Amen. We have got to fight back ...
I vote we all dwell on what's going to happen next in Iraq.

Because the real reason those people wanted to focus on Kos is they didn't want to admit their beloved war in Iraq is the abject failure it shall most shortly be demonstrated to be ...

"The hard right aren’t interested in apologies or corrections. If this were really about promoting civility of discourse, they’d have plenty to attack on their own side without hunting down people on ours. They want us to shut up, and that’s pretty much all that will satisfy them."

This bears repeating, because the "reasonable" right in the guise of folks like Tacitus are just as dangerous and deceitful as any LGF'er. They smile, and talk a good game about civility and "ideas", but when it comes right down to it they'd be happy to have your throat slit.

Let me introduce myself. I am a political independent who contributes to the Centrist Coalition's blog, Centerfield. I am also a science fiction writer, which is why I visit this blog.

On Centerfield, we often comment on how vicious the partisanship is on both sides of the blog political spectrum. The right typically calls the left traitorous. The left calls the right either stupid or evil. Either way, it's nasty to be on the receiving end.

I recently had a dream where I wore a pair of eyeglasses in which the right lens was round, and the left lens square. What I interpret it to mean is that the left and the right interpret the world through different lenses, and both believe they are good and right.

With regard to the comments that Kos made, imagine if any politician running for office said them. It would provoke outrage. And if some right-wing politician like Rep. Ernest Istook started talking about nuking Fallujah, he would be roundly criticized within his own party, if only for damage-control reasons.

Let's face it. The blogs are the minor leagues of journalism. Kos was being called up to the "Show" and was judged by major league rules. He made what could be charitably called a rookie mistake.

Ten-yard penalty for "let's face it," a 95%-reliable marker for oozy self-congratulation.

You there! You, the one avoiding the real, hard-to-face, tough difficult hard truths! Yeah, you, I'm talking to you! Let's face it. That's right, you thought you were going to get away with your usual beating-around-the-bush, but now I'm here to make sure you face up to the way things really are.

God I'm grand.

"Partisanship," of course, simply means people along a broad band of beliefs uniting to accomplish particular goals. That's what parties are: coalitions.

I'm no tribal Democrat. I've voted for Republicans--I've even caucused as one. And I've voted for left-wing and libertarian third parties, as well. But when I hear the word "partisanship" being used as an insult, my mistrust approaches relativistic velocity. Who is it that has an interest in making it seem discreditable for individual citizens to set aside differences and unite toward particular aims? Hmm, that would be the powers that be, as it turns out. As a matter of fact, "party" is how regular people like us get some power, how about that. Now we're told that "partisanship" is something to be ashamed of. Gosh, now why would anyone say that?

Nothing wrong with being a "centrist." Heck, I'm married to one. But when you notice "partisanship" being decried, you can be pretty sure the person doing to decrying doesn't have your interests at heart.

IMHO, if one defines oneself as a "centrist" then one is doomed to vacillate from position to position as the activists at either extreme gain or lose ground.

One of today's "centrists" would find Richard Nixon to have been a liberal, if not an outright leftist. It isn't that Nixon was actually a liberal; it's that the center to whose right Nixon stood has been pulled well to the right by thirty years of right-wing pressure unmatched by anything remotely as strong from the left.

IMHO, if one defines oneself as a "centrist" then one is doomed to vacillate from position to position as the activists at either extreme gain or lose ground.

Not necessarily. The self-identification of "centrist" could simply be axiomatic. It doesn't matter at all that 85% of the population is to one side or the other of me in the debate; I remain, as always, the sensible center. No movement or change of position necessary.

So the "genuineness" of someone's feelings is enough to justify defending someone?

If the controversy is over what feelings are appropriate to have, I would think so.

Mark Atwood, fancy meeting you here.

I've seen people say ugly, cruel things in an attempt to strike hard at someone's weakest point; to win a debate by clearing the field of everyone who doesn't have the stomach for deliberate nastiness; out of reflexive contempt for the concepts of civility and respect; because they're not clued in enough to the human race to even know the difference between reasonable and monstrous. So, yeah, it does make a difference to me when the ugly statement is coming directly from a real experience with something so awful I can barely imagine it.

"Centrist" is a relative term, anyway. From my own point of view (heavily influenced by my cultural background and upbringing, of course), the Democrats are a moderate right-wing party, for example.

Rick Heller wrote:
And if some right-wing politician like Rep. Ernest Istook started talking about nuking Fallujah, he would be roundly criticized within his own party, if only for damage-control reasons.

The blogs are the minor leagues of journalism. Kos was being called up to the "Show" and was judged by major league rules. He made what could be charitably called a rookie mistake.

Rick, that must be why there's been a widespread uproar of criticism on the right for Kathleen Parker, who is supposedly in the "major leagues" of journalism. That must be why the right has jumped all over Bill O'Reilly for advocating a "final solution" in Fallujah.

Oh, right. They haven't.

Rick Heller, I think you may be misinterpreting that dream.

Hey! I thought I remained the sensible center, and all youse mugs were arrayed to the left and right about me!

If you're thinking of rearranging the political landscape like that, you might want to warn a fellow. You know?

Rick Heller, comparing a columnist/blogger to a political candidate is simply sleight of hand. The two aren't held to the same standards. Right-wing and left-wing columnists are also not held to the same standards, else Coulter and others would also be receiving death threats, pornography, denial of service attacks, and other such charming responses to their opinions. Do you have an example of a right-wing opinionater who has been subjected to the same sort of attack and abuse that Kathryn Cramer has been receiving? I also don't know of any leftist equivalent of a freeper attack. Are you?

Dan,

I'm sure what set off that dream is that I'd been to the eye doctor, and I'm now of age to have to choose a pair of "progressive lenses" i.e. bifocals without a line.

Patrick,

There's no self-congratulations in the "let's face it." If continuing the baseball analogy, Kos is a AAA-er called up to the show, then I'm playing single A ball. My point is that Kos has been caught up in shifting standards, and can no longer get away with things that anonymous nobodies like myself can.

