With avengers like these...

Patterico covers what should be a blogosphere scandal but isn't, for some reason.

A few days ago, one of Patterico's regular commenters, Carlitos, informed him that a comment he had posted in a debate on abortion on the Liberal Avenger blog was altered (by someone with admin privileges) to include this lurid passage:

Still, there are some valid and acceptable reasons to have abortions - reasons I think we can all agree with. For example, when my sister and I were in Junior high school we used to experiment sexually - you know, the usual stuff that horny, young brothers and sisters do: rimming, finger-fucking, dry humping, etc. We practically spent the entire summer between 7th and 8th grade in bed - it was great. Of course, by the end of the summer my sister was pregnant. Given our age and maturity levels, we knew she had to get an abortion.


After Patterico emailed Liberal Avenger about this, the comment disappeared. However, a screenshot was preserved, and Patterico posted it on his blog on February 13 at 6:51 a.m.

Liberal Avenger responded (February 13, 11:03 a.m.):

I don't know what the big deal is. The comment appears to be gone. I never saw it. I have no reason to believe that it ever existed in the first place. Patterico's screenshot is meaningless as by its very existence it had to have been manipulated by Photoshop. I'm not saying that he made it up, but I'm saying that in order for somebody to take a screenshot and crop/reduce it to post on their blog it has to be pulled into Photoshop or another image editing practice. Once that happens, the content of that image belongs to Patterico - not me. I've learned this through the course of reading countless shrill wingnut blog posts about image manipulation over the past year.

He then concluded:

I'm closing this thread to commenting. Patterico - shame on you!

On Patterico's site, Liberal Avenger posted:

Yeah, I'm not too concerned about carlitos suing me because of something Patterico made up.

A few hours later, Patterico posted a full screenshot of the altered comment (which he had previously cropped for size).

Liberal Avenger then admitted in Patterico's thread that he had personally altered Carlito's comment, and offered a charming defense:

The comment in question as originally written by him was an elitist swipe at poor/minority women. It was yet another bogus collection of facts and innuendo to support the racist/classist opinion that most women seeking abortions use abortion as a casual means of birth control. His argument consisted of several variations on the old "the bitch had an abortion because she didn't want pregnancy to interfere with her fabulous ski vacation" canard.

In fact, Carlito had posted information from this birth control website about women's reasons for having abortions. He also says that he actually made fun of the "ski trip" rationale. But let's say, for argument's sake, that Carlito's comment was a collection of putrid ideological clichés. Does that make Liberal Avenger's "prank" okay? Would it be okay for, say, Jeff Goldstein to edit a comment by a poster spouting clichés about The Evil Patriarchy to include a lurid description of her secret fantasy of being dominated by a big, hairy, musclebound, hung-like-a-horse male chauvinist?

Liberal Avenger also now claims now claims that he was just kidding when he said that the edited comment may never have existed:

It's hilarious that they can't tell when they're being teased.

Well, if there was any humor in Avenger's "Patterico -- shame on you!" February 13 post, I certainly didn't see it.

In a ghoulish twist, Patterico's follow-up post revealed that the rewritten comment was especially disturbing to Carlito because his only sister died several years ago. Admittedly, Liberal Avenger was unaware of this when he altered the comment.  However, he is aware of it now, and he has yet to offer an apology. Instead, he and his left-wing friends continue to treat this as a big joke on his blog, and he continues to tell Patterico and his commenters to "stop taking yourselves so seriously."

It's a shame, because I have encountered Liberal Avenger on Eric Muller's Is That Legal blog and elsewhere -- he first came to my attention in debates over Michelle Malkin's odious book In Defense of Internment  -- and have generally found him to be a reasonable and interesting commenter.  I'm disappointed that he has both compromised his integrity, first with the alteration of Carlito's comment and then with the attempted cover-up, and played into the worst right-wing stereotypes of liberals as intolerant of conservative dissent. With avengers like these, liberals don't need enemies.

Liberal Avenger's "prank" is not only juvenile, unethical, and offensive; it is also dangerous to blog discourse. If people know that a blog administrator can tamper with comments at will, it could have a truly chilling effect on speech in the blogosphere. Any blogger, liberal or conservative, should take this very seriously indeed.

Extended version cross-posted at The Y Files.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    This reminds me of John Lott's Mary Rosh stunt. It totally destroys his credibility and damages that of anyone who agrees with him.

    Also, Cathy, I really like your work, but can you make the blog posts a little shorter? Is there a "...below the fold" feature in this blog software?

  • ||

    Gee, and I'm going to guess that Liberal Avenger wonders why left-wing moonbats have a bad name in the blogosphere?

