I don't quite understand this etiquette thing. So Maryscott O'Connor is angry about war and corruption and our incompetent administration, and that's bad. Naughty leftist, she should be better mannered and respectful to our president, no matter how badly he screws up.
Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin sics her mouth-breathing minions on some college-aged peace activists, and they get swamped with death threats from right wingers. And she does it twice, even after learning what kind of sewage her pals are spewing.
Hmmm. Decisions, decisions. Angry denunciations of political actions vs. vicious but infantile threats. Unstinting demands that our leaders do right vs. outrageous extortion. Which side do I want to be on?
I'll pick the door on the left, Bob. Without hesitation.
Hey, and could someone point David Finkel to a real story about bloggers?
You've got to hand it to TBogg for giving the Malkins the treatment they deserve.
- Log in to post comments
And the left never, EVER sends people death threats. Nope.
Example (with a link), JMcH?
Please find an example equal to the one cited above, preferably by a "leftist" with the same national profile as Ms. Malkin.
Or you can piss off.
Hey Jinx, to prove you're not just another shithead troll, answer us 3 questions:
1) who are these leftist death threats?
2) do you condemn death threats from rightwingers against leftists?
3) do you believe in the absolute inerrancy of both the Old and New Testaments?
No weasel words, I want definite names for #1, and a yes or a no for for #2-3.
Ignore these questions, and you've proved you're just another wingnut troll.
And the left never, EVER sends people death threats. Nope.
Posted by: JMcH | April 17, 2006 10:26 PM
Hardly the point, JMcH... the problem here is Miz Malkin. Crazy people from all sides of the aisle are capable of doing, well.. crazy things like sending death threats. Everyone knows that.
The problem here is that Miz Malkin, an extremely high profile blogger, to say the least (look her up on Technorati), not only did not attept to call off her dogs... she REPOSTED the students contact info when they begged her to help them stop getting death threats. The result is that one of the top 20 royals of the bolgosphere intentionally involves herself as a participant in the death threats, strategically, if not directly.
Uncle Don
Sorry coturnix, but JMcH is right. The whole Ben Demonovich escapade a couple weeks ago, he was recieving death threats to the tune of "the author would like to hack off my head, and wishes my mother had aborted me."
Leftist death threats? Well, Jesse Helms started out as a Democrat and he famously claimed that if Bill Clinton, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, ever wanted to visit a North Carolina base he "should bring a bodyguard". That counts, right?
Again, guys... I am certainly willing to stipulate that idiots exist on both sides of every issue. What matters here is not whether idiots on the right wing or left wing are capable of issuing death threats.
The matter at hand is Miz Malkin's encouragement of the threats. Sleazy. Like PZ said.
Uncle Don
Heh, heh... check her out now...
http://www.michellemalkin.com/
she's playing the injured party... yep.. with death threat from idiots (probably leftist ones for all I know if that makes Jinx feel better). She made her bed by posting and reposting those contact numbers. When you sleep with dogs, right wing OR left wing dogs, you get fleas.
Uncle Don
Sorry, Sean. Helms may have been a Democrat, but he was never a leftist.
I don't approve of mindless vitriol from any side of the political spectrum but there is a moral distinction between being angry over mendacious, incompetent actions of those actually in power and wishing harm to those who would like to implement change. Encouraging death threats to peace activists is repugnant. I'm convinced Malkin is jealous of Coulter's book sales and speaking fees, and is trying to outdo her in bile.
Oops. Guess my intended sarcasm didn't come through.
Oops. Guess my intended sarcasm didn't come through.
Yeah, that's a problem on the internets, what with that whole lack of facial expression and voice inflection thing...
I'll make it easy for every one.
Death threats or threats of physical violence or attempts to intimidate by harrassment are all deplorable and I do not condone them, whether from the left or the right. They're just plain bad, mmm-kay? We're supposed to be living under the rule of law.
It also does not matter if Malkin or Domenech or whoever have received death threats; heck, I've received death threats. They're wrong, but they're irrelevant to this situation. Malkin does not get to excuse her vile behavior by saying "they did it first to so-and-so" -- her behavior is still twisted and repellent, even if there are also twisted and repellent people on my side of the political fence.
"It also does not matter if Malkin or Domenech or whoever have received death threats; heck, I've received death threats. They're wrong, but they're irrelevant to this situation. Malkin does not get to excuse her vile behavior by saying "they did it first to so-and-so" -- her behavior is still twisted and repellent, even if there are also twisted and repellent people on my side of the political fence."
Exactly. The death threats against Demonovich distracted from the messages against him: because of them he could claim, with some sympathy, that the 'vile' left wing is attacking him, without really answering the racism, plagarism attacks, etc. Its the same with the students I'm sure...most people on the right probably disapprove of the death threats because (among other things) it makes the protestors out to be victims (which they are), but the right wing people don't want them to be victims; they would rather they be the offending party. The death threats give some legitamacy to the offending party (whoever you may view as the offending party).
If that made any sense.
