The far right views it as the enemy, sorta the way liberals view Fox News (but I think the latter have a better case for malpractice).

201 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:20:40pm

re: #198 Jimmah

Just to point out that the exceptions are instances where Charles has caught someone using multiple nicks dishonestly, posting on stalker sites or some other serious rule breach.

Agree with all of your observations.

202 Aye Pod  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:24:09pm

re: #199 Gus 802

I would say the latter because he wasn't very energized to seek the truth or even balance in his article.

Yep - thats exactly the feeling I have about this piece too.

Oh well, I can feel the cocoa starting to kick in. Back to sleep for me. Night all:)

203 solomonpanting  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:25:39pm

re: #181 marjoriemoon

LOL I saw that.

Wasn't that a Twilight Zone episode? The newspaper that told the future?

I don't recall that one, but do remember the episode of the camera that took pictures five minutes in the future.

204 Pete(Detroit)  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:26:10pm

re: #155 prairiefire

I'll defend the New York Times from here till Domesday. The paper of record. What's left of it.

Why? I mean seriously, WHY???
BITD it may have been relevant, anymore, more people read the Weekly World News than the NYT... no?
(ok, have NO 'current' circulation data, but it might be an interesting compare, no?)

205 Pete(Detroit)  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:27:02pm

re: #157 Bagua

When is domesday?

Dunno - they wrote a book about it, iirc, circa 1058?

206 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:27:52pm

re: #203 solomonpanting

I don't recall that one, but do remember the episode of the camera that took pictures five minutes in the future.

They had a lot of those. One where a guy watches a TV episode in the future of him killing his wife.

207 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:31:02pm

re: #205 Pete(Detroit)

Dunno - they wrote a book about it, iirc, circa 1058?

in 1086 - yes.

208 Cog  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:31:21pm

How odd is it that they quoted Kos on how to manage an online community. One of the biggest community echo chambers, and one of the least participatory comment systems online.

It sucks that Charles is not as active re:Afghanistan, the situation on the ground and the situation online could use him, but I am not sure why people have a problem with him doing what he wants to do.

As a pre-9/11 lizard (can u be a lizard if you only lurked?), I will be happy if he dips into HTML 5 and posts about cycling once or twice a year. Keep up the great blog.

209 solomonpanting  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:32:18pm

re: #206 marjoriemoon

They had a lot of those. One where a guy watches a TV episode in the future of him killing his wife.

So would that be premeditated murder or no?

210 Pete(Detroit)  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:33:50pm

re: #170 prairiefire

The New York Times is not vile.
Congratulations, Charles! A Cyber Welsh Love Spoon to you both. I'm looking forward to her introduction to LGF.

What, you think it's not Zombie?
>runs, hides

211 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:36:02pm

re: #209 solomonpanting

So would that be premeditated murder or no?

lol I guess it would!

212 Pete(Detroit)  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:36:35pm

re: #185 Charles

How dare you! Get off my blog.

/I kid

HARF!!!!
And congrads on the engagement, btw!

213 Pete(Detroit)  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:41:44pm

re: #207 Bagua

in 1086 - yes.

I type corrected...
(-"pb

214 Pete(Detroit)  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 9:43:47pm

Shit, looks like I'm back to the old habit of killing threads..
Time to check the 'front page' find where everyone else is..

215 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 10:00:14pm

Interestingly, we've only received a little more than 100 hits from the NYT article so far. Links from places like Fark.com produce 100 hits in the first minute.

216 prairiefire  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 10:04:40pm

re: #215 Charles

Ahh, it's not really dead, is it? Time will tell. Congrats on the exposure, Charles.

217 Bagua  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 10:11:33pm

re: #215 Charles

Interestingly, we've only received a little more than 100 hits from the NYT article so far. Links from places like Fark.com produce 100 hits in the first minute.

Dead Tree Media is dead.

218 RealismRox  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 10:14:44pm

Seemed like sort of a hit piece, and he was being too fair to people like Geller without giving any real background about what she's all about. The whole neo-nazi/facist movement is real, and it's not just a blog pissing contest. People need to take sides on issues like this, and this reporter brushed it all off as nonsense or guilt by distant association.

219 rieux  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 10:18:44pm
claim that their LGF accounts were blocked simply for disagreeing with me — a claim which, in the vast majority of cases, is simply not true.