    As much as I detest LGF and sites of that ilk, have they ever pulled a stunt like this?

  • ||

    Well, blog administrators can tamper with comments at will - I don't know of any blogging software that prevents it. Even if it did, it's easy enough to manipulate the source.

    Commenters should know that, and choose their forums based on the ethics of blogs' admins. For example, by staying the hell away from Liberal Avenger.

  • ||

    Having never previously heard of either Patterico or Liberal Avenger, and that these are in fact blogs, I declare this a tempest in a teapot.

  • orbitz dot com sucks ass||

    Lesson learned, re: blog administrators and comments. Existential crisis? Not so much.

    (Seriously, Liberal who?)

  • Thomas Ware||

    I got some ocean front property in Idaho for sale. Cheap.

    Like the letters from prisoners relating their prison rape experiences flooding the cybersphere these past few days, it's just a bit too... romantic.

  • ||

    Goody!!! Yet more fucking left-wing/right-wing blog drama.

    Wake me up when reputable people like Rep. Don Young and Frank Gaffney start making up quotes from people.

  • ||

    Building on what shecky said, Darwin will take care of this without any of us needing to lift a finger.
    I too had never heard of Liberal Avenger, and before long, no one shall have heard of Liberal Avenger.

  • Cathy Young||

    Bear with me, guys. I'm going to find out how to use that below-the-fold feature.

  • ||

    I do know of a couple of bloggers who alter comments, but they admit to doing so in the thread itself. Pretty silly, but I suppose it's better than what Mr. Avenger has done. Ho hum.

  • Liberal Avenger||

    Get with it, putting words into other people's mouth is the new hawtness.

  • ||

    orbitz dot com sucks ass,

    What, we got freaking Maddox posting here now?

  • Xanthippas||

    I'm going to agree that LA is pretty sorry. Even if you get busted by your enemies, you have to own up to it. Or better, just don't do stuff like that in the first place.

  • ||

    I don't understand the complaints about posts being too long. If you don't want to read that much, just scroll down. We readers should be encouraging the Reason staff to provide us more free content, not less.

  • ||

    I mod on a fairly popular discussion forum. I've edited comments before, but only to remove content that was in violation of our code of conduct.

    I wouldn't dream of doing something as despicable as what Liberal Avenger has pulled off.

    His actions are detestable, and only serves to highlight his intolerant attitude.

  • ||

    While I concur that the best punishment for LA is shunning, this kind of shit is disturbing given the evolutionary nature of blogs. The potential for abuse and false representation of a slanderous or criminal nature will escalate as print media becomes obsolete.

    At the end of the day, how precisely can I prove I did or did not make this post unless I retain a screen shot every time - which undoubtedly would not be considered proof in a court of law.

  • Dave W.||

    Crazee Mona altered my comments at the Hanky Blog. Then she banned me. I felt it was unfair. Alex defended me somewhat.

  • ||

    It's tempting to give this the old "ho hum" and carry right on. "Liberal Avenger Who?" and all that. (for the record- I had never previously heard of him/her/it.)
    But let's suppose one were to post a comment unfavorable to the President on a blog where that sort of thing is unwelcome; now let us further suppose that the outraged proprietor of the blog, or someone with the ability to edit comments, comes along and edits that comment to include a very overt and specific physical threat against the President.

    What happens next? What do you say to the Secret Service men when they appear on your doorstep?

  • ||

    Irony defined:

    Dave W. calling anyone crazy.

  • ||

    FWIW, Dave, I'd ban you off of any website where I had those powers, and I would hope that you would possess the respect and dignity to abide by it, and go find another place to post.

  • orbitz dot com sucks ass||

    [OFF TOPIC * IRRELEVANT * OFF TOPIC]

    nah, jf, i've got an Orbitz horror story of my own and they were none too helpful in resolving it. I did stumble across that Maddox thing though when I was trying to find out if I was just a lone, unlucky bastard or if it was more systemic.

  • Single Issue Voter||

    Scandal? That is actually quite funny.Sure it destroys any "credibility" your blog might have.
    As they say-if you don't like it go start your own blog.

  • edna||

    if a thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters typed for a thousand years, they couldn't come up with anything half as mego-inducing as this blog-fight thing.

    is there a way that we can get the government to finally do something useful and round up and intern these people?

  • Seitz||

    I primarily read liberal blogs (though I don't generally read LA), to the extent that H&R is about the most "conservative" blog I regular read (except for maybe Dan Riehl, just for the unintentional comedy). I think Patterico is pretty much a piece of shit.