You got me Sean . . . I have been truly outraged by the venom coming from the rightwing blogosphere against anyone who dares dissent from the party in power, and outrage messes up the readings on the sarcasmometer. (Apologies to whomever I'm stealing that from.) I'm an old broad who remembers the 60s. It seems we, as a nation, have learned nothing since then. Dissent is treason, peace is unpatriotic, speech is only free if it echoes the party line.
Ummm, Ben Domenich POSTED an email address to which nuts could contact him.That's the reason bloggers post their email addresses--so they can blog with self-righteousness about their hate mail, and possibly make fine sport of the haters.
The college kids Michelle Malkin blog-raped did NOT print their phone numbers with that intent. Malkin knows it. You know it. I know it.
Speaking as one who has recieved a rather diverse set of death threats in my time (from Nazis, Commies, Astrologits, Scientologits, Vegeterrorists, White Supremacists and even one self-proclaimed Christian who took offense to my using "Jesus Christ" as an expletive), I will point out that unless there is a a credible threat, this is no more serious than a kid on the playground saying "I'll kill you".
-jcr
and as if They're Not Connected, the Rummy put in an appearance recently on wingnut Limbaugh's radio show.
now, as far as i can tell, Limbaugh isn't a blogger, but he sure sounds a lot like the wingnut bloggers do.
Of course, Malkin *did* just copy those students' own press release, something anyone can find online at will - since the students themselves put it up. And the Way Back Machine never sleeps. And Malkin is *not* calling for death threats, but rather for emails complaining about the students' vile behavior (unless you think physical intimidation of civil servants is acceptable).
Well, Ben Domenech claimed to have recieved death threats. Given that he also claimed that the dog did his homework, I'd take Domenech's word on that with a metric buttload of salt.
Outside of that I'm going to bet that the 'winger pundits get death threats. There's a good chance that those death threats are from "leftists" (whatever that means down there, these days).
What we lack is an example of "leftists" of public note or public presence encouraging that behaviour, unlike the 'winger pundits.
As a matter of fact, the Wayback Machine does sleep if you tell it to not archive--something to remember in this age of internet insecurity.
Who the hell is Ben Demonovich? I should think such a national story would google up. Heck, I google up and I'm a nobody without my own website...
But not even the Freepers come up. Just a big, fat nothing:
Sounds like an urban myth to excuse poor behavior.
Ohh.... Ben Domenech, the wingnut blogger for the Washington Post. Of course. The fart in the air conditioner that went away a few weeks ago.
Spelling names correctly is important!
I have no doubt that Domenech palagerized the death threats. Probably stole them from some liberal blog...
For a "reality-based" blog you guys make some awfully big leaps of faith.
"The matter at hand is Miz Malkin's encouragement of the threats."
Encouragement like this:
"If you are contacting them, I do not condone death threats or foul language."
"Malkin does not get to excuse her vile behavior by saying "they did it first to so-and-so" -- her behavior is still twisted and repellent, even if there are also twisted and repellent people on my side of the political fence."
What vile behavior? Pointing out that these punks had put their contact information on the web?.
Think about this. The SAW tried to block other students from getting information; they're no better than book burners. Michelle Malkin provided information that was already available on the web.
Let's define what would have been appropriate. Suppose she had just linked to their press release rather screen captured it and posted it on her blog. Would that have been "vile behavior"? Just how open should the free flow of information be?
The silence from Jinx is deafening...
The SAW guys posted their contact information publicly. It is still available at Indymedia.
Welcome to the Orwellian Left. WE can print some information. YOU MAY NOT even re-print it.
Malkin did not encourage death threats. As far as her readers and commenters are concerned, Myers and every other blogger is (appropriately) quick to disclaim responsiblity for their readers and commenters.
Malkin contends that they have not asked her to remove their names. Anyone have a link to their request (an email, an explicit first-hand statement by SAW, not 3rd-hand blog stuff, any "evidence")? Or don't you need evidence?
Michelle Malkin provided information that was already available on the web.
The first time she posted it, yes. The second time she posted it, no.
After they started receiving death threats, the students removed the contact info from the website. Malkin, knowing they have been receiving threats and having been asked by the students to remove the info, reposts the contact info. That is the definition of inappropriate behavior.
Malkin contends that they have not asked her to remove their names. Anyone have a link to their request (an email, an explicit first-hand statement by SAW, not 3rd-hand blog stuff, any "evidence")? Or don't you need evidence?
Do you have any evidence that they have not contacted her? Do you have Malkin's phone logs? Access to her inbox? Right now, it is her word against theirs. Seeing as they have removed the info from their website, it follows that they would have contacted her to get the info removed.
Not surprisingly, there is absolutely no proof that Michelle Malkin instigated the death threats. In fact, the information she posted was available to anyone. The [violent] peace activists made it available THEMSELVES in their press release. Heck, even if Michelle's posting of the contact information from the release instigated death threats, she is not responsible for them and she had no obligation to remove the contact information from her website.
Brainster, Commissar, you're right. She wrote that she discourages threats, which may or may not satisfy the law and may or may not satisfy her conscience.
But it seems that you're willfully ignoring the fact that human civility and kindness would lead her to take down the phone numbers once she was made aware that death threats were coming in.
