November 25, 2005

Fending off rabid attack poodles.

I really appreciate these two comments from Wombat Rampant. First:
I don't think I'll be dropping by the OSM portal much because I think Steven den Beste and Ann Althouse are correct in their criticisms of the business model and the way Simon and Johnson have handled things, i.e. poorly.
And second:
Ann Althouse is getting shot up from the right and the left these days, which unfortunately seems to be the fate of moderates in these polarized times. The Pajamas Media/OSM/Pajamas Media folks seem to have gone into hypersensitive rabid attack poodle mode ever since Professor A criticized them for things they themselves are trying to fix now; the latest blowup seems to be over her fairly mild criticism (if you can even call it that) of PM's Thanksgiving Parade liveblogging and related tightening of comment policing on the Professor's blog.

As for the yahoos at Daily Kos, sounds like the same hypocrisy on a different day as they defend their right to be as racist and sexist as they wanna be, because it's all just funny masks they wear in the comment section as a big inside joke. Ann exposes the stupidity of that argument, and ruminates that the Democrats went a long way towards killing off honest feminism in the Clinton years. All that's left are the "bitches" now, if you'll forgive my use of GULAG thieves' slang.
Thanks. A while back, instead of the quotes you now see in my banner, I had a description that began "Politics and the aversion to politics." I really am blogging as someone with a distaste for politics, someone who is put off by hot partisan passion. Most people who don't like partisan politics and who find themselves close to the political center aren't going to want to deal with the usual ugliness of the blogosphere. Why do I? I have my reasons.

Poodles.

67 comments:

Pete said...

Ann, you are my new favorite blogger. Keep calling them like you see them...

Harkonnendog said...

Every time I click on a link that goes to the OSM portal I can't stand to read it.
Good bloggers don't blog well on that portal, and the setup is pretentious-msm-wannabe...
It is like that idea of unionizing hit men in Grosse Pointe Blank- it just feels wrong- bloggers are supposed to be lone wolf types with nothing to lose but their integrity.
You don't get that feel with the OSM.
Blogging works because it is such a direct connection from one person to another- OSM puts a bureaucratic wall out... I don't like Tech Central Station for the same reason. Sometimes the whole is less than the sum of the parts.

Bill from INDC said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Asher Abrams said...

Ann,

Thank you for posting the link to the Pajamas Media discussion board. (For some reason the post permalink doesn't work.)

For those interested, the discussion board is here:
http://pajamasmedia.isfullofcrap.com/index.php

DEC said...

Re Ann's comment: "As for the yahoos at Daily Kos, sounds like the same hypocrisy on a different day as they defend their right to be as racist and sexist as they wanna be, because it's all just funny masks they wear in the comment section as a big inside joke."

As a young journalist 35 years ago, I interviewed Marshall McLuhan. He told me, "All jokes are grievances."

Pooh said...

It is like that idea of unionizing hit men in Grosse Pointe Blank- it just feels wrong- bloggers are supposed to be lone wolf types with nothing to lose but their integrity.

I think this hits on it perfectly. The end goal of the cream of the "anti-MSM" blogosphere is to become a poor imitation of said MSM? Wha?

Wombat Rampant said...

Bill, did you even read what I wrote? I was pretty clear that I don't like this kind of mau-mauing when it's done by the Left, and I like even less it when it comes from my putative allies among the Right and the "hard" libertarians. That's the entire point of what I said, and I don't think I was being obscure.

oldgranny said...

Before the Corner was created at NRO, I used to click over there on my daily rotation looking for news and insights. Now I rarely do because the Corner is insider talk and no comments from readers are allowed.

I get the same eyes glazing over with the Carnival at OSM, and the Parade blogging and now the Navel Gazing blogging. He said, she said …

Maybe it's just me. I don't like reading plays either.

SteveWe said...

DEK said: "All jokes are grievances."

Or, rather DEK repeats M. McLuhan.

I'd never thought of jokes that way and can only offer thanks to the originator and the memorizer. While McLuhan was often FOS, he did have moments of probity, IMHO.