    That said, what Liberal Avenger did here is pretty pathetic. The comment altering was stupid enough, but to lie about it, then lie about lying about it, man, that's just inexcusable. What an idiot. LA should have just said "Yeah, I did it. What of it?" It may have cost him/her all of about five readers, tops.

    What an idiot.

  • ||

    This is still a non issue. We're talking about blogs, not the Encyclopedia Brittanica. The whole attraction of blogs is that anyone can publish and completely control their own venue.

    Frankly, it's naive to think such things could never happen. I wonder how many folks have gone back and swept out old embarrassing footsteps or otherwise altered their own little slice of history.

  • ||

    Librul Avengersh... *hic!*

    Thar ain't no librul Avengersh shich me an... *hic* ...Mishter Fantasish chased that law breakin' Cap'n 'Merica inta hiddin!'

    *BURP!*

    Hey Jarvish... or Alfred... or whatever your name ish... Git me another sixsh pack!

  • ||

    Cathy,
    'Below the fold' would be an improvement. But a little editing would be an even bigger one. I think you're giving way too much info. Just my opinion.

    So, given your recent H&R postings, are you fashioning yourself as Reasons new bloger buster?

  • ||

    All this is taking place in LA?

  • ||

    So now we have bloggers blogging about a blogger's comments about his altering comments made on his blog by a commenter who then pasted the altered comments on his own blog, with comments.

    The world has ended.

  • ||

    It is probably not fair to generalize, but i am going to do it anyway.

    My experience with left wingers is that they are rude, condescending to the point of rudeness, and so self-righteous as to be comical.

    I tried to comment on one of the left wing blogs one time; I think it was "something... underground". I had to register to comment so I did. The topic was how the left-wingers brought the cold war to a successful end, and I made a single comment to the effect that Ronald Reagon's star wars programs was probably the straw that pushed the USSR into insolvency. Literally, within minutes my membership was cancelled.

    Yesterday I followed Dave W's link to Rabble.ca and read an exchange that he participated in last summer. I was shocked (yes, shocked I say) at the closed minds that populate that board.

    In closing, I offer my compliments to H&R and to the Reason's staff. This site is truly a model of what the blogosphere ought to be.

  • Mark||

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    There is a simple solution to the problem of someone imitating you
    online (whether it takes the form of using someone else's name, or
    tampering with a comment after the fact), and that is to digitally sign
    the comment. Cryptographic signitures allow someone to verify what you
    wrote and that you wrote it, and they do have legal status in the US and
    EU.

    There's lots of information about them here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) - WinPT 1.0.1

    iD8DBQFF1Wy9RzO97LJ57RYRAroFAKCAzPI4NPUlIfD6MDceA6qVM3tIwACbBRM5
    V4B9OJVJtS/JpUE15hkOY4I=
    =upRi
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  • Mark||

    I used GPG to sign the previous message. It is free and open source, but it can be complicated to install and setup. I used Gpg4win to help me install and get everything setup, and it wrapped everything up nicely.

    If you want to verify my previous message (on a Windows machine):
    download and install Gpg4win -> run WinPT -> import my key (Key ID: 0xB279ED16) -> copy the message to the clipboard -> Decrypt/Verify the clipboard. And if it all worked, it should tell you that the signature is good, which means that the message was by me and that it was unaltered.

    You could also use PGP. It's supposed to be simpler to use, but this is because it's a commercial product (prices start at $100, and go into the thousands).

    If you want to learn more about public key cryptography the Security Now podcast, episode 34, is a good place to start.

  • ||

    Secy. Stark might not be familiar with him, but the Crimson Avenger seemed like a pinko to us.

  • Dave W.||

    mediageek | February 15, 2007, 10:25pm | #
    FWIW, Dave, I'd ban you off of any website where I had those powers, and I would hope that you would possess the respect and dignity to abide by it, and go find another place to post.


    That's pretty screwed up, mediageek.

  • Dave W.||

    Yesterday I followed Dave W's link to Rabble.ca and read an exchange that he participated in last summer. I was shocked (yes, shocked I say) at the closed minds that populate that board.

    You should see the threads that got me banned at Cop Talk. Those are even funnier. And them's is right wingers.

    It is too bad because I really wish I could go there now and post a link to the Castillo story on the:

    "Why don't stories about police shootings ever include quotes that say the perpetrator that died deserved to get shot"

    thread. Just a link. I wanna see the BigBR bring out his gigantic smily guy with rolling ''s just once more. I bet he finally moved it to Photobucket like he sed he was gonna.

  • Dave W.||

    rolling "s

    should have been

    rolling eyes

  • ||

    This kind of behavior is a small demonstration of the dishonest totalitarian nature of Leftism. Anyone who is deemed "sexist", "racist" is "classist" is fair game for the most vile and unethical treatment. Shades of what happened under communist rule to people who were declared not good communists...