Does she have the right to post those phone numbers? Maybe. And I may have the right to call you every foul name in the book, but I choose not to do that because it's not right and it's not productive. All we ask is that Malkin show the same scruples.
"Right now, it is her word against theirs."
Exactly. So I'm not trumpeting either claim as fact, unlike the "mouth-breathing minions" of PZ Myers, John Aravosis, dKos, and Atrios.
It is STILL available here at the Marxist site Oread Daily. (Noon EDT 4/18)
Public info, at Oread, at Indymedia, sent out via press releases. But "wingnuts" (as defined by you and PZ Myers, I suppose) are forbidden to reprint the same. Oread can post it without your objection. May I? It's beyond Orwellian.
Keystone,
"And I may have the right to call you every foul name in the book, but I choose not to do that because it's not right and it's not productive."
The standing advice from this blog owner is "Yell at a Republican." And that is wholly representative of today's Left. Now you are talking all reason and thoughtfulness and consideration. What's the Party Line? I'm confused.
So I'm not trumpeting either claim as fact, unlike the "mouth-breathing minions" of PZ Myers, John Aravosis, dKos, and Atrios.
"Mouth-breathing minions"?? You must be one of those evil nose-breathers!
Hey, Jinxy, you didn't answer my questions!
1) who are these leftist death threats?
2) do you condemn death threats from rightwingers against leftists?
3) do you believe in the absolute inerrancy of both the Old and New Testaments?
Yes/no answers to #2 & #3, please.
But "wingnuts" (as defined by you and PZ Myers, I suppose) are forbidden to reprint the same. Oread can post it without your objection. May I? It's beyond Orwellian.
What it is is dishonest, disgusting and hypocritical. How do these people know where these idiots who sent the threats found the contact information? The might have found it on Michelle's blog, but they might have also seen it on SAW's own website or any one of these other left-wing sites that also reprinted the press release that included the contact info. There is simply no way to know without asking the jerks themselves, which is highly unlikely to happen. The only - ONLY - reason Michelle is being targetted by PZ and others is because she's a hated conservative.
Jinx, why won't you answer our questions???
Jinx, why won't you answer our questions???
Oh, sorry. I had you killfiled. (No, that's not a death threat. It's a joke.)
1) who are these leftist death threats?
I haven't really bothered to search for any, but I know from memory that Michelle Malkin and Charles of Little Green Footballs have received them.
And, you know, it's funny because I know for a fact that you will respond with something like "you don't have any proof of your claim, so it is obviously false." Yet here you all are condemning Michelle Malkin for reposting SAW's contact information because of the death threats SAW received, yet you have no proof that the jackasses who sent the threats got the info from Michelle's blog. As has been pointed out here and on Michelle's blog, the contact information was posted on SAW's website and on left-wing websites which also reprinted the press release. How do you know the people who sent the threats didn't get the contact info from those places?
2) do you condemn death threats from rightwingers against leftists?
Absolutely. I think anyone who sends death threats should be tossed in jail. Is there any reason I shouldn't?
3) do you believe in the absolute inerrancy of both the Old and New Testaments?
Not that it has to do with anything other than CanadianCrackpot's ego and vanity, but yes, I do. Now please respond with the typical skeptic's misrepresentation of inerrancy.
Not that it has to do with anything other than CanadianCrackpot's ego and vanity, but yes, I do. Now please respond with the typical skeptic's misrepresentation of inerrancy.
Thank you for answering.
Would you tell us how old you think the Earth is?
So then, do you also believe the literal truth of the Noah's Ark story and the Tower of Babel story?
I didn't know the name Michelle Malkin but I sure recognized her when I went to her site--"That crazy bitch? Jesus, of course," I think was my response. I've seen her on Fox News a bunch just ranting like the nutjob she is, a little Ann Coulter, Jr.
Oh, look. Didn't have to do anything but use Bloglines today and found this:
Bush death threat tied to PU student
Guess that answers the question about examples of liberal death threats against conservatives.
Commissar:
The standing advice from this blog owner is "Yell at a Republican." And that is wholly representative of today's Left.
Touché. This is not civil. (Though I would say this is representative of today's Left blogosphere, not the Left as a whole. And I'd make the same argument for the Right.)
But I see a difference in scope between encouraging people to yell at a Republican and re-posting somebody's contact information when you know it will result in more death threats. Don't you?
The standing advice from this blog owner is "Yell at a Republican." And that is wholly representative of today's Left.
Poor sensitive widdle Republicans. Everyone's so MEAN to them!
Checked out Little Green Footballs, lately? I'm sure their level of civility there will be more to your liking.
Whether the threatening emailers got the contact information from Malkin is irrelevant. Whether anyone else has the students' contact information is irrelevant. Whether Malkin herself has received death threats is irrelevant. What matters is that the students contacted Malkin, told her what was happening, and asked her to remove their contact info from Malkin's website. She reposted it. Her disclaimer simply compounds the immorality of her actions by demonstrating that she knows the effects of her actions.
Would you tell us how old you think the Earth is?
So then, do you also believe the literal truth of the Noah's Ark story and the Tower of Babel story?