With regard my comment on partisanship, you misinterpret me if you think my aim is to mute criticism of Bush. In fact, despite being an Independent, I was a member of the Draft Clark movement, and even held signs for Clark in the cold of New Hampshire primary day. I won't vote for Bush, and I'll probably vote for Kerry, though it's possible I'll just sit the election out if I become thoroughly disgusted with the "partisanship."

More specifically, what I dislike is the "argument culture" as Deborah Tannen refers to it, where people hype their stories, and shade the truth to make their side look better. I admired Richard Clarke's forthright testimony, as was amused like most people when he confessed to "spinning" as a normal part of his job in the White House.

But since you dislike "beating around the bush" I'll say something more provocative. I don't like what LGF did to Nathan Newman, but I don't like what has been done to LGF as well. Do you know that a hoax news item appeared on Indymedia some months ago that Charles, the creator of LGF, has been picked up by local police on a charge of child molestation? That is the dirtiest trick I've yet seen so far in blog wars. He is currently under attack by people who are contact his host claiming LGF is a neo-Nazi site, and should be shut down. LGF may be extreme, but it's extremely pro-Likud--hardly neo-Nazi.

I do read LGF from time to time, and sometimes post comments, though I may be attacked as a troll there because I'm not in sync. The reason I do read LGF is because Charles digs up items of outrageous anti-semitism (not just anti-Zionism) that should become better known. If there was a more moderate site that provides the same service, I would very much like to know about it.

Rivka,

Never heard of Kathleen Parker.

If Bill O'Reilly advocates nuking Fallujah, he should lose advertisers.

Kip and Lydia,

I didn't mean to ignore you. I was writing my post at the same time as you were.

Kip--aside from patronizing this fine blog, please stop by Centerfield sometime, where we think of centrists as the "silent plurality"

Lydia,

See above post. I think attacks on LGF by Indymedia supporters are comparable to freeper attacks.

I agree that the right can sometimes get away with more outrageousness than the left. It's not entirely symmetric. I think it's because the right's outrageousness usually goes along the grain of national patriotic instincts, while left outrageousness goes against the grain. Also, liberals are probably "nicer" than conservatives overall, and lack the killer instinct to really do in the other side.

Kos's comments didn't bother me. Impolitic, maybe, but nothing more. Ms. Cramer, I think, took a very delicate topic and jumped to conclusions much too quickly. Nothing, however, justifies the kind of bullying she's been subjected to. I'm sympathetic to Rick Heller's point of view; but if he wants to condemn partisanship he should also address his comments to Mr. Belitsky.

Do you know that a hoax news item appeared on Indymedia some months ago that Charles, the creator of LGF, has been picked up by local police on a charge of child molestation? That is the dirtiest trick I've yet seen so far in blog wars.

I don't read Indymedia, but the same trick was used against Scott Ritter - the claim was made that he had been picked up, twice, by local police, on a charge of child molestation. (I was even told by a right-wing LJer that this constituted evidence that Ritter couldn't be trusted.)

Kos's original comment did come across to me as harsh, but given his personal history I can understand his feelings, or lack of same. If some politicans didn't want to be associated with it, that's fine with me. Kos doesn't have to mind himself for their sake, and they don't have to advertise on Kos either.

FWIW, I sent an email to Atrios after noting how Nathan Newman had attracted much attention from LGF's minions. While I can't say my letter was responsible, Atrios posted a notice about Nathan a short while later. The Atrios minions quickly followed. Heh, I think I see a marketing strategy here... ;-)

Indymedia no more represents "the left" than LGF represents "the right", and I think it somewhat counterproductive to go weighing up the excesses of the loons on both sides to see whose assholes are the assholiest.

Kos wasn't judged by the rules of a different league, he was attacked by people whose only rule is "win everything" because they saw an opportunity to make reasonable people step back. Some folks were snowed by this, and did things like take down their Kos ads. That's a shame, but it happens.

What's happened/ing to Kathryn Cramer, now, that's a whole different ballgame. I will be disappointed if there are no prosecutions dredged from that particular cesspool.

It's this simple. The reason the right-wing does this to you is you let them. You don't defend yourselves, you don't defend others.

Note the trolls don't really bother TNH and PNH. Why, one asks? Bcs thy fght!

That's why, after the Kerry staffer caved on Atrios, they went into overdrive. They do this because it works. They do this because you let them.

Of course many of them can't take it. You don't know that, because you haven't tried. Start. Call the bluffs. No, raise on the bluff.

Stare them down. Spit in their face. The right response to them chanting down the vote recounts in Florida is to get more of us there chanting back. The right response to them flooding your comments is to flood them back. And the more of them that ban you -- heck, dial in from AOL. Maybe they'll start blocking whole netblocks! (Dynamic IP is your friend. So are WiFi access points.)

Show them up as the cowards they are, and most of them will flinch. At the very least, you'll find out who the posers are.

Better. If you get a positive ID on someone, find out where they mailed it from, and complain. It is amazing what a weapon a threat or hateful email, mailed from a corporate email server, is. Simply forward to "hr@company.com", and that person will think twice about hate mail from work.

They want to fight? Let's fight. They spread innuendo? We spread truth. They want to threaten? We email those threats to the press, to their co-workers, to thier spouses, to everyone. Don't *every* post hatemail without full headers. Let everyone see who's threatened you, and let everyone fight back.

You did notice how many *begged* Margaret Chou to pull thier email off her blog. You did notice how she posted the full content of the email?

And we never back down. Ever. Ms. Cramer, you made a mistake. Never apologize to them. They won't apologize to you, why offer them a courtesey that will never be returned -- heck, that will be used as evidence of your weakness, and redouble the attacks against you?

Confront them. Fight them. Stand by those fighting them. Stop using reason against the unreasonable. Stop using rational arguments against the irrational.

And, never, ever, make one who is fighting them stand alone. If the Freepers Etc. are swamping them, swamp back -- better, swamp thier boards, make them pay the bandwidth.

But fight.

Confront them. Fight them. Stand by those fighting them. Stop using reason against the unreasonable. Stop using rational arguments against the irrational.

I'm with you on the first three, but not the last two. I think most people are able, as Abe Lincoln said, to see through nonsense eventually. But by all means, point out idiocy when you see it! It's fun and builds strong rhetorical skills twelve ways... ;-)

I recall how I was talking to a fellow fan, Mike Miller, two years ago now and telling him that we had to fight Bush. Fight, fight, fight. He asked me how, and I said I didn't know but fight him anyway. Attitude comes first, actions follow.