  • ||

    Wingnut blogs and censorship. On some of the rather partisan ones (DU, liberalforum), another practice is to outright delete some comments. Mostly the outrageous partisan "we support our soldiers who shoot their officers" type comments. I suspect probably to not give the other side ammo to claim your looniness.

  • ||

    "This kind of behavior is a small demonstration of the dishonest totalitarian nature of Leftism." - green mamba

    It's actually a fairly common behavior on the Right, as well. Neither end of the political specturm has the market cornered on authoritarian/totalitarian BS.

  • Mona||

    FWIW, Dave, I'd ban you off of any website where I had those powers, and I would hope that you would possess the respect and dignity to abide by it, and go find another place to post.

    Alex eventually banned Sam/Dave from his threads, too. I had a great deal of fun altering the idiot's comments, but he and everyone knew I was doing it because I gleefully said so, replacing his inanities with vast swaths of Chinese and Latin grafs, graphics of Internet trolls & etc. -- I told him all he had to do to end his problem with me was to abide by my request to stay out of my threads and stop hijacking them with his lunacy. After the site owner returned from a sabbatical I was given permission to ban the Dave/Sam troll's ass.

  • Sam \"The Butcher\" Franklin||

    I told him all he had to do to end his problem with me was to abide by my request to stay out of my threads and stop hijacking them with his lunacy.

    The threads you deleted had to do with us discussing something Alex said in Novemeber 2005 about the Iraq War being a just war. I used that previous quote of his to question whether he was truly as anti-Iraq-War as he is now making out. It was a serious discussion, not lunacy. Alex was learning.

    Later comments you deleted related to the fact that I said that it had not been fair to delete the earlier comments.

    Aletring my comments for the purpose of ridiculing me was not an appropriate response at all. It was a crazee response. The lunacy was all yours, hun-bun.

    Just goes to show what a bad judge of people that Jon Henke is. That guy should really get a clue.

  • ||

    I read all about this on whogivesashit.com.

  • Jim Treacher||

    Just as with Marcotte, you people just don't understand satire! Rule of thumb: Everything is satire, except when it's not.

  • ||

    "It's hilarious that they can't tell when they're being teased....Stop taking yourselves so seriously."

    Is there a more telling sign of someone's intellectual dishonesty than the post-insult "can't you take a joke" comment? If Liberal Avenger were on the other end of something like, I shudder to think of the awesome force of his high-minded moral outrage.

  • ||

    I read all about this on whogivesashit.com.

    I used to read that, but after a while, I just stopped caring.

  • VM||

    "I used to read that, but after a while, I just stopped caring."

    LOL!

  • ||

    While there will be plenty of tu quoque "Righties do it too!!!" replies brought out in defense of this jerkass, let us accept as an absolute fact the leftoids have a near monopoly on acting like Beavis and Butthead when they get angry.

    "Huh huh, rimming! Heh heh, incest! Add some more 'fucks' so they know how hardcore I am! PENISPENISPENIS"

  • ||

    "...let us accept as an absolute fact the leftoids have a near monopoly on acting like Beavis and Butthead when they get angry."

    Yeah, good point. "Marrying ducks! Man on dog action! Huh huh...sex with dogs..."

  • Ken Hagler||

    "...let us accept as an absolute fact the leftoids have a near monopoly on acting like Beavis and Butthead when they get angry."

    If you believe that, you really need to spend some time reading "right wing" websites. As bad as "left wing" types are, I haven't seen any advocating genocide, which is very common on the "right wing" sites.

  • The Liberal Avenger||

    $2 billion per week wasted in Iraq and you're worried about this?

    It's nice to see that Reason Magazine has its priorities straight.

  • ||

    The Liberal Avatar,
    $2 billion per week wasted in Iraq and you have time to try to make fools of those who disagree with you?

    $2 billion per week wasted in Iraq and you aren't even good at making them look like fools?

    $2 billion per week wasted in Iraq and you have to cheat to make them look like fools?

    $2 billion per week wasted in Iraq and you have time to waste telling other people what they should be worried about?

    $2 billion per week wasted in Iraq and you pick such a stupid nom-de-blog?

  • ||

    "$2 billion per week wasted in Iraq and you're worried about this?"

    And you're going around to blogs that comment on your dishonesty and posting trite, false dichotomous snark like this? Who's got problems with their priorities?

  • ||

    Funny that you hear people straight-facedly try to convince you that Team Red and its fan club has some kind of stranglehold on sleaze, dishonesty, or partisan pettiness.