Sorry, but what do these questions have to do with PZ's blog entry? If you want to continue to ask me questions like this, I do have my own blogs. (Note to PZ: I'm not saying that to draw traffic to my blogs, so simma dan nah!)
Sorry, but what do these questions have to do with PZ's blog entry? If you want to continue to ask me questions like this, I do have my own blogs.
Sounds to me like you're afraid to answer these questions. What, are you ashamed or something?
Keystone.
"But I see a difference in scope between encouraging people to yell at a Republican and re-posting somebody's contact information when you know it will result in more death threats. Don't you?"
I'd like to be agreeable, and say that I see a difference, but I don't.
One of Myers' commenters noted that he'd be happy to see physical violence done to me. (An earlier comment thread. I searched, but the Search function here doesn't pull up Comments.)
So Myers' constant stream of invective has resulted in (at least) one threat of physical violence directed at me. I emphasize that Myers is not "the worst Leftie" or anything like that.
The point is that the Left, including Myers himself, encourage a venomous, angry, hate-filled atmosphere --- not at all limited in its focus to GW Bush and top politicians, but generally, against any citizen who disagrees with them, like me.
Given my experience, here on this blog, I do not see the difference in scope that you try to draw.
What matters is that the students contacted Malkin, told her what was happening, and asked her to remove their contact info from Malkin's website.
Except, of course, that none of the students whose info she reposted have contacted her. From Michelle's blog:
"Oh, and for the record--not that the facts matter to the unhinged--not one of the three SAW students whose contact information is still publicly accessible across several websites has e-mailed me [*or phoned me or contacted me in any other way*] as of 12:30am EDT 4/18 [*as of 10:00am EDT*] to request that I remove anything."
Tell me, why aren't you going after SAW for posting the contact information in the first place? Shouldn't they be the target of the left's hate and calls for lawsuits?
"3) do you believe in the absolute inerrancy of both the Old and New Testaments?
"Not that it has to do with anything other than CanadianCrackpot's ego and vanity, but yes, I do. Now please respond with the typical skeptic's misrepresentation of inerrancy."
Or, you could simply provide your definition of "inerrancy" since you feel some might misrepresent it. As it stands now, you could just respond to a point that demonstrates your point of view to be untenable with a cry of: "That's not how I define inerrancy!" So please, explain this for us. Define what inerrant means to you in as much detail as you feel is necessary. This way we will know exactly how you understand it. Otherwise this is just a ploy to leave you an escape route should you find yourself unable to explain/handle/deal/dispel some question that might arise.
"What matters is that the students contacted Malkin, told her what was happening, and asked her to remove their contact info from Malkin's website."
Oh?
Do you have a link to an original source? Not "I heard that ..." but something from the SAW guys themselves? A copy of an email? Some comment like "I telephoned her about 10:00 PM last night and said xyz?"
On matters of science Myers is a big fan of evidence.
JMcH,
I agree with Dunesong. I don't think anybody here wants to misrepresent your views. We just want to draw out the implications, whether you recognize them or not.
Some of us may in fact want to "gotcha" you, but we want to do it fair and square, not by misrepresenting you.
So please, be clear on what your views actually are. Feel free to make it clear in what sense(s) you do or don't think the Bible is "inerrant," to prevent us from misunderstanding you.
JMcH,
Personally, I am only interested in your thoughts about the topic of the post.
Well, JMcH, I misunderstood. Obviously, it makes all the difference in the world whether the students contacted Malkin or someone else did on their behalf. That makes it absolutely A-OK for Malkin to repost their contact info after SAW removed it. The death threats probably came from Concerned Citizens and had nothing to do with Malkin's posts, right?
Oh, and your example of "liberal death threats against conservatives"? Here's part of the article:
Yeah, that sounds like a liberal, all right.
(Other commenters and PZ: I apologize if the sarcasm dripping from this message gets on anything important.)
I have full access to all the comments here. I searched for all references to "Commissar" since November; no threats were found, although if they didn't refer to you by title I wouldn't see them. I also searched for the phrase "physical violence"...nothing. You'll need to be more specific.
Although looking over the record of interactions here, all I see is that you were treated civilly. It makes your generic accusation a bit...impolite.
As for evidence: that's plain. Malkin was informed of and was fully aware of the threats against the college students, and she subsequently reposted the contact information. That makes no sense. Your defense of her sleazy behavior makes no sense. Your "you lefties do it too" argument is no defense, and makes no sense.
All you are doing is confirming my opinion of wingnuts as blinkered fools who subscribe to the IOKIYAR philosophy.
Personally, I am only interested in your thoughts about the topic of the post.
But the rest of us want to hear his thoughts on what exactly 'Biblical inerrancy' is. But he seems too afraid to explain it.
It was on a post (approx one month ago) where you quoted one of Goldstein's commenters.
Search for "Aravosis" I referred to that in my comment. One of your commenters followed up with "yeah I'd be happy to see rightwingers get what they deserve" (paraphrase)
He then followed with a "my comment does not represent the views of Science Blogs, LLC or the UMM."