Charles was kind enough to reinstate my account after it was blocked for no apparent reason - I think I'd posted no more than 2 comments, months before. Is it possible that other accounts were blocked like mine, perhaps due to some glitch, and the users attributed it to having disagreed with Charles?

220 Surabaya Stew  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 10:27:17pm

re: #215 Charles

Interestingly, we've only received a little more than 100 hits from the NYT article so far. Links from places like Fark.com produce 100 hits in the first minute.

In my experience, most readers of the NYT magazine section don't ever read it online, as it is typically savored as part of the physical (newsprint) Sunday edition. As the only edition of the paper that I ever buy (since 2001 or so, thankfully in recent months with a special Sunday-only subscription), its just not in the same category as the regular daily editions that I happily read on my iPhone. In short, I'll bet LGF will get a steady stream of NYT folk over the next few days but nearly all of the traffic won't come from the NYT's site, so it will be impossible to verify the new LGF traffic numbers as being influenced by the article.

221 theheat  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 10:34:41pm
Guess I shouldn’t complain too much, though

"Never let them see you sweat." An old pro in the business told me that a long time ago, and they're words to live by. Better yet, it drives your detractors crazy when all they see is a poker face - or worse - a big ole Muhammad Ali grin and a cocky "I am the greatest!" when the wolves are at your door and all the shit of the world seems to be running downhill... and you happen to be standing at the bottom of that hill.

222 teh flowah  Fri, Jan 22, 2010 11:48:47pm

I mean, my libertarian streak tells me that this site seems to ban a little haphazardly, but I don't really know how I would act if I had the power to ban someone and they flat out denied evolution and shit. It's just so annoying to encounter someone who is so delusional about reality.

Equally hilarious are the people who think you've changed significantly from your older days. Do people not understand the concept of change of focus? Why do people think that going from critical of radical Islam to critical of fundamentalist Christianity is that big of a leap? It's not.

Nuts are nuts regardless of what political orientation they prescribe themselves. Whatever, let the KosKids think that you've had some sort of "epiphany"

223 moradali  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 12:30:48am

I haven't posted for years, but just read the NYT article - but I wonder what CJ has to say about the article saying he posted names and pictures of his critics?

This is a serious charge. How come CJ did not respond to this?

And "usually I don't censor if I disagree with the post"? And what sort of answer is that?

Am I going to be banned now? Please clarify.

Also - I am a Muslim apostate. Am I allowed to criticize Islam and Mohammed here?

224 Sharmuta  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 12:59:08am

re: #48 Charles

I know that both Thanos's and Sharmuta's comments were left on the cutting room floor.

I'm disgusted by this piece, and frankly quite glad to have been cut from this trashy piece of tabloid journalism.

225 Bagua  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 1:49:52am

Oh but don't you know the New York Times is the paper of record?

Actually, "trashy piece of tabloid journalism" sums up the article perfectly.

It is just outrageous for this hack Jonathan Dee to do a long biased hit piece like this and not even interview a single active poster. Just sour grapes from people who have been kicked out.

226 Jetpilot1101  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 4:53:11am

From the article:

L.G.F. still has more than 34,000 registered users, but the comment threads are dominated by the same two dozen or so names. And a handful of those have been empowered by Johnson sub rosa to watch as well — to delete critical comments and, if necessary, to recommend the offenders for banishment.


I know this is a very late post but is there ayway to verify this statement? Obviously, Charles can verify the number of users and the use of "monitor lizards", but it seems to me that the assertion that only "two dozen" posters dominate each thread is a bit of a stretch.

Charles, can you respond to this and enlighten us on the average number of posters per thread?

227 filetandrelease  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 6:26:25am

I am sure it has already been said, but for for the record, I am here to tell you that Charles does NOT ban posters simply because of disagreement.

Otherwise ........

228 Randall Gross  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 6:55:15am

re: #48 Charles

I know that both Thanos's and Sharmuta's comments were left on the cutting room floor.

I had assumed they would be omitted after the interview; my comments were boring and factual rather than exciting hyperbole. In the evolutionary arms race to survive the paleojournalists have gone from yellow to banana journalism.

229 The Sanity Inspector  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 8:08:39am

re: #226 Jetpilot1101

From the article:


I know this is a very late post but is there ayway to verify this statement? Obviously, Charles can verify the number of users and the use of "monitor lizards", but it seems to me that the assertion that only "two dozen" posters dominate each thread is a bit of a stretch.

Charles, can you respond to this and enlighten us on the average number of posters per thread?