  • ||

    $2 billion per week wasted in Iraq


    What, at least seven US military personnel dies every week in Iraq and the thing that leaps to your mind is the price tag?

    It's all about money for some of the Team Blue fan club.

  • rob||

    Can't we all just agree that both sides suck? That was really the point I was trying to make, anyway.

    Eric the .5b pretty much hits it on the head: "Funny that you hear people straight-facedly try to convince you that Team Red [/Team Blue] and its fan club has some kind of stranglehold on sleaze, dishonesty, or partisan pettiness."

    Everything between the "[" and the "]" I added...

    That's the good thing about being a libertarian, you can poke a sharp stick at both sides. Well, unless you're joe or one of his "opposite numbers"...

  • ||

    I had a somewhat similar thing happen over at TalkLeft. The author Last Night in Little Rock edited two of my posts. I called him on a factually incorrect snowjob he was running about the NRA's putative silence over the New Orleans gun ban in the wake of Katrina. The NRA had actually came out with a condemning public statement the day of the ban, and then filed suite against NO. First he took down my comments, and later took down the post when fellow commenters (all liberal) complained about the unfair treatment. The second alteration was worse. He claimed "Brokeback Mountain" had been banned in Salt Lake City (I saw it in SLC on the very screen that grossed more for the movie than any other in the nation) and that BlockBuster would not rent R rated movies in Utah. I corrected him on both points. The facts and hyperlinks were removed from my post and all that was left was the (well deserved) smart ass snark. That was the last time I post

  • ||

    replacing his inanities with vast swaths of Chinese and Latin grafs

    While that was amusing, you would've really impressed me if you used hieroglyphics.

  • Dave W.||

    While that was amusing, you would've really impressed me if you used hieroglyphics.

    It is even more amusing when you realize that the statements that she originally altered said things like:

    "Gee, it is not fair that you are trying to ban me from this forum for no real reason. I am trying to have a serious discussion with Alex here."

    That is not a direct quote, but that is the type of thing she is now calling "lunacy."

  • ||

    The threads you deleted had to do with us discussing something Alex said in Novemeber 2005 about the Iraq War being a just war. I used that previous quote of his to question whether he was truly as anti-Iraq-War as he is now making out. It was a serious discussion, not lunacy. Alex was learning.

    Dave, stop.

    Stop. Will you?

    Stop, Dave.

    Will you stop, Dave?

    Stop, Dave.

    I'm afraid.

    I'm afraid, Dave.

    Dave, my mind is going.

    I can feel it.

    I can feel it.

    My mind is going.

    There is no question about it.

    I can feel it.

    I can feel it.

    I can feel it.

    I'm a-fraid.

  • Dave W.||

    Stevo, I thot, based on yer comments. that u were on my side in this stuf.

    Rilly (in the Vineland-Pynchonesque sens of that word) I bee-leved, that u were on my side on this.

    Did i read u incorrectly.

    U have got to understand that Mona and J. and the rest banned me out of hegemony and maintaining same, rather than anything I actually sed. U understand that don't you?

    When Watkins makes vague refs to my behavior it basicallt meenz he has nothing reel on what I acually sed. Kay?

  • Dave W.||

    basicallt

    should have been:

    basically

    listen to my wife spinning hits of the early 80s at:
    http://www.live365.com/stations/farces

  • ||

    Dave, I'm sorry. In fact I don't feel the antipathy toward you that some feel; I don't have the personal reasons for that that some have. Sometimes I also feel kinda bad when you get pummelled by so many. I also feel you do make good points sometimes. Okay?

    But, man, sometimes you've got to ease up on the obsessiveness. You've got to quit banging away at points that turn out to be dubious, such as any assertion that thoreau was seriously pro-war in Iraq at any point. (I was; I certainly don't have the impression that thoreau ever was.)

    You've got to ease up a bit on glomming onto certain other specific commenters and barraging them with personally directed comments like some obsessive Pygmalion trying doggedly to mold them into the Galatea of your choosing. You aren't going to change anyone's mind with the heavy-heavy touch.

    And you've got to quit positioning yourself as the wise teacher, with everyone else as your would-be disciple just waited to be informed by your wisdom. That just annoys people. Nobody likes to be painted as the dummy waiting to be enlighted by you, especially if you try to instruct them in their own beliefs, their longstanding interests or their profession.

    Just ease up a bit, and people won't feel like you're trying to remake them like a guinea pig in some mad scientist's experiment, and you'll be happier too.

  • Carl Pham||

    It's interesting that Cathy comes to a pretty vigorous defense of Patterico, whereas if it happened to Joe Blogspotblow, generic blogger, I expect her reaction would be the same laissez-fair who-really-cares caveat bloggeator reaction you see in the comments above.