Asher Abrams said...

Thanks for fixing the link!

Ann Althouse said...

Pete: Thanks!

Wombat: Sorry I deleted the post you replied to. It contain some ugly overheated language about me "immolating" myself that is the sort of thing I'm moderating out of here from now on. Really, just a typical "shut up" post of the sort I've been getting ever since I criticized the offer PJ sent me back in August. The enforcers of the "first rule of Pajamas Media." What are the chances that telling me that one more time is going to work? If I believed him, then my "integrity" would already be shot to hell forever, so what would be the point of stopping? It's lacking even in internal logic!

Harkennendog: "It is like that idea of unionizing hit men in Grosse Pointe Blank." LOL.

Thanks for the alert on the links. Will see to them.

IndividualEthos said...

So, is anyone allowed to voice a dissenting point of view here in the Althouse comments section? Or will it be promptly deleted?

Funny – the KOS site has the same group-think-only mentality.

I distinctly remember the comments that were deleted here, and I do not recall that they were in any way distasteful, hurtful, nor did they contain abusive or obscene language.
So what is going on?

Ann says in her new rules that:
"In particular, I'm not going to accept repetitious arguments, abusive language, and overblown accusations -- which seem to have become the style in the last few days. This is my place. I like debate and am ready to read criticism, but what has been going on lately has crossed the line, and I'm adopting a new, more activist form of supervision."

Not going to accept repetitious arguments or overblown accusations, eh?
Author, heal thyself. (or delete thyself)

This comment will be deleted because it does not fit the sanitized fawning echo chamber model. Nor does it stroke Ann's delicate ego.
Ah - but for the few precious moments – this comment will have
its very own right to free speech.

Ta

Hollywood Freaks said...

This is my favorite blog to read, because Professor Althouse doesn't blog about things that only advance her "team" like so many other bloggers. I often agree with people like Michelle Malkin, but her disrespect for anything not Republican is disgusting and turns me off whenever I tune in to her blog. I used to be a faithful reader of LGF, Malkin, INDC, DailyKos, and others but over the last year, my daily routine has dwindled to instapundit and Althouse...two bloggers who aren't endlessly attacking.

DEC said...

Re: Pajamas Media. Roger L. Simon has experience in the movie business. Another individual with experience in the movie business, Walt Disney, once said the key to success is to "lick em with product." Pajamas Media failed to do that.

protein wisdom said...

So I take you still aren't ready to admit that you accused six people of laughing at the injury to a young girl yesterday, even though it has now been made clear to you that they didn't have access to the information you used to make that charge?

There is no dishonor in admitting a mistake, Ann. Isn't that what you are insisting PJM people do?

Bill from INDC said...

Wombat -

Bringing political ideology into this scuffle - which has nothing to do with political ideology, even rabidly expressed - is not relevant to this conflict.

Ms. Althouse -

Wombat: Sorry I deleted the post you replied to. It contain some ugly overheated language about me "immolating" myself that is the sort of thing I'm moderating out of here from now on.

A metaphor to "self-immolation" is too ugly for your comments section? I'll put it this way, in less colorful (and unfortunately less descriptive) terms: I think that each subsequent post about PM is making you look bad instead of achieving its intended effect.

Furthermore:

Really, just a typical "shut up" post of the sort I've been getting ever since I criticized the offer PJ sent me back in August. The enforcers of the "first rule of Pajamas Media."

I didn't tell you to "shut up," I just told you that you're making yourself look bad. Voicing criticism of Pajamas Media is certainly possible without involving arguments that backfire.

And how am I an "enforcer of the first rule of Pajamas Media[?]"

I have NO AFFILIATION with Pajamas Media. I honestly don't understand.

Harkonnendog said...

Protein Wisdom:

"So I take you still aren't ready to admit that you accused six people of laughing at the injury to a young girl yesterday, even though it has now been made clear to you that they didn't have access to the information you used to make that charge?"