And indeed, if you click on any links to LGF from Nathan’s site, LGF redirects you to a “404 Not Found” page on the web site of the Israeli Defense Forces. As Newman observes, “talk about being able to dish it out, but not being able to take it!”

That's pretty much SOP for LGF at this point; he's done the same thing to Tacitus and Obsidian Wings because both of them dared to criticize him.

Last I looked LGF was all racist nutbars. Racist nutbars aren't too good at dealing with having their arguments demolished.

Sounds like they're LGF is even worse now than it was then.

Yonmei, the big difference for Scott Ritter was that he wasn't just smeared on IndyMedia, the story that he was a paedophile was carried by major news, um, outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Daily News. There's a reasonable summary of the smear campaign at "http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.ritter2.htm".

The factual circumstances of the incident he's being smeared with are only recorded in sealed court documents: interestingly, the page referenced above claims that the judge under whose order the documents were sealed was a member of the "goon squad" which interfered with vote counting in Miami, Florida during the US presidential election in 2000.

Ritter was not convicted, no evidence was (or should have been) available to support the smear stories, but nonetheless this tactic was successful in silencing an important and well-informed opponent of the current war on Iraq.

To Dan Heller I can only say that I equally deplore smears against "Charles," but at the same time it seems on the face of the matter that he and his associates are reaping what their side of the discourse have sown.

I disapprove of mirroring the right's stupider behavior for the simple reason that it's not very effective to do so. For instance, someone appears to have posted to Hosting Matters' discussion boards to complain that they're hosting a "racist" site, i.e., LGF. Hosting Matters staff promptly and correctly responded that they don't vet the sites they host for ideological content.

Of course, as matters progress over the upcoming weeks and months, we'll definitely need to start being alert to the possibility of agents provocateur. For instance, I expect to see violent and unseemly "anti-Bush" protests at the Republican convention in New York, even if nobody on the left arranges for any.

As to general nastiness by "Indymedia supporters," etc., I think a cursory glance through Electrolite's archives will show we've never had a lot of sympathy for knuckleheads who use the "left" as a flag of convenience for their knuckleheadery. What I'll observe, though, is that the political and social crisis faced by the United States in the year 2004 on Earth-I is not a full-court press by a "left" that dominates the media, the corporations, and all three branches of the Federal government, backed by millions and millions of fanatical Indymedia dittoheads. Your Earth may vary.

I have been wondering if the "left" isn't now being held to different standards of polite (for lack of a better term) behavior than the right. It reminds me of some of the gender standards--women are supposed to be nice, all the time. Swearing by a woman is (where I live) cause for finger pointing and furor, but if a guy did it no one would bat an eye.

In my experience, it's a pretty good way to force the focus off the issue and onto the supposed badness of the complainer. It marginalizes the content and calls into question the speaker's right to be heard.

I'm not saying Kos was right. I can see where he's coming from, and I don't agree with it, but the act of saying it isn't all the bothersome to me (what Kos caused was a lot of typing, what George W caused was a lot of death--the two just don't compare in my book). The dynamic of the attack is what worries me.

A double standard is in play. The right calls the left on any and every demerit, while the left tends to ignore a lot of the right's bs. We can change the dynamic and we must. It will involve fighting back, but we can do it from strength. When they find an example of something "wrong" with the left, the left deflects it by (quickly) holding up a bigger example from the right. Should be easy enough to do, no?

Right: This comment X is an OUTRAGE!!!!!!
Left: Yeah, yeah, sure. Come back to us after you address *this*. Otherwise, get lost.

The worst thing to do is to ask how high? every time they say jump. So it's ignore, but first point out the hypocrisy. I think this is being done already by individuals, but it would be much more effective if we all could take this unemotional, blase, let-me-flick-the-bug-off-my-sleeve attitude toward their histrionics. Because, like the small children I know, these freepers just love to get a leftie hooked on the line and run him ragged answering one thousand stupid rebuttals. Don't reward bad behavior.

What I'll observe, though, is that the political and social crisis faced by the United States in the year 2004 on Earth-I is not a full-court press by a "left" that dominates the media, the corporations, and all three branches of the Federal government, backed by millions and millions of fanatical Indymedia dittoheads. Your Earth may vary.

Ah, if only it did . . .

I must not that I was wrong about one thing. Ms. Cramer is not knuckling in. She has (according to a Boing Boing post) ID'd one of the perps, a lawyer in California, and is bringing that information to the California Bar.

That's *exactly* the right thing to do. It's raising on thier bluff. They threaten you, you attack them. If this guy gets disbarred, that's a good chunk of his life wasted, and a pretty dramatic reduction in his ability to earn money.

That's what they'd do to you, given the chance.

My apologies to Ms. Cramer for stating she wasn't fighting.

Yonmei, the big difference for Scott Ritter was that he wasn't just smeared on IndyMedia, the story that he was a paedophile was carried by major news, um, outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Daily News.

Really? Thanks for the link to the summary. The first I heard of this was when this wingnut on livejournal was claiming that we need pay no attention to Scott Ritter's views on Iraq "because he was a paedophile!", but as the only link he could provide was to a right-wing "news" source that had never struck me as being particularly accurate, I assumed it was a purely wingnut invention. It's never had any play in serious UK news media (well, I can't answer for TV news, because I don't watch it...).

The logic of his accusation, even if it were true, in any case escaped me.

Winds of Change has an interesting thread going on this subject, specifically about Little Green Footballs. Charles Johnson defends himself in the comments. My perception of LGF is that the hateful stuff is in the comments. He gets over 3,000 comments per day, and makes no attempt to moderate them, although if his attention is caught by a particularly nasty comment he will delete it, and he admits to banning some people along with entire IP blocks (such as AOL).

Charles Johnson comes across as a cowardly gasbag on my planet Earth. Diana Moon of Letter from Gotham doesn't post hateful comments but insightful questions, and gets deleted, sometimes without even an acknowledgement of the deletion, while someone else calls her a c*nt and gets deleted only after frequent requests.

CJ will receive the cut direct, should I ever be so unfortunate as to meet him in person.

I have to say that I have seen no equivalence in how the "big leagues" play.

If one disagrees with what the, "right," believes, one is called a leftist, a commie, a "liberal." They called Scowcroft a pawn of the liberal left for saying the war in Iraq was a bad idea.

They say, "liberals," should be the targets of terrorist attacks, so they will know they can be killed.

God forfend (on a host of accounts) that such should ever come from liberal pens.

But we can fight back. Reason, and a calm voice, are useful. The twerp whom Atrios mentioned (the idiot who was encouraging others to do harm to a person he thought less than patriotic) shut down all comments to his site, about four days after people drifted in and started holding him to account.

I thought his explanation that the comments sections were making the site unstable less than believable, because they'd been up for more than a month, before he got lots of non echo-chamber responses.

I don't argue to convince the speakers (well, not on those sites, places like this I may). I do it to persuade the reasonable members of the audience. When I make calm cases, insist on responses to my questions, and refuse to back down, unless I get a reasoned response, which convinces me, I think I do good work.

When my questions go unanswered, and point this out, when I am then ignored completely... I am certain of it.

I have gotten a concession from Tacitus on one subject, I have had lurkers support me in e-mail (which I keep as a private trophy).

More precious, I have only been the subject of serious dislike by three people (and I must confess that in the first case it's is almost a privelege, and if I weren't, given what I said, I'd be surprised, and in the second, well it was predictable, I pointed out he was wrong, ergo I was a [insert string of attempts at insult] the third was mentally unstable), which means I get to keep on taking part in conversations without being immediately cast into the realm of the ignorable.

I can respect someone who goes all out for what he believes in, so long as he fights fair. I think most people feel the same way.

Terry

p.s. I like the preview requirement.
TK

". . . the "reasonable" right in the guise of folks like Tacitus are just as dangerous and deceitful as any LGF'er. They smile, and talk a good game about civility and "ideas", but when it comes right down to it they'd be happy to have your throat slit."

Oh brother.

I'm reading Kathryn's comments and don't see anything actionable, but maybe she's deleted all of them.

So, should I inform Tacitus of this comment so he can sue for libel?

Terry, I really appreciate your ability to stay engaged in a discussion for the benefit of people reading. I must say I've read through some threads on various blogs which have carried on and on, and great patience has been displayed. It is good work indeed.

I'm wondering if you feel that bush apologists you counter-post sincerely believe their own positions, because I fear it's just a game to some of them. It seems the time for reasonably standing down has passed, has it not? We have entered into a new phase of polarization, where I fear the bridge may be gone for some to cross back over. Eventually I'll read a comment that is just so morally vacuous that I am repulsed.

At that point I don't know what to do anymore.

Re Kathryn Cramer's original 'weak' response.

Does it not show to people watching, or reviewing the process later, that she was able to respond reasonably to a reasonable request or criticism, rather than immediately assuming the worst & counterattacking?

This is the message I would take from it. Others of a different attitude or mentality may take it as 'weakness'. It's that kind of attitude that depresses me about the possibility of public debate.
It's probably also what turns off so many members of the 'general public' when public debate about issues they are interested in so quickly descends into emotive smear, insult & tricksy arguments.

I think very many people can smell when lines of argument are fallacious in some way (see remark on another thread about 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'), without always knowing what the actual deception is.

The LGFers are passing around what looks to be a doctored version of Ansible from 1994. The last paragraph is a ridiculous story about Kathryn getting violent at a con panel, which is attributed to Teresa.

Um, this is doctored, right? Or was it some kind of in-joke? It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that Ansible would usually publish.

About Ansible 80: David Langford appears to have taken it down off the Ansible site (at least, the link there gets me a 404), but lysator.liu.se still has one up. Whether it has been doctored, I cannot say.

(Delurking for this factual information only. Back to my regularly scheduled silence.)

Said bit in Ansible 80 sure looks like an in-joke to me.

Kathryn Cramer is very likely doing the right thing to forward the identity of one of her harassers, a lawyer, to the bar association.

But I would like to remind people to beware of metaphors.

In a poker hand, when an opponent bets into you and you are convinced it's a bluff, do not raise! Merely calling the bet is sufficient – if you have a hand that can beat a bluff.

Here's why: If your opponent is bluffing, she will not call your raise, but if your opponent is bluffing, your hand will prevail in the showdown anyway. You win no more money by raising than you do by flat calling. If, on the other hand, you're wrong, and your opponent is not bluffing, then you stand in danger of losing the amount of your raise as well as the call. Calling wins the same as raising when your opponent is bluffing; and it loses less than raising when your opponent is not bluffing.

There are two times you want to raise a bluff: first, occasionally, when you have a hand that can't beat a bluff. (Use pot odds and game theory to determine how often you should do this.) The other time is when your hand is strong enough that you would raise your opponent if she weren't bluffing.

Ah: now I see that the line of defense is this (scroll down to the bottom of the comments thread): none of these attacks ever really happened, and anyway Ms. Cramer herself admits it's only a small number of miscreants, because you can't trust the word of someone who'd delete an intemperate and harmful post once she's come to realize that it's an intemperate and harmful post.

Can I get a new discourse, please?

*sigh*

Rivka, that's an undoctored Ansible archive.

Exactly twice in my life have I forgotten to DNQ a gossipy letter to Dave Langford; and I've now had occasion to regret them both. Neither was Langford's fault.

The piece in question is old, and the story told in it is a few years older than that. One of the drawbacks of being a writer and/or hanging out with writers is that your misapprehensions, follies, errors, quirks of behavior, transient enthusiasms, interpersonal conflicts, and lapses of judgement can wind up being preserved in all-too-memorable form.

(Aren't we supposed to be able to call this "youthful folly" and expect to have it forgotten? I'd swear I've heard the right-wingers use that line to describe far worse behavior, over a much longer timespan, committed by far older people.)

Anyway, the facts of the matter are that one night at a convention years and bleeping years ago, young Kathryn Cramer got way too drunk (she had no body mass to speak of; still doesn't), and on a midnight panel got stuck in that place where you know you're on to an idea you can almost articulate. We all know that frustration. Even people who are stone cold sober will go on at excessive length when they're wrestling with one of those almost-on-the-tip-of-your-tongue conceptualizations; and Kathryn was not sober.

How scandalous! When Kathryn was as drunk as she's ever been in her life, she got obsessed with some theoretical point of literary criticism! Somehow I doubt the freepers appreciated that aspect of it.

Another thing I doubt they appreciated was that the piece was written for a relatively small community of people who know each other personally. It's true that Kathryn took a swing or two at John Ordover. What I didn't think it was necessary to mention at the time was that Ordover's a substantial fellow, whereas Kathryn probably didn't weigh a hundred pounds soaking wet with her backpack on, and had the physical coordination you'd expect from someone in that condition.

I was once challenged to a battle to the death by a kitten that was only slightly larger than a standard cupcake. I'm not saying the episode with Kathryn and Ordover was comparable; assault is a Serious Matter, after all. What I'm saying is that it was reminiscent.

I'll admit that the piece in Ansible was unkind. Then and now, I think the episode was middling scandalous at most. I certainly wouldn't call it disgraceful. It's the kind of anecdote people who know each other tell about other people they know.

As for the freeperati who're bandying it about? I diskard them uterly. Who'd put them on a panel, drunk or sober, or think they were worth writing about in either condition? For that matter, who'd think it was worth publishing if someone did? No one. No one at all. Embarrassing though it may be, that story's still in print because Kathryn is far more interesting than they'll ever be. Let them examine their own follies, and find them inadequate.

Furthermore, not one of them has my permission to reproduce that story, in part or in whole; and every putative mother's son of them who's done so is in violation of my auctorial rights. They are hereby collectively instructed to Knock It Off and Take It Down. Now.

Has anyone written any software for automatically tabulating and analyzing IP addresses etc. for this sort of attack? I've net.copped a little -- Holocaust deniers, pedophiles, and sporgers on Usenet -- and I found the compilation to be incredibly tedious work. I'd guess it would work like a spam filter, but in reverse.

Moral support: it _is_ possible to take these sociopaths down. I know. I've done it myself. Still, there is some institutional catch-up involved. Why some people think that threatening someone through their comment boards is different from making obscene phone calls is a mystery to me; but the loopholes are tightening, and the institutional cultures of ISPs are changing.

I look forward to seeing the people threatening Ms. Cramer wearing the orange jumpsuit. Hard time.

C.

PS y'all might want to see if these fellows have been charged with other sorts of bad behavior in the past. This sort of thing doesn't exist in a vacuum. And they have the classic repeat offender profile.

So the Ansible story is not a joke, and I'm a bit clueless. Wouldn't be the first time...

Teresa, in that case I'm sorry that I spread the reference any further. I thought I was being helpful, but instead I was just unintentionally insensitive. Feel free to delete my comment, if you'd rather not give it any more of an airing than it's already gotten.

Teresa---
That wasn't a ReaderCon happening, it was a LunaCon happening. Ricky and I were commuting to the con so we missed that midnight panel, only to be awakened much too early Sat morning by several gossipy/gleeful/alarmed telephoned reports of "what you missed last night!" Following the alarmed one, I called John Ordover to ask him if he was okay. He laughed. He was fine, he assured me. Yes, she'd taken a swing or two at him but he didn't let her connect, and, all things considered, that was a pretty lively panel for midnight, and he was sure everybody in the audience got their money's worth and, by then, I was surely sorry I'd missed it.
After Ricky and I had breakfast, we drove back to the con, hit the huxter room and loaded up with books, and then we staked out a table in the bar and started up an amoeba table....
"Round up the usual suspects." Uh, Esther Friesner? Tolya Belilovsky? Nebula winners. Hugo winners. Geez, all those LunaCons fade into one grand *LunaCon*. But John Ordover and I were on the banquette (along with some three other people) and all the chairs across from us were filled to overflowing when I spotted Kathryn across the room and waved. "Hey, Kathryn! Over here!"
I gave a hip-shot to whoever was on my right and said, "Skoosh, guys." They did. To John, I said, "Skoosh, John." He did. To Kathryn, I said, "How are you? Hey, sit!" She did---next to John.
And, once we'd brought her up to speed on the lit-crit/poli-sci/you-name-it discussion we'd been having before she showed up, we were all right back at that classic amoeba table conversation again.
Sorry, guys, no big deal. The only death threat I ever got was at three in the morning after a Hugo ceremony and after we'd both slept on it we knew it didn't count.
There seem to be a lot of people out there who willfully misunderstand the concept of family. Fck m.

Marlena:

Terry, I really appreciate your ability to stay engaged in a discussion for the benefit of people reading. I must say I've read through some threads on various blogs which have carried on and on, and great patience has been displayed. It is good work indeed.

If I'm reading this right, blushin happy, "Aw, shucks," becuase I was either memorable enough to get this or (more incredible) you went looking to see what I was talking about.

I'm wondering if you feel that bush apologists you counter-post sincerely believe their own positions

At one level I don't care. I am, as I said before, not arguing with them. I am arguing (speechifying, with them as the foil {and I confess, years of this sort of stuff, going back to my days as an opinion columnist in high school, have been useful; and made setting some of them up to argue stupid, and easily refuted claims}) with the things they say.

How many people believe Al Gore claimed to invent the internet?

Or that Ronald Reagan reduced the tax burden on the middle, and lower, classes?

Those are some of the memes I crusade against.

On a more personal note, I also crusade against (and sometimes I worry my personal involvement, what with a Quaker for a finacee, will overcome my restraint) things like "protest = treason/betrayal of troops,".

And if they don't believe in the crap they post, I do care. If they are engaged in outright lies to support these things... the kindest things I can say are not fit for public comment. My desires, well they are not fit for public viewing.

This administration has (in my, tolerably expert opinion) sacrificed our standing in the western world, detroyed what crediblity we had in the Moslem world, killed innocents, caused my comrades to die (and disrupted my, and my friends lives) damaged me (to greater and lesser degrees) in body, mind and; perhaps, soul (I'm not trying to whine, but this has been a crappy few days for me, and I am not feeling my best... it makes me maudlin... see Making Light, "Cancelled Contract" for some of my reasons) and is all of it on cynical lies.

If they had been honest about the reasons I would not be so angry. We signed up, and anyone who extends/re-enlists knows that soldiers are pawns in power politics, so career soldier, like me, have no right to bitch if we get used for such; honestly.

But they lied. They betrayed the trust I gave them, and they betrayed the trust of my students, and the troops I had to lead. The disgust I feel is less than they deserve.

Anyone who supports them, knowing the positions they support are false, deserves far more than my scorn, and only my, funamentally law-abiding, and jail-fearing nature prevents me from serving it out.

Heck, I considered taking orders in the Society of Jesus, this is less burdensome than that, and probably of no less benefit to God and Man.

Terry

I've been wondering what I should say in this discussion for some time.

Let me begin by comparing three blogs: this one, Jerry Pournelle's and Glenn Reynolds. Electrolite is maintained by Patrick Nielsen-Hayden, a professional editor. Jerry Pournelle's is maintained by Jerry Pournelle, a successful science fiction author who also writes informatively on computer topics. Reynolds's site is his own. He's a law professor. All three have real world work to do. I have no basis on which to judge Reynolds' work. Pournelle's and Nielsen-Hayden's I do. Both strike me as doing good to excellent professional work.

Pournelle and Nielsen-Hayden post much less to their blogs than Reynolds does to his. I also think that Pournelle's and Nielsen-Hayden's postings are much more thoughtful than Reynolds'.

I can't say I really know any of these people all that well. I've encountered Pournelle at L5 Society conferences. I've likewise met Reynolds at some NSS activities. I was active enough in L5 and NSS leadership that people do recognize me in that arena.

These days I'm pretty much on the outs with the dominant factions of NSS. But I still have some knowledge about the people who inhabit that subculture. There does seem to be a tendency for people active in space groups today to be moderately disconnected from reality, lacking in listening skills and obsessed with their vision. Too many of them also work too hard on their activities. This results in harmful things like workaholism and sleep deprivation.

I suspect from postings on his site that Reynolds is burning out. I think he would be well served by getting more rest and stepping back from the cyberspace battles a bit. The same thing can be said for more than one person in this arena.

To give people some idea where I'm coming from on this topic, let me recommend two books. Some years ago I read Stanley Coren's "Sleep Thieves." It's about sleep deprivation in modern society. I'm currently about half way through William Dement's "The Promise of Sleep." The second book is longer and covers more territory. It also stresses how sleep deprived Americans are and explains consequences of this behavior.

In short, I recommend people get enough sleep (6 to 9 hours a night dependent on the person; 7 to 8 is probably a better range to follow for most). Shorting yourself can have all sorts of unpleasant and counterproductive effects.

I've decided to make this a second post rather than simply bundle it with the previous.

One of my activities is running with a "disorganization" known as the Hash House Harriers. We have a number of current, former and retired military in the group, as well as some diplomatic corps people. I think most of the people reading this blog would like my friends in this group. You might not agree with all that they think and say, but but you would respect and like them as people. I'll mention one other thing about these people -- some of them have served in Iraq.

We don't normally discuss politics. This is supposed to be a stress reducing activity. But occasionally politics does come up. I plan on asking my friends what they think about this mercenery stuff that's being discussed.

If something especially interesting comes up, I'll post a followup.

Yes, another post.

Should anyone get the idea I'm defending in any way the things that were done to Kos or any of the people who did them, I'm not.

The first encounter I had with this controversy was on Reynolds' site. My opinion of Kos, based on that one data point, was pretty negative, as I hope you can understand.

It was over here that I got a fuller portrait of Kos. Wait a minute, I thought. Kos grew up in El Salvador during the civil war? He's a veteran of the U.S. Army? I understand his outburst much better now.

Using that outburst in a political context like this violates my deepest ethics. Having emotional outbursts is normal human behavior.

People using this kind of tactic in a political setting have got a good bit of explaining to do -- and a lot of work to do to get me to consider their points seriously again. This is especially true of people who have never been really up against it in their lives.

Oh, one more thing. This sort of person does have an invitation to go running with me if we're ever in the same place. I'll be nice. I really will. I'll stop after 5 or 6 miles and have a beer while I wait for them to catch up. And I'll run the second 5 or 6 miles at a slower pace. I'll even call for help if they have a medical emergency. Damn, I guess I'll have to carry my cell phone on these runs.

I've read LGF. Those people are downright appalling. The blog wars, though, seem like a natural evolution of the usenet flame wars. Usenet had/has less celebrity potential than blogging does.

Terry,
I've been thinking about this off and on all day. I've only been blogging about 3 or 4 months. Not a long time. But I enjoy it and look around a lot, because there's just so much to see.

I'm daily appalled at the persistence of bush apologists and their ever more tortuous reasoning (if they even bother to give reasons). That's it - my main gripe. I've just reached the point, personally, where I can no longer listen to all the excuses. They sound intellectually dishonest to me. And I find it scary because it means either I've lost the ability to care about the other side, or the other side has moved outside my moral boundaries, or both. Not good at all. So I'm thankful for you and others who can still engage the dialogue.

Chuck Divine writes:

To give people some idea where I'm coming from on this topic, let me recommend two books. Some years ago I read Stanley Coren's "Sleep Thieves." It's about sleep deprivation in modern society. I'm currently about half way through William Dement's "The Promise of Sleep." The second book is longer and covers more territory. It also stresses how sleep deprived Americans are and explains consequences of this behavior.

In short, I recommend people get enough sleep (6 to 9 hours a night dependent on the person; 7 to 8 is probably a better range to follow for most). Shorting yourself can have all sorts of unpleasant and counterproductive effects.

I couldn't agree more. You may or may not be aware that Teresa has moderate-to-severe narcolepsy; it's a major background fact about our lives, and it means we both know a fair amount about sleep.

I have been saying for many years to anyone who will listen that the invention of the electric light has had an effect on human society comparable to what happens when cultures first run into distilled spirits, only bigger and more profound and unsettling. Indeed, we've hardly even begun to adapt to it, and a great deal about our modern consciousness can quite possibly be ascribed to the fact that we've been operating our bodies and brains wildly outside their design specs, where the diurnal cycle is concerned.

That is the dirtiest trick I've yet seen so far in blog wars.

Sorry, I know this is an old comment, but I do think posting Ms. Cramer's address and suggesting someone send a "the rapist" around to her house is somewhat worse, as is contacting social services to report her for child abuse.

I really have no sympathy at all for whatever little bits of whirlwind Mr. Johnson reaps. I am coming to believe that he is a genuinely dangerous man who has figured out a way to support himself while playing Sim Milgram Experiment on his computer full time and doesn't have to come out any more for reality checks.

It's _really_ not a good idea to enable those folks. They don't behave well when they're reinforced outside their own group.

Parenthetically, the "the rapist" post was by one of Mr. Johnson's little friends in her comments, presumably after one of Mr. Johnson's daily evil deranged shrew Katherine Cramer posts, and not by Mr. Johnson himself.

Terry Karney ::: (view all by) ::: April 09, 2004, 05:49 AM:

How many people believe Al Gore claimed to invent the internet?

Depends. I rather doubt the TV interview story myself but I am rather inclined to credit Dr. Pournelle I heard Gore speak at a AAAS meeting to the effect that he had invented the Internet.

On the other hand I don't see that it matters much. Tell me what follows either way?

For my time and money I'll stay up late crusading not for or against memes but in favor of thought. To that end I suggest some of the heat is misplaced.

I'll take Instapundit and LGF as examples because those 2 inspire what to my eye is reaction not thought. I class both of those as Winchells not Lipmanns (wonder how many know those names only from SIASL not the originals?).

The key factor to my eye is that like Ed Sullivan (who remembers him as a journalist?) those 2 point to things rather than perform themselves. Looking for the pointer to perform to your satisfaction is about as useful as agitating for reality TV to show Sister Wendy picks the next great American Painter.

As a free speech absolutist I guess I have to say there is no "right to be free of harrassment" in any public space at any time (every right to police one's private space to whatever degree desired) so I don't believe in violent threats only threats of violence. You know how I think those should be handled.

It follows naturally that this separation of public and private space is one reason I also support (believe in) private property within broad (constitutional) limits.

I might well grant lifeboat rules in some ultimate sense of social claim on a social creation but I would follow by suggesting it a bad application to enforce lifeboat rules at whim. Further that such application is invariably arbitrary and so not good for the lifeboat.

I have been wondering if the "left" isn't now being held to different standards of polite (for lack of a better term) behavior than the right.

Absolutely. It's the classic case of the bully who screams bloody murder when he gets hit back for the first time. As long as they felt lefties would do nothing but ask everyone to play nice, the far right was jizzing itself pushing "edgy" discourse and hurling verbal feces. Suddenly now that Al Franken's book is a bestseller, they have realized that what Americans wanted all along was blood, and they didn't particularly care whose.

Hence the sudden about-face and complaints that the liberals are big ol' meanies.

Rick, Kathleen Parker is the poor man's Ann Coulter. Same vituperative, hypocritical nonsense--I think I quit reading her even for the rubbernecking-at-the-traffic accident value when she wrote a column decrying daycare, except for small, home-based daycare, because that's what she use when (surprise, surprise) she got divorced.

Patrick Nielsen Hayden wrote:

I couldn't agree more. You may or may not be aware that Teresa has moderate-to-severe narcolepsy; it's a major background fact about our lives, and it means we both know a fair amount about sleep.

I have been saying for many years to anyone who will listen that the invention of the electric light has had an effect on human society comparable to what happens when cultures first run into distilled spirits, only bigger and more profound and unsettling. Indeed, we've hardly even begun to adapt to it, and a great deal about our modern consciousness can quite possibly be ascribed to the fact that we've been operating our bodies and brains wildly outside their design specs, where the diurnal cycle is concerned.

I've learned about Teresa's narcolepsy here. You have my sympathies.

I agree with you fully about operating our brains and bodies out of spec. I'm lucky enough to have both a mind and a body that have some exceptional abilities. When I can't do things that some fools think we all should be doing, I can get rather angry. One wonders how many of the problems we see today are a result of failing to acknowledge our human limitations.

Eric's right that I did the wrong thing in apologizing. I'd received a bit of good-cop-bad-cop style psychological warfare from the LGF regulars and thought that if only I apologized, they'd stop.

It was the civil thing to do, but it was a strategic mistake.

Clark Myers:

I rather doubt the TV interview story myself but I am rather inclined to credit Dr. Pournelle I heard Gore speak at a AAAS meeting to the effect that he had invented the Internet.

Having dealt with Pournelle in person, in print, and (way too extensively) on ARPAnet, I wouldn't be inclined to accept his statement that the sun had come up without checking whether some would-be Joshua had intervened. I find his descriptions of other people's reactions to Gore's alleged claim particularly unlikely; most of them have enough breadth of view to distinguish between a relatively slow network connecting less than a hundred government-owned or -contracted computers with what we have today.

I understand he's become somewhat less unreasonable in his elder days -- but I certainly wouldn't rely on his memories of times past.

I know Jerry, and I don't think (much as I like him, and much as the most useful advice I ever got about life in the military; and Basic Training in particular, was a single utterance he gave me), his recollection is all that suasive, esp. when the recordings of the various interviews from whence the comment comes point to a different set of facts.

The point I was making was that the image of Gore as one who would lie on silly things was set with such tropes as this. The unstated corrolary was that he couldn't be trusted with the bigger things.

That the lies/truth shadings of Bush were given a pass is the double standard which lets the O'Reilly's, the Coulters, the Brocks, of the world get away with heinous abuses of people, while Kos, and those who stray from the path of the Reactionary Right are tarred and feathered; denied by those whom they support.

When only one side is allowed to have attack dogs (and that side gets to keep viscious ones, while the other side is hard pressed to not have the restrained ones it is prone to, put down) the discourse is past flawed and into dystopic.

Terry

I know Jerry, and I don't think (much as I like him, and much as the most useful advice I ever got about life in the military; and Basic Training in particular, was a single utterance he gave me), his recollection is all that suasive, esp. when the recordings of the various interviews from whence the comment comes point to a different set of facts.

The point I was making was that the image of Gore as one who would lie on silly things was set with such tropes as this. The unstated corrolary was that he couldn't be trusted with the bigger things.

That the lies/truth shadings of Bush were given a pass is the double standard which lets the O'Reilly's, the Coulters, the Brocks, of the world get away with heinous abuses of people, while Kos, and those who stray from the path of the Reactionary Right are tarred and feathered; denied by those whom they support.

When only one side is allowed to have attack dogs (and that side gets to keep viscious ones, while the other side is hard pressed to not have the restrained ones it is prone to, put down) the discourse is past flawed and into dystopic.

Terry

Eric's right that I did the wrong thing in apologizing.

With respect, I disagree. You were -- you said this yourself -- a jerk, but I thought your apology full and frank and a perfect response to your own realisation that you'd crossed a line. It was the right thing to do. If you only made it to get the LGF assholes to stop and then took it down when they didn't, I'm rather disappointed (I don't think that's what you mean, but it's how your comment reads to me).

I don't think we (note, of course, that I'm saying "we" and it's not me with the porn and the death threats all over my site) should let Morlocks like Taylor and his lickspittles dictate our behaviour: neither apologise when in the right, nor refrain from apologising just for "strategic" purposes.

sennoma: Actually, I took it down both at the request of an acquaintance of the deceased and on advice of an attorney. It would have been my preference to leave it up.

However, had I to do it over again, I would apologize differently. I would send an apology directly to those affected, rather than posting it on the web. I had been manipulated into believing that the LGF folk were somehow in need of an apology, which is -- needless to say -- incorrect.

More generally, I've found a really interesting site with a lot to say that has bearing on the LGF attacks: Cyber-Stalking.net. Looking over their listings of the laws currently on the books, the most interesting is 47 U.S.C. § 223 Obscene Or Harassing Telephone Calls In The District Of Columbia Or In Interstate Or Foreign Communications , the upshot of which is that if you wouldn't do it over your home phone, don't do it in somone's comment sectionon a blog. (The communication has to cross state lines, but most blog comments do.) The LFG "lizards" and the freepers are habitual violators of 47 U.S.C. § 223. This law even addresses the issue of anonymity.

I'm confused - of course my strongest personal connection with Dr. Pournelle is hardly stronger than that I once worked in the same cube complex with a woman who had dated Mrs. Pournelle's sister's son - and it is a company where Mrs. Pournelle had herself long ago worked.

I take that Al Gore was responsible for the change from a relatively slow network to what we have today and also never claimed any credit for it on TV interviews?

Finally I am intrigued that defending Al Gore, a known politician, from an assertion that:

in a live speech (recorded? details?)

aimed at a particular technical audience

Mr. Gore might possibly have asserted that

he personally and his party in general had funded and otherwise supported research

leading to a universally admired result.
(and so deserved a vote or reciprocal support perhaps?)

That such an assertion must be smacked down even at the expense of knocking a much liked personal acquaintance intrigues me.

I'm sorry that you like Jerry Pournelle and that the rejection of him as an authority on this issue bothers you.

A quick review of the comments you link to suggest that he's deeply ignorant of the history of the Internet: just listing Stallman as a "hero of the Internet" is enough of a blunder that I'd hit "n" if I were reading posting of his on this subject on USENET. Having Bob Frankston (of Visicalc fame) and Charles Frankston (of Multics) on his list only convinces me all the more that Pournelle is blowing smoke up the world's collective ass on this matter.

Notice I did not intend to say that Dr. Pournelle is a much liked personal acquaintance of mine - see upthread for the guy who said "much as I like him...." I might better have put quotes around my use though I varied the language - see what I did acknowledge for a personal connection and not much more.

Nor did I intend to hold Dr. Pournelle out as expert on anything but as to what he claimed to see with his own eyes and hear with his own ears. Dr. Pournelle may or may not be expert on anything. I simply am not going beyond the notion that any man is an expert on what he saw.

I do have some perhaps more than nodding acquaintance with the airplane business in Seattle and I have talked to people who rode the tail of the B52.

I also furnished some slight technical help to Chaos Manor in its early days on the web - and kibitzed with others of the Daynotes Gang.

I will cheerfully acknowledge that according to the literature Dr. Pournelle is widely known to have impaired hearing physically at least since service in Korea perhaps before for all I know. I have no observations but I'll bet he wears glasses a lot too.

Further the description of Wade Curtis in Footfall as hard drinking is I believe drawn from life. My one lasting original comment on Jerry Pournelle's writing (as Wade Curtis) was that cheap housing in the U-District was the most fantastic thing I've ever read in all his writing.

Taking a history of drinking as a given I can see how dislike misunderstandings and confusion arise.

My point is that I am reminded in this thread of folks who followed a political script not to say party line and called their friends liars rather than tolerate the slightest implication of fault in their leadership.

I don’t mean in this relatively friendly and confined forum to carry any moral implications or draw any conclusions about how people might or should behave in other times and places.

I do mean to lament a society of ideas in which people prominent on one’s chosen side –whichever that may be - must be defended at some cost from any attack however slight. Which is I suggest sort of what this thread is about – or to paraphrase an old punch line, we’ve established what sort of person we are, now we’re haggling about the price.

Non Partisan sites should include something like this:-
Non domino theory. The selection of links below are to places where I have seen something I like or agree with. Often I have disagreed with the majority of the content but that does mean that everything that is said is worthless. People are not dominos and nor should their views be. Because I believe in A it does not follow that I believe in B,C and D.

Clark: this has nothing to do with "political scripts", "party lines", or any of the other nasty little insults you can borrow from the blogs where such things are common currency. The comments began with whether Pournelle is a reliable witness, which he is not.

The entry you pointed to starts with a bullshit question (somebody claiming to have heard a lie that was never said); Pournelle provides some technical details that might be accurate (I'm not qualified to judge), then claims to have witnessed the lie, with a little name-dropping to add corroborative verisimilitude. The fact is that the one Gore comment which was reported as "claiming to have founded the Internet" was researched shortly after that story was spread, and shown to be false -- but truth is a lot harder to spread than a lie a lot of people have an interest in, especially when the lie is more compact.

Is this what they call 'free enterprise'?