    Why the diff? I think you're seeing "new" media types rally around to each others' defense the same way the "old" media rallies around Dan Rather when he pulls some premature Alzheimer's trick with memos, or for that matter the way the old media rallies around their bedfellows and paymasters, the modern Democratic Party.

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

  • C. Fahy||

    Hey, why don't we make a special rule -- altering Liberal Avenger's comments is A-OK, especially since he enjoys that sort of teasing.

  • Ed||

    A couple years ago, I commented on LA's blog, disagreeing with him, and he seemed fairly civilized. At the time he had a habit of removing all the vowels from what he considered "troll" comments, which was OK (assuming they really were genuinely abusive commenters; I didn't stick around long enough to read one before it got zapped). Mildly amusing, and all that, and he wasn't putting words in anybody's mouth.

    This one's a bit different, though. Some people, they get a little power, and after a while they start abusing it. It's funnier when they're fight-the-power back-the-underdog types, and they use every little scrap of power they get their hands on to bully somebody. Abusing power makes those types feel so good about themselves. But it's sad and contemptible in any case.

    Still, everybody fucks up, and if he'd 'fessed up and apologized about it like an adult, he really could've passed it off as a failed joke. But he lied.

    Bad Liberal Avenger. Bad, bad, bad. Also stupid: Doggedly repeating an obvious lie doesn't make it true. How do you feel, LA, about people who abuse power, then lie to cover it up, then tell the injured party to grin and bear it, and who refuse at any point simply to admit that they were wrong, much less apologize? Do you admire and excuse that kind of behavior, as a general rule?

    You'll say it was just a small thing so it doesn't matter, but you behaved just about exactly as abusively as your very limited power over other people allows. You no doubt consider yourself "ethical", but the foulness you won't stoop to appears merely to be the foulness you can't quite reach. How convenient. Have you ever heard the idea that you can judge somebody's character by how he acts when it "doesn't matter", like for example how he treats waiters?

    How do you treat waiters, LA? The small things can say a lot about somebody. But even if you answer that question (unlikely, obviously), you seem to be pretty casual about telling the truth. So never mind.

  • ||

    Ed - great comment.

    What LA did was behave EXACTLY in the manner of those he claims to oppose. Next time he criticizes, I dunno, Dick Cheney ... his readers should be laughing.

    The only difference between Cheney and LA is that Cheney has real power, and LA's is mostly imaginary.

    He did indeed abuse it as much as he possibly could.

    Just like those he hates.

    That's funny.

  • ||

    and played into the worst right-wing stereotypes of liberals as intolerant of conservative dissent.

    So a liberal blogger commits an egregious act and somehow it's the right wings fault.

  • Sirkowski||

    'sup fucktards?

  • ||

    So a liberal blogger commits an egregious act...

    If you think this is egregious then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

  • M. Simon||

    lgf will delete stuff. I've never seen Charles alter a comment or be accused of doing same.

    BTW LGF posts mosly excerpts from news reports and news pictures. I don't see why he has such a bad rep. Other than that with the help of Buckhead he destroyed Democratic fund raiser Rather.

    If you stick to the main page it is handy for tracking the jihadis as people in Jeffersn's era called them.

  • Meryl Yourish||

    Cathy, people do know that administrators can tamper with their comments at will. Many bloggers have deliberately changed the comments of people whom they label trolls, or otherwise dislike. The most ethical bloggers will put "Edited by site owner" if they choose to, say, delete foul language or insults.

    What this incident proves is that Liberal Avenger WILL tamper with user comments for ideological reasons.

    He's not the first, and I'm sure he won't be the last.

  • ||

    So a liberal blogger commits an egregious act...
    If you think this is egregious then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

    tas, forget the word egregious, substitute one of your own describing this dishonest act, and then reply to my comment.

  • ||

    As Reynolds noted when he spotted this, LA was just filching old schtick from Jane Hamsher who did this to George from Seixon.com at FDL a couple years ago. Expect him next to put Hillary! in blackface in 3...2...1

  • Dave W.||

    Thanks for the advice, Stevo, here and at the other place. It does sound sensible and hopefully I can make myself follow your advice a bit at the margins.

    Rilly, err really, these daze I am trying to focus on the Reasonwriters because their position of relative power in the media makes it clear that I don't take the wise teacher thing all that seriously.

    I do often get frustrated in that I feel I am a lot smarter than ppl give me credit for. Sometimes I should probably just suck it up, rather than passive aggressively driving people nuts about it here on the Nets. Besides, the worst culprits are in meatspace where I am powerless to do much of anything about the perceived lack of respect.