Didn't she just say "yikes"? Honestly, I thought it was yikes as in y'all screwed up, made a mistake, not "yikes" as in you take pleasure in seeing others injured. I admit I haven't followed this issue closely but that was my impression. Did I miss something?

Big fan of your site, btw.

Wombat Rampant said...

Bill, for what it's worth, there are a lot of people out there who see PJM as the conservative/pro-war answer to Daily Kos. This may not be what Johnson & Simon intended, but when you look at the lineup of bloggers it does tilt in that direction - which I have no problem with, BTW. So a lot of people do see this ongoing firefight between various PJM people and Professor Althouse as having partisan overtones, whether it's meant that way or not. I'm sorry you don't see it that way, but if I'm not reaching you, I'm not reaching you.

As for the immolation reference, maybe she's just getting tired of people telling her what she's doing and how she's doing it on her own blog. If people had been hassling me for the better part of a month I wouldn't be showing much tolerance for that either, no matter how well-meant.

Ann Althouse said...

Bill: You took a nasty tone that I judged to be detrimental to the community of commenters that flourishes here. Read some of the various discussions we've been having around here for the last few months and try to get a feel for the place. Then think about how you look in this environment and try to live up to our standards. I maintain this blog with comments because I care about providing an opportunity for civil discourse about a variety of topics.

Jeff: You need to back off. You have been smearing me and harassing me, and you should be ashamed of yourself at this point. All I did was compare your lightweight live-blogging to the real world press report and indicate that the contrast was unfortunate. It was! Face it. Quit focusing on me and deal with the abysmal problem that is the Pajamas project. The only way out of the criticism is to make the website good. Do that. Let me repeat the email that I published this morning in an update on the post about your live blog, where I linked to what you and Balloon Juice were saying about me on your blogs:

"I think the 2 posts you describe in the update make it clear that these are not just people who are criticizing your blog because they happen not to like the things you say; it's a smear campaign (which means you're certainly entitled to delete ALL of their comments). A normal person would never say that you were lying in your post about the parade. So many of the recent criticisms of you from people who defend Pajamas Media are essentially saying: 'You're criticizing them too much.' (Weird attitude for bloggers to have!)"

Straighten up, Jeff. Back off. You are harassing me. Is that clear enough?

Jane said...

Why do you bother responding to Jeff? He's such a juvenile that he has to troll on your blog rather than keeping his oh-so-clever comments confined to his blog and his readership (and I have no doubt said comments must be humorous because he tells the world often enough how humorous he is but the world just doesn't get it).

to paraphrase a pithy phrase, Andy Kaufmann wept.

Ann Althouse said...

Jan: I had that one thing I wanted to say to him with unmistakable clarity. I'm not going to keep saying it (or anything else) to him. I really believe in civil discourse and tend to think it's possible to engage with people, even when they are starting off very hostile. But he's not participating in a normal conversation. He's bent on smearing me. Therefore, there's nothing to talk to. In any event, I'm not going to let people like him wreck what this place is.

Bill from INDC said...

As for the immolation reference, maybe she's just getting tired of people telling her what she's doing and how she's doing it on her own blog. If people had been hassling me for the better part of a month I wouldn't be showing much tolerance for that either, no matter how well-meant.

She's firing some rather heated rounds first in a scorched earth campaign over PM, I believe. Thus, the "exasperated over criticism" card doesn't quite play. Would it be that much better if instead of levying criticism of her in her comments, we all took it to the front pages of our blogs? Seems more off-putting, really. Think about that.

And again, ideology has nothing to do with this.

Althouse -

Then think about how you look in this environment and try to live up to our standards. I maintain this blog with comments because I care about providing an opportunity for civil discourse about a variety of topics.

I find your lecture about standards in the comments - given your recent choices of editorial content, particularly the disingenuous or inaccurate criticism about the parade coverage and jokes about "Open Sores" - situationally ironic.

Jane said...

Bill, you say, "Would it be that much better if instead of levying criticism of her in her comments, we all took it to the front pages of our blogs?"

In a word, yes. Your blog, your dime, your readers. Spare the rest of us....if we want to read it, we'll visit your blog and read what your readers say and comment if we wish. And it saves you from descending into trolldom as some of the august Pretenders to the post-MSM thron are.

Jane said...

Errr...throne.

tiggeril said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ann Althouse said...

Bill: This is my place, with my standards. It's for me to push the envelope here, not you. You're a guest, and you need to act like one, for the sake of the other readers, who are people who have a special interest in reading me, not you. If my blogging is as bad as you seem to think, my readers will go away. You're coming here to talk to the people who haven't gone away. Do you seriously think they want to hear you repeatedly say how terrible I am? At the very least, it's boring!

Icepick said...

Bill from INDC wrote: I find your lecture about standards in the comments - given your recent choices of editorial content, particularly the disingenuous or inaccurate criticism about the parade coverage and jokes about "Open Sores" - situationally ironic.

Those posts were done before the new policy was implemented.

tiggeril said...

That wasn't aimed at you, Ann!

Ann Althouse said...

Sorry, Tigeril. You wrote:

"Jesus. I found more reasoned debate in my college classes. Why the hell do people take the internet so seriously?

"The 'blogosphere' died when the authors' egos became more important than what they were writing about."

I did take that personally, so I'm glad to hear it's not about me. It's been a long week!

Ann Althouse said...

Icepick: There's no new policy about what I'm going to write. This blog is like my house. There are things that I can do here that guests can't assume they can do their version of. If I want to do a literary riff based on Goldstein's reference on OSM to a glass that says "bloggers do it in their pajamas" and the name Open Source Media, where I reference two bodily fluids, I damn well will. And I will call bullshit on the self-interested little men who try to intimidate me about that and anything else I wrote about their piddling, pathetic project.

Bill from INDC said...

Do you seriously think they want to hear you repeatedly say how terrible I am? At the very least, it's boring!

Yes, but also unfortunately instructive. Still, not an illegitimate point in the case of my commenting.

Jane -

In a word, yes. Your blog, your dime, your readers. Spare the rest of us....if we want to read it, we'll visit your blog and read what your readers say and comment if we wish. And it saves you from descending into trolldom as some of the august Pretenders to the post-MSM thron are.

The old "troll vs. disagree" parsing. While Ms. Althouse may have a point that someone like me repetitively telling her she looks the worse for this veers into unnecessary repetition, when she casts specific asperisons on others (such as indicating that they laughed at bodily injury to parade bystanders or that their integrity/independence is compromised by an affiliation), I'd think that they should have the right to respond civilly and in full in her open comment forum, no?

Because that's what open comment forums and blogs are for, right? Spirit of blogging?

BTW, very poetic, that last bit.

tiggeril said...

I did take that personally, so I'm glad to hear it's not about me. It's been a long week!

Yep, not about you. Sorry about the misunderstanding- I should have been more clear.

Howard said...

I posted about OSM etc. too. To sum it all up: OSM has replicated Air America in that they refused to build from the bottom but just HAD to start from the top. This was a venture that put making money ahead of a quality product judged by the market. Just another Hollywood hustle by a Hollywood hustler.

Jane said...

Bill, I never parse. Disagreement is one thing, and I don't expect anyone's comments section to be a "wow you're great and they suck" lovefest...anyone who's any good in my opinion welcomes dissenting views...but I have to say that people who compare Ann to George Galloway for example are far better off making those comments on their blogs than on hers.

I don't read Protein Wisdom because it's neither wise nor funny in my opinion. And that's the crux...in my opinion. And I don't come here to see the blogger who runs Protein Wisdom trolling in here acting all offended. If he was merely disagreeing, I'd have no problem with it, but a visit to his blog and his comments section shows quite the opposite.

Since I'm not getting the humor and cleverness that is Protein Wisdom's contribution to OSM, I too must be a menopausal shrill mentally ill blonde harridan, instead of one of the clever in-bloggers.

Wait, I'm not blonde!

chuck b. said...

This is starting to remind me of the flame wars on the news groups circa 1993.

protein wisdom said...

Harkonnendog --

Didn't she just say "yikes"? Honestly, I thought it was yikes as in y'all screwed up, made a mistake, not "yikes" as in you take pleasure in seeing others injured

Here's what Ann wrote in her comments:

Sorry, Jeff. A lamppost hit a young woman in the head and you guys went on with a series of jokes, including the "snuff" one (which I quoted in my post), and a creepy homophobic-sounding one. You needed to be funny, and seeing something dangerous happen to a crowd that included kids didn't stop you. Quit trying to intimidate me out of criticizing you guys.

This speaks to intent and suggests that we blithely ignored -- and continued to laugh at -- injuries that we didn't know about. As I've explained. And as anybody who was watching the CBS broadcast can attest.

Ann wants to say my making this point time and again is harrassment. It's not. It's an attempt to make sure the record is clear on this.

All Ann had to do was to acknowledge that we didn't have the information that she had. She refuses to do so and is now suggesting that her post was simply about the quality of the liveblog.

But as I said yesterday:

I don't much care if you like the liveblogging or not. That's a matter of taste. But you are suggesting here that we were callous or unconcerned -- when the fact of the matter is, it wasn't even clear to us what had happened.

I don't care that she criticizes PJM -- though it's now clear that she doesn't want to have to address any people who question her criticisms.

That's fine, too.

But I will not allow her to get away with the suggestion that my efforts to have her correct the record are "harrassing" or part of some orchestrated "smear campaign."

Note, too, that Ms Althouse claims she's deleting comments to elevate the tone in her forum -- yet leaves petty ad hominems like those from Jane directed at me because, well, it was directed at me and not Ann.

THAT should be telling.

All Ann needs to do is to correct the record. I've asked for nothing more.

I'll post this comment on my site, as well in case Ann deletes it. And if she really thinks I am harrassing her, she should ban me from commenting here.

Ann Althouse said...

Chuck: I'm glad we've be able to provide some retro nostalgia pleasures.

LoafingOaf said...

I did take that personally, so I'm glad to hear it's not about me. It's been a long week!

He may not have been writing about you, but I can see how you thought he was. That shoe fit you pretty well.

tiggeril said...

That's she, my dear Loaf.

Ann's the only one who's managed to maintain some dignity in this whole mess.

LoafingOaf said...

Ann's the only one who's managed to maintain some dignity in this whole mess.

If I took the time to say why I disagree, I'd get censored...so it's pointless.

I'm glad you're happy she un-censored you when she learned you were actually trying to suck up.

Harkonnendog said...

Jeff,
Thanx for the response. I'm quoting your quote of Ann's quote:

"Sorry, Jeff. A lamppost hit a young woman in the head and you guys went on with a series of jokes, including the "snuff" one (which I quoted in my post), and a creepy homophobic-sounding one. You needed to be funny, and seeing something dangerous happen to a crowd that included kids didn't stop you."

I see your point now, but the original post simply said "Yikes," and Ann DID NOT, as you said:

"[accuse] six people of laughing at the injury to a young girl-"

And even the quote you submitted, at the top, does NOT claim you knew somebody was hurt- (in fact it implies you didn't know that) only that somebody WAS hurt and that y'all saw "something dangerous happen to a crowd" and kept joking around. It basically scolds you for being incautious, and in context it isn't even that strong, given it is a defense of the word yikes... So, again, there's no accusation that you took pleasure in people being injured.

Maybe you're caught up in the heat of the moment. Understandable, given the piling on you guys are taking and the original nasty insult that started this whole thing. But this sistuation is the suck.

Both you and Ann are excellent bloggers, and in a cyber world full of evil MSM principalities and Kossite hordes it's a shame when reasonable bloggers hurt each other.

I beg the two of you to smoke the peace pipe, as this is much ado over something not worth that much ado. Puff puff give! Puff puff give!

Bill from INDC said...

Jane -

Since I'm not getting the humor and cleverness that is Protein Wisdom's contribution to OSM, I too must be a menopausal shrill mentally ill blonde harridan, instead of one of the clever in-bloggers.

More terrible phantom argumentation.

Actually, that's not even an argument, it's a hallucinatory projection. Who the Hell even intimated such an idea or causality?

No one except you, that's who. It must be satisfying to triumph over paradigms that you invent, start-to-finish, in your own head.

Internet Ronin said...

Jeff: You're upset because Jane supposedly made an ad-hominem attack on you and Ann left the comments there. All I could find were Jane's opinions of your work: she does not find your writing funny or clever, but juvenile. That's a rough criticism but it is based on her experience reading your work. Were you talking about something else?

Thus far today, on your own blog, you have characterized Professor Althouse as "off her nut," "superscillious," "intellectually dishonest,"intellectually bankrupt," and a "borderline obsessive," to name just a few of your more vibrant adjectives. And you honestly think that you are behaving reasonably and that you can come here and make what appear to be non-negotiable demands and expect Ms. Althouse to surrender to your superior position?

I suggest instead you follow Healey's First Law of Holes: When you find yourself in one, quit digging.

XWL said...

After seeing that photo, I'm reminded that poodles (especially French ones) are the squirrels of dog breeds.

protein wisdom said...

harkonnendog --

Quickly:

We liveblogged CBS' coverage of the event. We were watching floats go by and dwarves dance because that's what CBS was airing.

When CBS cut to a picture of a light on the sidewalk, I thought something bad might have happened (given the size of the thing) and mentioned it during the liveblog.

The software requires us to refresh to see each others' comments. When Ed saw my post, he acknowledged that he hadn't known anyone had potentially been injured. The jokes Ann notes from the liveblog were made in the interim. Once everyone was aware of a potential injury, the joking stopped.

Ann's post pointedly DID NOT excerpt the part of the liveblog that shows that.

Instead, her post was created to leave the impression that we saw something heavy fall into a crowd, should have known people were injured, and went right on joking anyway -- as she admits in the response I excerpted.

I made clear to Ann that this was not the case. I told her that we did not keep right on going even with the knowledge that something had fallen into a crowd. The jokes were all made before that.

This is the point that I want made clear. And is a point Ann will not address or correct.

protein wisdom said...

internet ronin --

I'm not upset at Jane's comments. I'm pointing out that had they been made about Ann, they would have been deleted.

As to what I've said on my site, it's all been in comments or in an update to a single post that wasn't even dedicated to this dustup.

And my comments are open to allow for people to take issue any of my characterizations of my dealings with Ms Althouse.

Hollywood Freaks said...

"No one except you, that's who. It must be satisfying to triumph over paradigms that you invent, start-to-finish, in your own head.

The reason I stopped reading weblogs like yours and switched to weblogs like Professor Althouse's... Sarcasm is only used when appropriate.. not nearly every entry.

It's funny, because (and I admit is up to debate) my friends and I were just talking how sarcasm usually is the first sign of defeat in an intellectual debate.

My Mouth said...

That's pretty funny too, because I was just talking to MY friends, and WE came to the conclusion that the kind of people who took unnecessary umbrage at sarcasm usually didn't have the intellectual wattage to understand it.

Of course, your mileage may vary. I could be wrong. :)

Internet Ronin said...

Jeff: I understand you are upset about Ann's initial reaction to your blogging of the parade, but it seems to me that publicly questioning her sanity and intellectual honesty is not going to get you very far in the way of a mutually beneficial conversation.

In response to my earlier observations, you state:

As to what I've said on my site, it's all been in comments or in an update to a single post that wasn't even dedicated to this dustup.

So you think it's ok to say things like that as long as they are in the comments and not the blog entry? I honestly don't understand that type of reasoning. How you can demand a retraction from Ann for what you believe was an implied slight while you persist in making specific defamatory characterizations of her is a bit hard to fathom.

Ann Althouse said...

Speaking of specific defamatory statements, do you think the Pajamas corporate entity could be liable for a concerted smear campaign among the member bloggers? I've heard they have $3.5 million, so I was just wondering. I'm not a tort lawyer. On the other hand, if the entity policy is to rein their members in, that would go against the assertions that they aren't going to control content.

Thersites said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Internet Ronin said...

Ann: I was idly wondering about something similar a couple of days ago. A couple of their member blogs are well-known for outrageous commentary and I was wondering how they were handling their liability as distributors of licensed content? If an otherwise penniless blogger makes actionable statements, and an action is taken, are they liable as well (and stuck with any damages as the only ones with deep pockets?) LGF is a good example of an extremely vocal comments section that often borders on vilification. Are they stuck defending those as well? Am I right in thinking that a violent depiction such as the one you discovered last night could conceivably lead to a lawsuit?

Thersites said...

Wow, Jeff Goldstein is presenting evidence of how Ann Althouse has been caught in a misrepresentation, refuses to acknowledge it, and is now banning commenters who reference it.

Ann, you're "getting it" from the right and the left because of how you behave towards the right and the left. meaning, how you behave towards other people.

bearbee said...

Please, let us have some respect for the intelligent and capable poodle.....

'Setting the record straight on poodles -- the world's most misunderstood dog.'

http://www.poodle-place.com/poodlehist.htm

jim said...

over at ProteinWisdom on the "I love a parade... almost as much as I love eczema..." thread, matoko-chan comments about Ann: i object to her makin’ the rest of us grrls look bad by screaming “sexist attack!!” everytime.

And Mona says: Then she plays the sexism card. Oh, Christ. Well, I’m female and 49, so let me say it: she is menopausal, off needed meds, or something.

I'm pretty sure that matoko-chan is "broomstick" playah grrrl and probably Mona, too. Anyway, the irony is rich: protecting the sistahs' integrity by outrageously putting down other opinionated wimmin as menopausal crazies. Ann and Jeff have been going at it pretty hard recently, but they don't seem to be accusing the other, in print at any rate, of being hormonal harpies or life-and-sex frustrated dogs-- at least I hope not, and my bad if they have. If Jeff resorts to mental health and competency slams at Ann, he's lost the argument because that's cheap and frankly beneath him. He usually gives terrific debate and saves the flaming for enemies of western civilization.

Jeff should also allow that some of his commenters are completely below-the-belt in what they say, as in the above citation. Would it be cool for people here to defend Ann's POV on PJM/OSM/PJM against Jeff's arguments by suggesting he's suffering a mid-life crisis and is irrational from a loss of testosterone? Playah grrl and others taunting Ann for having "played the sexist card" and then calling her a menopausal nut sounds like intentional comedy, but it's not, which makes it all the more pathetic. If comments like this are made in support of OSM (on blog after blog after blog), then I'm more unsold than ever.

Frankly, Ann's remarks won't be the downfall of OSM, anyway, because its deficiencies are glaringly obvious to a lot of us. We're not idiots, and when OSM defenders go into shoot the messenger mode it only weakens their credibility further- air of desperation and missing the point and all that. This is not an equal fight- OSM has put out a business product after a year-long drumroll and with a few millions in VC and so is subject to reviews, both constructive and scornful, in the marketplace of consumer reaction. Hey, isn't someone's play being ridiculed over at ProWis just now as we 'speak'?

Ann Althouse said...

Thersites: "Ann, you're "getting it" from the right and the left because of how you behave towards the right and the left. meaning, how you behave towards other people."

I'm getting it from the political extremes because I don't hew to their demands. I'm a moderate, as the attacks from both sides tend to prove. I've been treating even the most abusive attackers with moderation, as I am doing with you right now.

Ann Althouse said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ann Althouse said...

Jim: Thanks. OSM/Pajamas has already shown a great propensity to blame others -- the "guys in suits," the branding experts. I'm sure they will blame the people who were outrageous enough to say that the site is awful.

You know, I love the TV show "The Apprentice," and I'm visualizing a boardroom scene with various Pajama folk offering these kind of excuses for their shoddy work to the Donald. It would be one of those group firing episodes.

AnechoicRoom said...

Long thread ...... surprising that some still don't 'get it.' And even more surprising, that others are joining in on the nothingness anew (I criticize those who criticize me/my homies, therefore I am).

The ship leaving for the new blogopshere has already sailed. I'm truly amazed at who is being left behind.

All we can do .... is smile back to the shore and wave.

Ann Althouse said...

(Reposting my own deleted comment, with typos corrected.)

Ronin: "If an otherwise penniless blogger makes actionable statements, and an action is taken, are they liable as well (and stuck with any damages as the only ones with deep pockets?) "

Well, I wonder how they have thought the risks through. Their member bloggers, especially the ones who say the most outrageous things, are likely to have little money. The Pajamas entity is a conspicuous deep pocket connected enough to the statement that lawyers will surely analyze whether it can be sued for the statements of the members. The PJ folks must know that anyone who decides to sue is going to want to join them as parties. But I'm not a tort lawyer. I was a litigator, and I tend to think in terms of litigation strategy.

Note: I'm not threatening to sue Pajamas for the antics of Goldstein and others. I believe in free speech and I have plenty of opportunity to respond with more speech, the best remedy for people who believe in free speech. Most of what they've said is either satire or opinion. There are lies, for example, saying I'm crazy. But no one really takes that as a statement of fact. It's just stupid and debasing for him and Cole and others to carry on the way they do. They are themselves making the argument that Pajamas Media is not ready for prime time, not anything near the viable media enterprise the venture capitalists must have wanted to think they were. I'm not looking for revenge. I'm sure they all feel quite awful, sitting in the horrible mess they've made. If I were hopping mad at them, it would probably give them some pleasure. That I deny them.

(Verification word: hotsow! Now Blogger is harassing me!)

Barry "iPod" Johnson said...

Here's what I wrote today:

http://theroyalflush.blogspot.com/2005/11/osm-pajamas-media-blogroll.html

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Continuing that "Apprentice" visualization:

If there were a mass firing and they all crowded into the back of the cab to do their on camera post mortems, what would they say? Would they, hilariously, be struck dumb?

If they "weren't working out" from Martha Stewart's Apprentice, what would her good-bye letter say?

Pablo said...

Straighten up, Jeff. Back off. You are harassing me. Is that clear enough?

Simply hilarious.

I'm vaguely recalling something about heat and kitchens, something else about pots and kettles...

Surely, it's a tryptophane induced hallucination, or perhaps an undigested bit of mutton.

Thersites said...

I'm getting it from the political extremes because I don't hew to their demands. I'm a moderate, as the attacks from both sides tend to prove. I've been treating even the most abusive attackers with moderation

You see accountability for your own actions as partisan sniping? That's interesting.

Why do you think a black man cannot mock racism? Or a woman can't mock sexism?

Daryl Herbert said...

As far as dKos's "humor" is concerned, I think it's pretty clear what is a joke and what is not.

Over-the-top statements about how "negroes" shouldn't have rights and how women belong in the kitchen are made in jest. They are making fun of how they think right-wingers and racists talk/think. I think this is childish and that they revel in their own offensiveness (which means they enjoy it because it is racist, not because it is ironic)

Then you have the real ugly stuff: referring to Michelle Malkin as "Michelle Malabangabanga", for instance. The implication being that she's a prostitute because she's 1) Filipino, 2) a woman, and 3) they don't like her. It's racist and sexist and not ironic in the least. There's no excuse for why Atrios/Kos have not condemned this and don't pull posts with such things in it. But there's a good reason for it.

The reason they don't condemn it is obvious: it's an emotional community-building hate-the-outsider exercise that increases their readership's identification with their web sites. More trash --> more traffic. They aren't going to give that up.

Patrick said...

Ann Althouse said...
Sorry, Tigeril. You wrote:

"Jesus. I found more reasoned debate in my college classes. Why the hell do people take the internet so seriously?

"The 'blogosphere' died when the authors' egos became more important than what they were writing about."

I did take that personally, so I'm glad to hear it's not about me. It's been a long week!"

If the shoe fits...

HCG Diet Plans said...

The poodles are really cute. Thanks for sharing.