Just click on the "show users" button at the bottom of the screen, and there we all are.

230 The Sanity Inspector  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 8:10:52am

My computer is in the shop, and yesterday was my day off, so I see I've missed a lot! So, I'll repeat this here and in the live thread. Tip for consuming the news: If you’ve ever had the press report on something you’re personally knowledgeable about, no doubt you’ve noticed omissions, distortions, errors. Just realize that they do the same thing to things you’re not knowledgeable about, & gird your brains accordingly.

231 PowerFlip  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 8:13:02am

re: #223 moradali

Troll?

Or good questions?

232 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 9:22:29am

re: #223 moradali

I haven't posted for years, but just read the NYT article - but I wonder what CJ has to say about the article saying he posted names and pictures of his critics?

This is a serious charge. How come CJ did not respond to this?

I posted names and pictures of my stalkers, not my "critics." These are people who have posted comments threatening my life.

The two people whose names and pictures I posted (from information publicly available on the Internet that they posted themselves) were banned from LGF for posting threats of violence and support for mass murderers. Calling them "critics" is an absurd distortion of what they do.

And "usually I don't censor if I disagree with the post"? And what sort of answer is that?

The kind of answer I did not give. I do not "censor" anyone.

Am I going to be banned now? Please clarify.

Would you like to be?

Also - I am a Muslim apostate. Am I allowed to criticize Islam and Mohammed here?

Right, because no one has ever criticized Islam at LGF.

What a pile of crap.

233 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 9:23:49am

re: #226 Jetpilot1101

From the article:


I know this is a very late post but is there ayway to verify this statement? Obviously, Charles can verify the number of users and the use of "monitor lizards", but it seems to me that the assertion that only "two dozen" posters dominate each thread is a bit of a stretch.

Charles, can you respond to this and enlighten us on the average number of posters per thread?

There are a lot more than two dozen people who post comments regularly. It's more like several hundred.

234 prairiefire  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 9:29:38am

re: #220 Surabaya Stew

Reine reported on the increase in site views after the LAT piece. A jump by about 200, 000 views, if I remember correctly.

235 wrenchwench  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 9:43:28am

I allowed myself and my business to be "profiled" by a local monthly artsy type publication. The interview was very nice. When I read the thing, it was full of fabricated quotes attributed to me. Like she lost her notes and had to make stuff up. Wasn't bad, but it was unreal. After that, a friend who is a more successful business person than myself said he never talks to the press, because it always leads to disappointment. I don't know if that's an option when you're in the media.

Congratulations on the engagement! At least there was some good news in there, although Dee came pretty close to screwing that part up too, with his Beck-like ponderings.

Wasn't there supposed to be a photo taken with a $60,000 camera with drool on it? Maybe in the print version?

236 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 9:55:08am

re: #235 wrenchwench

Don't know what happened to the photos. Maybe that's why the NYT is in financial trouble -- they schedule expensive photo shoots and then don't use the results.

It's pretty surreal for a writer in the New York Times to be treating anti-Muslim Birther nutjobs like Pamela Geller as if their opinions are credible. Geller and the other freaks Dee quoted in his article are the kind of people the Times would normally assign to the "wacko far right bigot" category.

237 wrenchwench  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 10:08:14am

re: #236 Charles

It's pretty surreal for a writer in the New York Times to be treating anti-Muslim Birther nutjobs like Pamela Geller as if their opinions are credible. Geller and the other freaks Dee quoted in his article are the kind of people the Times would normally assign to the "wacko far right bigot" category.

As soon as I saw that he quoted her with a straight face, so to speak, I knew I wasn't going to like the article. I agree with the comments of KT, C the E, and Lawhawk above.

I do like the graphic with the article. Looks like you are adding color to the internet.

238 [deleted]  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 10:53:58am
239 [deleted]  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 11:05:34am
240 jaunte  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 11:16:15am

A lot of people who got a charge out of Clint Eastwood's 'get of my yard' line still think that the proprietor of LGF is morally required to host whatever bleatings they emit.

241 [deleted]  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 11:16:27am
242 Aye Pod  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 11:18:06am

re: #241 Grey Fox

Iceweasel is married - to me, you stupid little stalker monkey.

243 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 11:21:04am

Of course, this brings out the idiots, like moths to a flame.

244 Aye Pod  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 11:30:09am

re: #220 Surabaya Stew

In my experience, most readers of the NYT magazine section don't ever read it online, as it is typically savored as part of the physical (newsprint) Sunday edition. As the only edition of the paper that I ever buy (since 2001 or so, thankfully in recent months with a special Sunday-only subscription), its just not in the same category as the regular daily editions that I happily read on my iPhone. In short, I'll bet LGF will get a steady stream of NYT folk over the next few days but nearly all of the traffic won't come from the NYT's site, so it will be impossible to verify the new LGF traffic numbers as being influenced by the article.

I think you are right about the NYT sunday edition reader behaviour. But I wonder how many will be inclined to visit after reading what was effectively a hit piece.

245 RichardTPD  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 12:06:21pm

I, too, found this a somewhat disappointing article No one censors comments like Pam Geller does (ever notice that virtually every comment at her blog praises her?), and to give no context about her unabashed racism and her writing for Wingnut Daily and her refusing to recognize Obama as the legitimate president of the United States... Well, I was surprised and disappointed. The writer was also trying a little too hard to be "cute," which added to the piece's overall irritating quality.

246 Sacred Plants  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 1:12:05pm

"Extremist" is a bogus term to decribe these people and the danger from them. That word is just a hollow phrase translating to "anyone whom government officials do not trust." What they are doing would better be described as pimping a group of people who control a monopoly of interpretation for precisely that term in a foreign culture. The inner core of the genocidal anti-jihad movement in Europe is made up of disgruntled government officials who feed on a dwindling tradition of Americans enabling them to purge their opponents. Since the Iraq experience dried out that tendency from the concept of nation building these legacy allies have been looking for new pimps. But the only legitimate political purge is that the word extremist be discared from the dictionary once and for all.

247 Mark Winter  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 1:22:54pm

Oh great.
And soon the NYT will be CHARGING people for articles like that.
Good luck

248 bugfodder  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 1:43:18pm

NYT - was exhausting to read but I thought it was realtively fair compared to other articles such that as at Atlas Shrugged (although the video was funny as hell).

I have been away for two years - LGF has changed - can't say I agree with it. But still good to visit - you know the old saying; keep your enemy close.

Charles - Are you and K-OS still mortal enemies?

249 kellygrrrl  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 2:00:26pm

obviously you already know this, Charles, but I'll just point out that this is the exact tactic of the conservatives for a long long long time.
They just want you to surrender and give up. they know the more ridiculous they are, the more exhausted anyone with a brain becomes.

it is the entire MO of the teabaggers / GOP right now. they honestly just want us all, including the president, to grow so tired of the ranting that we just walk away.

sadly, oftentimes, the tactic works.

250 kellygrrrl  Sat, Jan 23, 2010 2:19:32pm

if the NYT does build a "paywall" and charge for online access, I really can't imagine that working out too well for them

251 andydp  Sun, Jan 24, 2010 11:11:04am

I'm happy to be one of the New Guys here. Just got approved for "membership". Many of you will find my commentary all over the place because I firmly believe in the old Army maxim: "If its stupid but it works, then it ain't stupid" I will espouse any opinion or plan that makes sense. Quick background: Retired Army LTC (Active and Reserve duty), currently employed in the USPS. Master's Degree in Public Administration and a graduate of the Command and General Staff College

Frankly, with the continued "popularity" of moderate sites such as this, Frum Forum and The Moderate Voice, I fail to see how LGF is in a decline mode.

Someone has to "combat" the whack jobs on both the left and the right. Let this be the place for reasoned commentary.

252 Captain Faris  Sun, Jan 24, 2010 6:32:51pm

Charles,
As one having earned your scorn for my resemblance to those you have "left", I still endorse your work here in LFG as being a model of ethical blogging. I also commend you for enthusiastically presenting and defending your beliefs.

I do, however, think that Fisking foreign pundits would be a better use of your talents than rattling sticks in the Right Wing cages here; but that's a judgment call. I certainly wish your current targets would just go get jobs in a car wash or something, so maybe it's all for the best.

Also, a little more coverage of Syria would be getting the jump on things...

But you've done good work before and you'll do it again. Thanks,
Phil

253 Sacred Plants  Tue, Jan 26, 2010 11:49:45am

re: #249 kellygrrrl

it is the entire MO of the teabaggers / GOP right now. they honestly just want us all, including the president, to grow so tired of the ranting that we just walk away.

Which, in a country founded upon having done just that elsewhere, bears a certain extent of unintended irony.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 64 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 165 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1