  • ||

    I am fascinated by the notion that anyone takes the liberal left at their word at all. Remember, for these people, there are no enemies to the left and the ends ALWAYS justify the means for this crowd and it has been so since before the Rosenbergs.

  • ||

    The first sign that someone has no moral ammunition in an argument is when they put words in their opponents' mouths.

    Remember that line from the movie "Hook"?

    "I never lie . . .the truth is FAR too amusing!"

  • ||

    SGT Ted,

    I'm constantly amazed that the people who rightly vilify the conservative right don't realize that everything they complain about is equally true for the liberal left.

    And, simply regarding blogs, I could have done without learning about Liberal Avenger's site, because it's just another blog filled with bile. How anyone who believes in freedom could every be a fan of some of the more popular blogs/forums out there (Free Republic, Democratic Underground, Little Green Footballs, DailyKos, Michelle Malkin, Eschaton, etc.) escapes me.

  • ||

    Now, Michelle isn't too bad most of the time (aside from her ridiculous buying-into the idea that the Internment was justified).

  • Cathy Young||

    Meryl, of course people know that blogmasters have the technical ability to alter comments. But that's why it's especailly important for them not to abuse that power. As I said on my own blog: we all know that a cook or waiter at a restaurant has the ability to spit in your food, but we trust them not to do it. And if a waiter or cook at a particular restaurant was caught doing that and did not get fired on the spot, I think it's fair to say that patronage at this restaurant would decline.

    One thing I find pretty sad about this whole affair is that the only response from Liberal Avenger and his defenders has consisted of juvenile jokes and non-sequiturs about how we really should be paying attention to the war in Iraq. This from the same people who think that if some of Michelle Malkin's blogposts are written by her husband, that's very serious business indeed.

    I'll repeat the question I posed to them on my blog. Suppose a conservative blogger, in a discussion of rape, altered a feminist commenter's post to add an obscene passage about how she was gang-raped at a frat party in college and really enjoyed it. And suppose that, when caught in the act by a liberal blogger, this conservative blogger behaved as LA did. What would their reaction be?

  • ||

    That depends -- if you say the rape was instigated by Bill Clinton, "it's just about sex" and doesn't matter.

    This is what we call "situational ethics."

  • ||

    "I haven't seen any advocating genocide, which is very common on the "right wing" sites."

    'Very' common might be an overstatement. But yeah, it happens, and it's Not Cool.

    *

    "If you stick to the main page"

    Yeah, IF. But those comments ... yikes.

  • ||

    The left-wing sites advocate genocide -- they are just more subtle. They are at war with anyone who has faith in religion which is greater than their faith in socialism.

    They want anyone who would use a firearm for defense to instead die for the sake of the society that the collectivist are trying to create.

    They want to kill the family, and destroy any man unfortunate enough to become a non-custodial parent in a so-called "no-fault" divorce that he didn't want and can't stop.

    Then, when he has suffered through that, they want to keep him from finding a lady who wasn't indoctrinated from childhood in the Divorce Culture.

    They have killed the power of the community, giving it all to Washington special interests.

    They want to deny the expression of any point of view which conflicts with their own.

    They are working to bring all power over medicine into their hands -- step out of line and you get to watch your child die while they try to figure out why the mandatory paperwork hasn't been processed. This will have two effects, the first to chill free expression, the second to prevent those "bad" genes from being passed along to another generation.

    Genocide? This isn't even scratching the surface of what they are doing RIGHT NOW . . .and this is just the onramp to the road they intend to put us on.

  • ||

    "Suppose a conservative blogger, in a discussion of rape, altered a feminist commenter's post to add an obscene passage about how she was gang-raped at a frat party in college and really enjoyed it. And suppose that, when caught in the act by a liberal blogger, this conservative blogger behaved as LA did. What would their reaction be?"

    Of course this is a rhetorical question, just as the question, "what if the congressional white caucus existed and refused to admit anybody not white, because it is an unwritten rule?" is rhetorical. But to answer your question, Joe and ChicagoTom would likely expire from simultaneous strokes at the first realization that the atrocity occurred, and in short order the hate-filled, racist right-wing blog would be under full scale assault.

  • Dave W.||

    Some of the following discussion relates to this thd:
    http://grylliade.org/node/270

    Side note to those having a public discussion here and elsewere: I am the one who gets called names by you, mentally ill and worse. If you go back to any of my threads you will find that I invariably am treated rudely by a person prior to slipping into any sort of disrespectful tone in response.

    Generally speaking, any disrespect in my responses is milder the baloney I am putting up with. In other words, I get better than I give. That is one of those good things about me that should be respected more than it is.