Did they ask her to take it down? Any evidence for it? Everyone is repeating that as if it were "gospel."
What we are talking about here is posting public information, which clearly IOKIYAD. You have NO PROBLEM with Oread posting it, nor Indymedia. It's still up at Oread, after all these threats.
Commissar:
A nationally known and prominent editorialist, Michelle Malkin, has done things that she knows will lead to death threats against certain people.
Some dude nobody has ever heard of has made death threats against you.
That's a difference in scope.
The point is that the Left, including Myers himself, encourage a venomous, angry, hate-filled atmosphere
Are you suggesting that the Right does not encourage a venomous, angry, hate-filled atmosphere? If so, I invite you to visit redstate.org. The issue you identify is not Left or Right, it's the anonymity of the internet leading people to say inappropriate and, frankly, ridiculous things.
And if you disagree, I'll shoot your dog. Don't test me, buster.
Keystone,
Fine. Not guilty by reason of small Sitemeter.
Sorry, folks, but I respected PZ's daughter's request for people not to take comments off-topic from what she posted about, and unless PZ indicates otherwise, I will do the same here. But like I said, you're free to bring up these issues elsewhere. (Should be obvious where.)
The Left has a Reason to be Proud today ---
"Only our lower traffic bloggers incite violence."
The point is that the Left, including Myers himself, encourage a venomous, angry, hate-filled atmosphere
In contrast, I've heard Little Green Footballs and FreeRepublic are quite the love fest. Makes me feel so guilty being one a them liberal haters.
It seems to me the Malkin postings, both original and repost, have as much to do with the context as the act. The analogies are of course imprecise and more extreme than the reality, but I'd say it's of the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" sort of behavior, or slicing a man's wrists, throwing him into a shark tank and saying "not my fault if he dies." She knew what she was doing and the audience in front of which she was doing it, in particular with the second post.
What is the role of the politics of personal responsibility in something like this?
I'm sorry, I think you misunderstand. My point is not about numbers, it is about blog content. If PZ Myers posts your home phone number and says, "The Commissar says [insert some issue here that pushes liberals' buttons]. Tell him what you think about that," that's one thing. That shows somebody who purports to be a responsible commentator trying to put you in harm's way.
But if some moron named Keystone who insists on remaining anonymous threatens to kill you (or your dog), that rises to roughly the level of a crank phone call.
There is also an issue with Malkin publishing information that the subjects want to be private. Say you, in a previous post, decided to give out your email address. And say PZ Myers copied that down on a notepad and continues to pass it around the internet despite your requests that he stop. Is that ethical?
Sorry, folks, but I respected PZ's daughter's request for people not to take comments off-topic from what she posted about, and unless PZ indicates otherwise, I will do the same here. But like I said, you're free to bring up these issues elsewhere. (Should be obvious where.)
Suddenly Jinxy is ever so respectful of PZ's wishes. Ho ho ho.
C'mon, jinxy, if PZ hasn't banned you yet, he ain't gonna ban you for defining Biblical inerrancy and telling us your opinion of the Noah's flood story. Don't you want people to know how you feel about religion? After all, you offer up your political opinions unasked all the time!
Keystone,
If I had publicly posted my contact info, sent it out in a press release, about .. oh .. a bunch of Creationists who were going to obstruct one of his Cafe Scientifique evenings, and he re-posted it as you describe .. I wouldn't have much to complain about.
I've mentioned about 3 times that Malkin says they never asked her. And I've asked for some evidence that they did. Until we have some "evidence," I'll not respond any more to "they asked her to take it down and she didnt."
As for evidence: that's plain. Malkin was informed of and was fully aware of the threats against the college students, and she subsequently reposted the contact information.
Because she was accused of posting the information without permission. She was proving where the information came from.
And I will ask you directly, PZ, why are you liberals going after the left-wing sites that posted the exact same information? Why aren't you going after the SAW group for posting that information in the first place? Why is it only wrong for conservatives to post the information? Also, where is your evidence that the hopefully-soon-to-be-jailed nitwits who sent the threats (1) got the contact information from Michelle's post and (2) were encouraged by Michelle to sent the threats?
Commissar, sir:
You just recently implied Keystone (and others here) absolve a commenter here of blame for threatening violence because he's barely known ("not guilty by reason of small Sitemeter.")
You know this to be untrue. Yet you act indignant and unjustly wounded here?
why are you liberals going after the left-wing sites
Ack! That should be "why aren't you."
This horrible threat that has scarred your fond memories of pharyngula is here.
For a little context, this was in reference to a comment on Goldstein's site in which a wingnut proposed coming down to the Yearly Kos meeting with axe handles and laying into the crowd there. The commenter here is saying that if that tool showed up and tried to actually do that, he'd get his ass handed to him and he'd enjoy the sight. There was no threat there against you, unless, that is, you were the louse posting under a pseudonym at Goldstein's site.
That's the worst you could do? That's an example of the pathological horror of the hate-filled mob milling about in my little echo chamber? You know, that's just weak, man.
If that made you wet your pants, your disdain for the vicious vermin at Protein Wisdom that so blithely suggested unprovoked violence against liberals must be beyond measure. Please do feel free to express your contempt for such proposals here, or perhaps better yet, head on over to Goldstein's place and harangue them there about the the hate-filled inciters of violence on the right.
Commissar, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on my first point.
As for the second point, Malkin has certainly heard about the death threats by now (3:00 PM EDT). One might even say that she is aware these students don't want their personal, non-anonymous, traceable info available to people who are threatening to kill them. Yet their personal contact info is still available on her website. Don't you think it would be a good idea for her -- as a prominent commentator, not an anonymous idiot -- to remove that contact info? Just for the sake of, as rrt said, personal responsibility?
Yeah. Jinxus McH Christ, what a hypocrite.
Jinx's M.O. has been to take superficial potshots at P.Z.'s views, trying to draw out awkward "gotcha" implications, as though he has a simple superior view with no awkward implications. When people question his smugness, asking potentially illuminating questions, he bails... only to return and drop a turd in a different punchbowl.
Enough of that. Jinx, take responsibility for your own views before accusing somebody who disagrees with you of being a hypocrite because they won't always engage in a pissing match on your terms. Your problem with this group isn't that it's an "echo chamber" for P.Z., near as I can tell---it's that it's not an anechoic chamber for you.
It's pretty opportunistic and cynical of you to finally answer a direct question that's been posed many times, and then say "I won't be taking any further questions."
So please, by all means, define the kind of biblical inerrancy you believe in. In what sense(s) are which parts of the Bible inerrant or fallible?
If P.Z. wants to shut down such a discussion, I'm sure he'll say so.
So, Jinx, please clarify:
In what sense and in which respects is the Bible inerrant? In what sense and in which respects is it fallible?
And another thing: It just took me about 2 minutes to get a home address for one of the students listed on Malkin's site. That makes any death threat I make against them credible, as I can actually find them.
Whatever death threat was made against you earlier: How do you expect the threatener to find you?
Again, a difference in scope.
That's the post and comment. I guess I am no longer "impolite" for recalling it, merely a pants-wetter. Fair enough.
In that post, we all agreed that you, Aravosis, and Goldstein should not be held responsible for blog commenters/ readers. You added "Who was blaming someone other than the commenter making the comment?"
But your outrage du jour centers on Malkin's responsibility for actions of her commenters/readers.
But your outrage du jour centers on Malkin's responsibility for actions of her commenters/readers.
I won't speak for anyone else, but my outrage centers on Malkin's responsibility for her own actions. Namely, continuing to disseminate personal information that could cause somebody harm.
Questions for all: if someone looks up my information in a phone book and starts sending me death threats, is the phone company immediately obligated to remove my personal information without being asked to do so? Is a newspaper obligated to track down and shred all copies of an issue that contained personal information of a person who allowed that information to be printed in the paper if that person starts receiving death threats?
Namely, continuing to disseminate personal information that could cause somebody harm.
Michelle has links to several left-wing websites that are still disseminating the exact same information. I suggest that you get off your hate-filled butt and go after them, too.
No, if she had posted the addresses once and the little turds floating in her punchbowl had risen up and flung threats at them, then I'd say yes, Malkin's not responsible...although once she learned that her commenters were using that info to harrass people, the responsible thing would be to remove it.
Malkin, however, instead posted it again. That's just crazy. I mean, if my angry mob here (you know, the ones who viciously threaten to defend themselves against attacks by axe-handle-wielding right-wing nutcases) were using information I posted to threaten people, and I just shrugged, cackled, said "Fly, my pretties, fly!" and reposted it, you wouldn't hesitate to recognize that I was abetting the action.
I wouldn't fail to recognize that I was playing that role, either. But then I'm an evil inciter of violence ("Yell, my pretties, yell!") so it's understandable, while Malkin is a saint.
Sorry for my hateful speech, JMcH. I had thought that I was being pretty respectful in my disagreement with the Commissar, and that my butt was filled with nothing but the remnants of last night's dinner (hopefully not for long), but I will recant my hateful comments as soon as you tell me what they were.
No, not quite fair enough. You claimed that someone here had threatened physical violence against you, personally. The post was actually saying that people at a conference would defend themselves against a threat of physical violence. That's not just impolite or pants-wetting, that's false and slanderous.
I think you owe the good commenters of Pharyngula an apology.
the ones who viciously threaten to defend themselves against attacks by axe-handle-wielding right-wing nutcases
Now that's funny.
Keystone,
I think I replied to your first point. Read it back, re: Cafe Scientifique and public info.
Your 2nd point. Call me a wingnut thug. If it were me, I wouldn't take it down. Me and Oread. Just for curiosity, have you left a comment there asking him to do so?
PZ Myers,
You are correct. My recollection of the threats and comments (here and at Aravosis) were mixed up.
I apologize to the Pharyngula commenters.
No, my first point was not about the availability of your contact info but about blog content and editorial responsibility:
If PZ Myers posts your home phone number and says, "The Commissar says [insert some issue here that pushes liberals' buttons]. Tell him what you think about that," that's one thing. That shows somebody who purports to be a responsible commentator trying to put you in harm's way.
But if some moron named Keystone who insists on remaining anonymous threatens to kill you (or your dog), that rises to roughly the level of a crank phone call.
Any comment on that?
I don't know who Oread is, but I'm guessing from the thrust of your argument that (s)he is some left-wing blogger. Right? I've not left a comment for him, nor have I left a comment for Michelle Malkin. My impression is that most blog editors -- especially those with blogs as popular as Malkin's -- don't spend much time reading the thousands comments posted each day. Thus I feel it would be a waste of time for me to post comments on either or their blogs in the hopes they will listen to me.
Can anyone give me the link to Malkin's "crazy, abetting" second posting of the contact info?
Here's one:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004999.htm
Where's the second one? Not a post saying, "Links are still up at Indymedia, etc." but Malkin posting the stuff twice. I mean, once the turds rose out of the punchbowl, your premise is that ANY good person have removed the actual data. So Idymedia et al would have/should have done so. And left Harpy Malkin with an empty quiver of poisonous links, right?
Please show me Malkin's second posting of the SAW contact info.
Keystone,
Your 1st point -
"If PZ Myers posts your home phone number and says, "The Commissar says [insert some issue here that pushes liberals' buttons]. Tell him what you think about that," that's one thing. That shows somebody who purports to be a responsible commentator trying to put you in harm's way."
My response -
If I had publicly posted my contact info, sent it out in a press release, about .. oh .. a bunch of Creationists who were going to obstruct one of his Cafe Scientifique evenings, and he re-posted it as you describe .. I wouldn't have much to complain about.
I hear you loud and clear on that. But when you leave out the second half of my point, that changes the meaning.
Again, in this point I am not concerned with the availability of your contact info. I am addressing the different levels of responsibility between the blog editor and an anonymous poster.
That is to say, it is an entirely different matter for a blog editor to take threatening and/or dangerous actions than for an anonymous commenter to do the same.
Thus, your comparison of Michelle Malkin's actions to the actions of some anonymous dude rings hollow.
Keystone,
You're a fair debater. I assure you I was trying to be concise, not trying to change your meaning.
I replied, by example, using Myers as a blog editor, in an analogous situation, all the way around. If he, in the context, posted my publicly available info, I'd have no cause for complaint. Myers is not anonymous. He is a 'blog editor.'
Your obviously humorous, and anonymous, threats to my dog are wholly irrelevant.
If this reply isnt good enough (and its as good as I can do), one of us is missing the point and we'll have to let it go. Cheers.
Thanks, Commissar, you too. But I think you're right, we're still talking past each other.
In any case, keep your dog inside tonight!!!
Commisar:
first one, April 12, 2006 09:52 AM:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004974.htm
second one, April 17, 2006 09:19 AM
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004999.htm
see? 2. 'K?
Thanks, Commissar, you too. But I think you're right, we're still talking past each other.
In any case, keep your dog inside tonight!!!
CCP,
Yep. 2. Both with contact info. Thank you.
Malkin, however, instead posted it again.
Are you lacking in reading comprehension, PZ? Seriously. Read the second post that CCP so kindly linked to. The second time she posted the info, she was posting a screenshot of the press release IN RESPONSE TO SAW'S LIE THAT THEY HAD NOT PUBLISHED THE INFO. I really cannot believe that you failed to understand that, so unless there is some indication otherwise, I am left with the undeniable conclusion that you are knowingly and willfully lying.
Ohhh...I get it now, JMcH! Because she was "responding to SAW's lie" apparently made because they no longer wanted their info published, clearly that means she had no knowledge whatsoever of the death-threat situation or their desire for her to remove the information, and couldn't be expected to recognize the risks and potential consequences of posting contact information (again) in a public forum known for its predominantly angry conservative attendance.
Yes. It all makes sense now.
clearly that means she had no knowledge whatsoever of the death-threat situation
What does it matter if she was or wasn't? There's no proof that the people who sent the threats got the information from her blog. The SAW press release contained the information and it was reposted on liberal sites, too. Even if they did get the info from her blog, so what? She's not responsible for the actions of a few morons. She's not their mommy or their babysitter. I asked this before, but is the phone company automatically obliged (i.e. without having to be asked) to remove a person's information from the phone book if that person receives death threats from a psychopath who looked him or her up? If a newspaper article about someone includes contact info for him or her (which they authorized) and they receive death threats, does the newspaper have to track down each and every copy of the issue in question?
or their desire for her to remove the information
Michelle has not been contacted by any of the students named. If she were to be contacted (politely!), I'm sure she would have no problem removing the information.
couldn't be expected to recognize the risks and potential consequences of posting contact information (again)
Why isn't your anger directed at SAW, then? They are the ones who originally published the info. They are the ones who should be ashamed and apologize to the students. And what about the liberal sites that also reposted the contact info? I guess it's okay for them to repost it, but not Michelle.
in a public forum known for its predominantly angry conservative attendance.
Oh, please... "Predominantly angry conservative attendance." What a joke! Neither Michelle or her readers called these students various disgusting epithets involving the word "cunt." Liberals called her those things, though. Who are the "predominantly angry" ones again?
Your entire response dances around the main points I made. I point out her specific audience and reach as being key to the issue...and you spend time saying "liberals are mean too!" and claiming a liberal blog's audience is just as dangerous a forum to present the information as Malkin's.
And I'm sorry, but the "none of the students named contacted me" defense holds nothing in light of the obvious fact that they don't want it out there anymore, especially on blogs like Malkin's. You then make the asinine analogy that this is equivalent to asking a newspaper to remove the relevant material from physical copies already in circulation.
Let me ask you something: If it was YOUR name involved, and the information existed on several blogs liberal and conservative, which would scare YOU more? I can tell you (if I were you) that my efforts would be focused on the blogs likely to be hostile to me. The rest would be a much lower priority.
Given the things we now know about the situation, what possible reason could there be for posting this information WITH that knowledge? Perhaps, as with the Mohammed cartoon incident, because of a desire to take an ideological stance?
Would that explain your decision to reprint this information on your blog?
"Would that explain your decision to reprint this information on your blog?"
um ...
Maybe to defend myself against the lie that SAW had not posted it themselves?
That might explain it.
Don't click this link.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005029.htm
In JMcH's case? No, Commissar, I don't think that has anything to do with why he posted it. I'm disappointed you would suggest otherwise.
As for your other point...no, I DON'T know who she's referring to (guess she doesn't mean me, then). Regardless, how much longer will we be debating the sum of multiple wrongs?
I point out her specific audience and reach as being key to the issue
No, you lied about her specific audience. Whatever your ideas are about who primarily reads her blog, it's a fantasy. There is more putrid hate vomitted from the liberals who read her blog than the conservatives who do.
and you spend time saying "liberals are mean too!"
If that's what you read, I weep for the dead art of reading comprehension.
and claiming a liberal blog's audience is just as dangerous a forum to present the information as Malkin's.
No, I never claimed such a thing. I claimed that none of you had any proof whatsoever that the people who made the threats got the information from Michelle's blog, and I pointed out that the information was reproduced elsewhere - INCLUDING LEFT-WING SITES. I also pointed out that SAW posted the info in their own press release.
You're all about backing things up with evidence here - or so you claim (the evidence for that actually proves otherwise). Yet on this point, you have drawn a conclusion with little to no supporting evidence. It simply cannot be concluded with any certainty that the people who made threats got the contact information from Michelle's blog. If you can provide evidence - REAL evidence and not lazy-brained assumptions based on your personal biases - otherwise, please do.
And I'm sorry, but the "none of the students named contacted me" defense holds nothing in light of the obvious fact that they don't want it out there anymore, especially on blogs like Malkin's.
If they don't want it out there anymore, then why haven't they contacted Michelle and asked her to remove the information? SAW changed their press release and then lied about it, making it appear as if Michelle had tracked down the information herself and posted it. (Part of me wonders if she's waiting for an admission and apology from SAW.)
You then make the asinine analogy that this is equivalent to asking a newspaper to remove the relevant material from physical copies already in circulation.
It's not asinine. It's bloody accurate. SAW is like the newspaper. They released the contact information. Michelle and the other sites that reproduced the info are like the circulated copies of the newspaper. Death threats were made using that info and now people are expecting the other "copies" to be rounded up and removed from existence.
Let me ask you something: If it was YOUR name involved, and the information existed on several blogs liberal and conservative, which would scare YOU more? I can tell you (if I were you) that my efforts would be focused on the blogs likely to be hostile to me. The rest would be a much lower priority.
And in doing so, would you lie and make it appear as if the people hostile to you had tracked down the info instead of the fact that you had disseminated it?
Given the things we now know about the situation, what possible reason could there be for posting this information WITH that knowledge? Perhaps, as with the Mohammed cartoon incident, because of a desire to take an ideological stance?
You know, whenever you post any information, there are always people who will abuse it. I see no reason to punish the many for the actions of the few.
Would that explain your decision to reprint this information on your blog?
I think I explained it pretty well there.
Would that explain your decision to reprint this information on your blog?
I think JMcH just gets his rocks off at the idea of leftists getting death threats. Good Christian boy, no?
To say I'm getting nowhere with you would be quite the understatement. We have extremely different perspectives on reality. FWIW:
If they don't want it out there anymore, then why haven't they contacted Michelle and asked her to remove the information?
They claim that they have. State it more than once at the link in PZ's original post. Even if they're lying, don't you think that establishes they don't want it out there now, regardless of what they released in the past? Don't you think any reasonable and kind person would take it down upon understanding that fact?
"any reasonable and kind person"
What happened to "Yell at a Republican?" Not "tell a specific person that you disagree with a specific item," but "Yell at a Republican," any one will do. For any reason. Any random GOOPer you see on the street, "Yell at him."
Oops. Sorry, scratch that. Today the Party is in "reasonable and kind" mode.
From Mr. "Yell at a Republican," (a few days ago), now Myers says "... attempts to intimidate by harrassment are all deplorable and I do not condone them, whether from the left or the right. They're just plain bad, mmm-kay?"
mmm-kay. I got it. I think.