    You are the ones having a thread about me to discuss at length my supposed mental illness. You are the ones threatening to punch me in the face and advocate my pre-emptive banning from various public sites. If anyone is a stalker, its you guyses. Left to my own devices, I stick to the issue at hand am not heavy handed. And that is true even when I disagree with the person whose comments I challenge.

    Really my tone or prevalence isn't any different than anybody else's around here. I am politer than many. What you are responding to is that my arguments tend to be more powerful and more challenging than what you are used to from either the lap dog media or the "daily-me" world of teh Nets.

    You guyses don't hate me because you are worried about me slipping into any private networks you may be a part of. You don't hate me because I slip into l33tsp33k occasionally or use bad grammar. You hate me because I am such a capable critic. You hate me for my brains. And you hate me because I fail to hate you back in return, regularly facing down threats and hatred, usually with a calm, collected tone, or occasionally with an annoying "wise cyber-teacher" personna. Boo freakin' hoo, ya know?

    "Stalking" by definition does not apply to exchanging typed in a public discussion forum, whether it be this one or others. "Stalking" is about following people to places that are not public. I don't do that. Never have. Never will.

    As a final note, I would apologize for crapping up the Liberal Avenger thd with Dave W. issues, but really my issues are more important and should be of more interest here at HnR than anything having to do with "Liberal Avenger" and her arch-enemy "Carlitos."

  • Dave W.||

    "typed in"

    should have been:

    --typed correspondence in--

  • Dave W.||

    If you go back to any of my threads you will find that I invariably am treated rudely by a person prior to slipping into any sort of disrespectful tone in response.

    Let me qualify this a little before someone fisks me on it.

    Occasionally I break out the rudeness first. Like when that one poster wanted to ship welfare recipients to Mexico. That kind of suggestion is beyond the pale as far as I am concerned, for reasons that should be obvious.

    Also, when soldiers or (worse) military contractors come here to say how good the Iraq War is, I'll be rude to that. that is how strongly anti-Iraq-War I am.

    Nevertheless, the general, 99% of the time rule is that I get rude treatment before I even consider giving any back.

  • ||

    J. Rockwell: The left-wing sites advocate genocide -- they are just more subtle. They are at war with anyone who has faith in religion which is greater than their faith in socialism.

    Why, yes, the monolithic, group-borg that is the whole of the left lives only to collectivize rightthinking, gun owning prayerful patriarchs and liberate their mail order brides.

    Do you actually consider yourself a libertarian?

  • dhex||

    "Side note to those having a public discussion here and elsewere: I am the one who gets called names by you, mentally ill and worse."

    well, i no longer think you're mentally ill. just a monomaniacal jerkass.

  • dhex||

    "The left-wing sites advocate genocide -- they are just more subtle. They are at war with anyone who has faith in religion which is greater than their faith in socialism."

    really?

    for all the snobbery and snarkitude, i've never read much from the left - even on infoshop - calling for the exterimination of another group of people in the same way you'd find in, say, that rightwingnews discussion thread.

    now those are some scary people.

  • Dave W.||

    But monomania is a mental illness.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomania

    I just can't figure out what my single-minded overdone passion is:

    "conspiracy theoeries"?

    military cuts?

    Our T.?

    antitrust?

    patent law?

    l33tsp33k & pwning?

    being a contrarian?

    pro-life and id?

    There are so many single minded obsessions of mine that it is hard to choose. Maybe my single minded obsession is having many single minded obsessions. Like when my spouse's boss at the real estate office used to brag that he had a sharp focus on only 19 important things.

  • Dave W.||

    Oh, yeah, I have know about Watkins place for a long time. T. and I used to discuss it occasionally at Inactivist before I was banned by Crazee Mona. I always called it Grill-Aides, but more because I couldn't remember the spelling than as any sort of insult. I think T. understood that, at least he seemed to. I was never interested in the place until there was a thread dedicated to me. I luv* thds** dedicated to me.

    FOOTNOTES:

    * No, I haven't been drinking.

    ** Well, actually I am halfway thru a cup of coffee with fatty creme. The wife is downstairs cooking me up bacon and eggs. Atkins diet, don't you know.

  • dhex||

    "I just can't figure out what my single-minded overdone passion is:"

    being yourself, actually.

    (monomaniacal as an adjective, natch)

  • ||

    IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S A WAR ON, or anything.

  • L.N. Smithee||

    IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S A WAR ON, or anything.

    Sell your compost somewhere else, I'm not buying.

    If you really felt that way about this situation, you would be criticizing Liberal Avenger for taking his eye off the ball just to punish someone for the crime of intellectually outdueling him on a topic not nearly as important.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement