Re: Here's my email address

On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Dan COLLINS <vermontaigne@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't know that it would be fair, as everyone's dreadfully hypercathected, but here's one:

http://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2009/09/im-going-to-spend-the-rest-of-my-life-apologizing-to-jack-cashill-arent-i/comments/page/2/#comments

On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, the idea about going to a liberal blog under a different name is a good one; I'll look into doing that soon. Let me know if there's a particular blog/site that you think might be good for this.

On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Dan-

You've got a couple good points here. Regarding the first one, I do note in the piece that more than one ACORN employee has committed crimes.

Regarding Obama distancing himself from ACORN by way of revisionist history, I think you're right, but I don't think I've ever argued otherwise; you're probably referring to the thing about ACORN and the Catholic Church and what constitutes a connection and all that. Let me know if you think I've gotten something wrong.

Regarding censorship, I obviously don't advocate any such thing, and if you think that the piece implies that censorship is warranted, I can add something in a follow-up explaining that any move on par with what you're talking about with the Journalist Shield Law is unwarranted and frankly unconstitutional.

Let me know if you have any other thoughts.

On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Dan COLLINS <vermontaigne@gmail.com> wrote:

A couple of things regarding ACORN. First off, it's more than one person at ACORN who's been found to have a good deal of flexibility regarding the legalities. In fact, contrary to what Bertha Lewis or any of the others says, O'Keefe and Giles apparently were not turned away by anyone, although one fellow in CA actually did call the cops after their appearance--and got fired for it. Second, I don't think that the Catholic Church relies quite as much on people's tax monies. Third, most of ACORN's subsidiaries are organized as non-partisan non-profits, which means that they're exempt from taxes, yet funnel money to other institutions under the general umbrella which conduct partisan operations, which the Catholic Church may not engage in. Fourth, Catholic dioceses have been successfully sued for many hundreds of millions of dollars.

So, if I were to argue with you over the difference, I would say that the corporate structure of ACORN/Organizing for America is specifically designed to aid and abet illegal transferals of money, and to do so in large part with taxpayer funds for partisan purposes that are not acknowledged as so being.

You're also somehow going to have to answer regarding Obama's revisionism on his relations to ACORN and the Working Families Party, which has left a trail of memory sinks on the internet, if you really mean to establish that you're correct on this issue, rather than that the tone of discourse on the 'net generally is distressing. It seems to me that insofar as you attempt to do those two things at once, you're biting too much off. Because it will be possible for critics to argue what I've argued about Kevin Jennings. I don't have much of a problem with his having not ratted out a student back in the early eighties, but I do have a problem with his utilizing one version of the story to sympathetic audiences, and then revising it when it becomes inconvenient. I think that his credibility suffers.

Mostly, though, I worry that those who read your article will come to the conclusion that what you're advocating in fact is some kind of censorship. I'm most concerned because of the efforts of the DoJ not to extend the Journalist Shield Law to the non-professionals such as myself, an amendment to the scope and intent of the law that Charles Schumer has somehow found it desirable to add. And then there's the insanity of Lanny Davis of all people starting up a "Civility Project," after the abuse that Bush suffered online and in the MSM. In other words, after all of this incivility, now that Obama's elected and we control the House and Senate, it's time for the name-calling to stop. Back when I was at PW, I mocked this as Civility NOW!!!

I challenge you to pick a new handle and go to a more or less equivalently website on the liberal side of the equation, and to float the idea that there's a lot of credibility to the idea that, despite his protestations to the contrary, Obama had a good deal of help from Ayers in the production of Dreams. Then compare.

Best regards,
Dan

On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Guys-

Here, as promised, is the piece. Let me know if there are any errors.
Regards,
Barrett
For the first time in the history of any nation, a significant portion of our citizenry is in perpetual and unfiltered contact with a significant portion of the citizenry of other nations. This is almost certain to bring a fundamental change to the manner in which America communicates with the outside world; rather than being conducted by employees of the State Department, a ring of well-connected diplomats, and those media prominent enough to be heard overseas, foreign relations will become an eternal sort of process, conducted at a million points of contact each day and with each point communicating a different opinion and a unique manner of presentation.

All of this has the potential to accomplish a great deal of what governments often attempt on their own by way of diplomacy. If half of Ugana gets on the internet tomorrow and the world's non-Ugandans find them charming and reasonable, Uganda is that much more likely to win trade concessions, financial assistance, and student visas with which to get the fuck out of Uganda. And before any conflict can arise between two nations, there will have been an informal and scattered yet nonetheless tremendous "talking phase" between the respective memberships of those populations that would end up doing the actual fighting.

That is what the Clinton-era AT&T commercials would have you believe, anyway, and to some extent it is true, or at least potentially so. But there also exists the very strong possibility that Ugandans will prove themselves to be boring or emotionally needy, causing them to lose out on tourism and become the subject of international ridicule. And perhaps two populations that suddenly find themselves in constant contact will discover that each hates the other very much, making war not only necessary but desirable. Utopia is a fine prospect if you're handling an information technology firm's marketing campaign, but it tends not to translate well to real life.

How will Americans look as the globalization of the internet brings a billion new foreigners in close contact with those of us who express our political views online, no matter the medium? Some of us will seem reasonable and well-intentioned, and to the extent that this comes through, our standing will increase. Some of us will seem unreasonable and downright mean-spirited, and to that extent we will suffer from the ill will of the rest of the world at the very time in which we most need it to achieve our national objectives. Some of us will appear both benevolent and malicious at various times, as those of us who have acted poorly on the internet are all too aware.

On the whole, though, we are in danger of presenting a bad face. This nation, like many others, is home to millions of strange, unhappy people of bad character and worse debate skills, and it would appear that every single one of them has a broadband connection.

For the last two years, I have been commenting at a popular blog called Protein Wisdom, which, though written from a largely classical liberal bent, is frequented by a crowd that's probably best described as conservative. Over the course of this time, I have made every effort to engage in honest debate without resort to incivility, saving my various lame attempts at barbed wit for those who conduct themselves badly. This has been confirmed by blog founder Jeff Goldstein, who on Friday noted that I "like to debate, and are civil in so doing," although he does express reservations about my methods and intent. "I don't think you are always as invested in the question under discussion as you are invested in the act of debating," he wrote. "And like any skilled rhetorician you have retreated to semantics when your position weakens. As have I." Likewise, contributor Dan Collins, who ran the blog for a while in Goldstein's absence and with whom I have debated on several occasions, noted on Friday that "I have always found you civil at PW," adding that "you argue in good faith, and make the effort to inform yourself and to consider other people's views." All of which is to say that I am a swell guy whom you would probably not mind dating your daughter.

Bearing in mind my your-daughter compatibility, the largely negative and often incompetent reaction I received is illustrative of a number of things, several of which you probably already knew without my help:

1. It is impossible to argue with a crowd of people who are constantly reinforcing each other's opinions.

2. Large groups of like-minded people, even when presented with facts to the contrary, will nonetheless advance false assertions.

3. The blogosphere can not only be a useful means of advancing information that might otherwise be left untouched by the traditional media, but may also be a means by which nonsense is incubated, spread, and implemented.

4. It is important to ridicule people who damage the national discourse.

5. The internet is serious business.

It should be noted at this point, and will be related more thoroughly later, that Protein Wisdom was picked for this article not because it is some unusually terrible venue for online discussion, but for the opposite reason; in fact, it caters to one of the most collectively cerebral audiences one may find within the right side of the blogosphere. Several commenters conducted themselves with perpetual poise and good faith, and even some of the sillier reactions I received are not without some back story; as Goldstein told me, his readers "are forced to deal with a lot of trolls, many of whom attack me personally. My commenters have always had my back, and the quick trigger comes from their having seen how people who come by pretending to argue in good faith quickly degenerate into attacking me, my family, etc." Meanwhile, blog chieftain Dan Collins in particular was not only exceedingly civil, but also quick to correct any minor errors on his part when alerted to them, even when alerted to them in the irritating and unnecessarily verbose manner in which I like to alert people to their minor errors. Protein Wisdom was picked because, if such nonsense can occur there, one can imagine what sort of even more bizarre nonsense can occur on other, lesser "conservative" blogs.

Here, we'll take a look at a few examples culled from my growing list of hilarious examples. Later, in a series of follow-up articles, we'll take a look at how many of the dynamics listed above are universal to the blogosphere; why several editors of The New Republic are nonetheless wrong about their fear of "blogofascism," as one of them has called it; what the folks at Protein Wisdom have to say in response to this article; and perhaps something else. Incidentally, all of this is filler intended to disguise the fact that I am actually just airing my various inconsequential internet debate grievances. I mean, uh:

The Thomas Paine Affair

Protein Wisdom contributor Darleen Click, who has been running the site for a while now, at some point got into the habit of characterizing ACORN as a "criminal enterprise," presumably because some of its employees were found to have committed crimes while engaged in the enterprise in question. I suggested that, if this was how a "criminal enterprise" is to be defined, then the Catholic Church must also be a criminal enterprise insomuch as that many of its employees were also found to have committed crimes while engaged in the enterprise in question, and that these crimes were not only of a more serious nature, but also seemingly more widespread even when taking into account the relative size of the church. This made several people very angry, leading me to be denounced as some sort of anti-papist, which I am. I noted in response that Thomas Paine and other Founding Fathers were just as distrustful of the church as I; some fellow retorted that Thomas Paine was not a Founding Father; I replied that many historians disagree, and further noted that Paine "has long been referred to as the Father of the American Revolution for a reason;" the same fellow proposed that this could be because "people dont know what the fuck theyre talking about;" I explained that it was Thomas Jefferson who first described him as such, and further implied that Thomas Jefferson may have known what he was talking about insomuch as that he is Thomas Jefferson.

The Point: If ACORN is a criminal enterprise, then so are plenty of other things that the gang at PW would probably not want to see referred to as a criminal organization. Incidentally, ACORN is indeed kind of a criminal enterprise insomuch as that it is an enterprise with several employees that have broken the law in the course of their duties - just like the Nixon Administration, the Carter Administration, the Reagan Administration, the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration, the other Bush Administration, and, according to my watch, the Obama Administration, and also the Catholic Church. So perhap we should save the term "criminal enterprise" for those enterprises that are involved first and foremost in crime, such as the Crips or that incorrigible gang of older fellows on my dad's side of the family who worked for Lyndon Johnson before he was president. Oh, and the Johnson Administration. So, yeah, let's save it for the Crips and the Johnson Administration.

Advantage: Darleen Click.

The They-Did-It-To Conundrum

In the midst of a discussion about degenerate populist John Edwards and his then-rumored affair with some terribly trashy woman, a regular commenter called Mr. Pink wrote, "Well he does not have an (R) in front of his name so this is only natural. Carry on people, carry on," thereby implying that Republicans are treated unfairly relative to Democrats when found to be sexing up a sex-up partner instead of a wife. I made the following insufferable yet relevant retort: "Hey, remember when that gay Republican congressman got nabbed trying to pick up interns via IM, and Fox kept calling him a Democrat?" Soon, I found myself in several arguments during which I countered anecdotal evidence of anti-Republican perfidy with anecdotal evidence of Republican perfidy. Another regular commenter known as Big Bang Hunter responded to my tactic thusly: "Barrett, does it ever occur to you that arguments to the effect 'well they did it too', qualifies at the level of 5th grade discourse?" Ignoring his terrible grammar and the resulting irony, I pointed instead to another, far more relevant item of irony: "Im sorry, BBH, Im going to have to direct your comments to Mythos McGee, who was overheard to have told the duchess: 'Remember the laudatory proclamation that Gerry Studds (D-MA) got after he got caught shtumphing the pages?' Uh-oh! Blowback!" A regular by the name of Rob Crawford responded with a simple, "WTF is your point?"

The Point: What the fuck is it? My point was that it is kind of silly to attack someone with whom you're arguing for countering a piece of anecdotal evidence with piece of contrary anecdotal evidence when someone on your side has just countered a piece of anecdotal evidence with a piece of contrary anecdotal evidence. Or, to put it in simpler terms for the benefit of Rob Crawford: Primus takes a cookie. Secundus takes a cookie. Rob Crawford's political ally criticizes Secundus for taking a cookie. Secundus points out that Primus also took a cookie yet was not admonished, whereas Secundus was indeed admonished for doing the same thing. Rob Crawford is all like, "WTF is your point?" This is wrong.

Advantage: Rob Crawford.

The Bosniak Kerfuffle

On the day after the disappointing travesty of a vice presidential debate between Biden and Palin, Darleen Click decided that Biden had made some silly mistake which the media had ignored. "I keep hearing this morning that Biden was 'gaffe free' and had a 'great command of foreign policy,'" she noted, taking reasonable issue with the candidate's muddled narrative on the subject of our past dalliances with Lebanon. But Biden had also made, she claimed, yet another error, one that had been ignored by the mainstream media: "Funny, I don't know who 'Bosniacs' are..." I agreed that this was very funny indeed, thereafter explaining that the term "Bosniaks" - also correctly rendered as "Bosniacs" - is in fact a real word referring to Bosnian Muslims, and that Biden had used this correct term in a correct fashion, which, in my opinion, seems okay. One commenter expressed the contrary opinion that I was simply a "stupid troll." Another regular who had been making fun of Biden's use of the entirely correct term admitted that she had learned the previous night that the term was indeed entirely correct, but that "its too funny not to mock him" for, uh, using a word with which she was unfamiliar; a couple of other commenters expressed similar sentiments. Someone else asserted that "[t]he trouble with using the term 'Bosniacs' is that it does not refer to all Bosnians," to which I replied that this is no trouble at all insomuch as that it was not supposed to refer to all Bosnians, as Biden had been listing the various groups which are now getting along in Bosnia and other former bits of Yugoslavia. An otherwise lucid regular going by urthshu suggested that it was ironic that I am "a comedy writer, yet you insist on fact being presented in a comment thread where people tend to just bat crap around and make jokes." At this point, the perpetually helpful Big Bang Hunter suddenly announced that "[t]he term is 'Bosnians' Brown. Bosniacs? You should get a hack job writing for Warners Bros. dick head." Rather than work for those pricks, I instead pointed out to urthshu that, contrary to his "joking around" theory, both Darleen and Big Bang Hunter clearly believed that "Bosniak" is some sort of crazy made-up word; urthshu conceded the point and asked me in a civil manner what I thought about the debate. Big Bang Hunter wasn't done yet, though. "Barrett, the joke is on you. No one said the term is incorrect. It would be like calling native Americans 'Americaniacs'. It may not be technically wrong, but everyone would point at you and laugh. Something youre probably accustomed to asshole." Later, Mr. Pink claimed that Tina Fey "has taken SNL into irrelavancy [sic]."

The Point: I don't even know where to start with the SNL thing, so I won't. Otherwise, my point is that (1) "Bosniaks" is a real term and Biden used it correctly, that (2) Darleen Click and a couple of regular commenters simply decided that the term doesn't exist instead of taking five seconds to check, that (3) other commenters decided that, rather than correcting these falsehoods, they would instead just play along with them, that (4) when I pointed all of this out, several people tried to pretend that those commenters who were clearly wrong about the term were themselves just joking, and that (5) it's best to end a numbered list with something divisible by five for purposes of symmetry.

Advantage: Tina Fey.

The Bear Slap Thingamajig

In the midst of a soon-to-be-aborted debate on whether conservatives or liberals are smarter in general, a fellow named Cave Bear with whom I had exchanged a few comments suddenly proclaimed that I had just been "Bear Slapped."

The Point: This all happened so fast that I really don't know what to make of it.

Advantage: Bear enthusiast Andrew Sullivan.

The Rick Santorum, uh, Incident

As some commenters were still angry that I had unfarily compared the Catholic Church to ACORN simply because the Catholic Church has knowingly employed and abetted some untold number of child molesters whereas a single employee of ACORN had assisted in what he believed to be child sex trafficking - and in case you're confused, as I am, it is the Catholic Church that is apparently being treated unfairly by way of such a comparison - the discussion again turned to these two "criminal enterprises" and their respective connections to prominent statesmen. "What conservative politician has closer ties to the Roman Catholic Church than Barcky has to ACORN?" asked a fellow called JD. As I responded: "Rick Santorum comes to mind - he goes to their functions at least once a week as he has for decades, believes that the organization is closely associated with God and capable of providing laymen a crucial connection with Him without which their souls will be consigned to torture for all of eternity, provides money to the organization, often praises the organization at length and in no uncertain terms, and considers the organization to be the most important institution in the history of humanity. Would you say that Obama is closer to ACORN, and if so, how?" I didn't receive an answer so much as a misguided outburst: "ZOMFG, a former Senator is a practicing Catholic! Burn him. Kill him. Throw him to the lions. I am still waiting for the classic liberal to actually act like one, instead of a fucking douchenozzle, apologies to actual nozzles of douche." Another regular suggested that I am a "hipster douchbag [sic];" yet another made a reasonable request: "Now, quit hijacking the conversation you dishonest piece of shit." I tried to explain that I had simply answered the fellow's question, and in rather neutral terms at that. Then I noted that I'd decided to write an article about all of these interesting people and that this would be finished and released later in the week. This must have made them angry because, at this point, some of the commenters began to act in an uncivil fashion. But Darleen, bless her heart, was simply inquisitive. "Are you going to include your dishonesty in your 'article'?" she asked. "You are making unsubstantiated assertions..such as because Santorum attends mass that is exactly the same as Obamas ties to ACORN."

The Point: It never ends.

Advantage: America!

A few things to note:

1. Other incidents will be published here as I go back and find them and to the extent that I might need any such things to back up my points.

2. Although several commenters at PW are asserting that I intentionally provoked them in order that they might look back, this is clearly not the case; the idea of writing this article did not occur to me until about a week ago, around the time that some misguided fellow decided to knock Thomas Paine. And if any of my internet adversaries would like to point to anything I have done which is allegedly so provocative that it would merit the reaction I have received, they are free to try, and I will link to any such incidents from here as well.

3. Jeff Goldstein, though initially cooperative, is now upset about the piece, even to the extent that he recently said that he might simply shut down the blog. I believe he's changed his mind about that since. Still, he has accused me - accurately - of writing this article for money and has correctly noted that I tend to make more money if I receive more hits. Although I have noted in reply that this applies to he himself as well as any blogger who runs ads and attacks other people, he remains adamant that I ought not to be doing this, presumably because I'm not in the union.

4. As mentioned above, I will be expanding upon all of this in future posts.

5. End all lists with numbers divisible by five.

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Dan-

I really appreciate you taking the time to give me your thoughts on this. I'll be using a bit of this for the article, more in one of the follow-up pieces I'll be writing next week, and probably a great deal more in my book, as I've going to end that with a discussion of the implications of internet-based political debate. If I do use some of your quotes in my book, I'll let you see the chapter before it goes to press in case you want to expand on, clarify, or correct any quotes used.

Thanks again for providing me with your time as well as for the kind words.

Barrett

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Dan COLLINS <vermontaigne@gmail.com> wrote:

I think that the reason that it has cerebral commentators is because its continuing mission is to consider the nature of language, particularly, but not exclusively, with reference to broadly "political" discourse. It's interesting, because I recently wrote on Change.gov's promotion of Esperanto as a second language, and particularly the claims that Esperanto has less bias built into it than other languages and that it is capable of expressing any human thought or emotion. In point of fact, Jeff and I take the view that every language, every use of language, has bias in it, because the function of language is largely to screen and focus the welter of information that we receive through the senses. Of course, no language is capable of expresssing every human thought or emotion, which is why Shakespeare, to cite one example, was a great creator of neologisms, and why we have adopted so many borrowed words in our bastard language.

Still, bias and all, language is what, largely, we are stuck with, and its use and abuse is what we're after. There's altogether too much ascription of meaning among those of all ideological camps who would impute motives to other people not actually denoted in their language. It's not merely a matter of ad hominem invective; it's also a matter of psychologizing--a practice which has become distressingly generalized. Take for example what Jeff would refer to as "second generation feminism" or "identity feminism." The postulate that language is a phallogocentric mechanism whose function is to subjugate women with respect to men and to recapitulate an oppressive order functions in effect to rake all of the laudable human attributes to the side of "the feminine" whilst casting all of the noxious ones under the rubric of "the masculine." It seems to us at Protein Wisdom that ideological orientations of all denominations have come to function in much the same way, and that this amounts to an a priori abuse of language. So that's the skeptical and critical lens that we bring to bear on these issues. PW is characterized by self-mockery and self-assertion that go hand in hand, and are sometimes hard to distinguish.

Having said that, we understand that despite our efforts to attain a certain objectivity, we are as limited as any other ego-bound, selfish creatures. Insofar as we're aware of that at any given time, and insofar as we can distance ourselves from investing our egos in our arguments, and insofar as we're apt to consider evidence and reasoning that contradicts what we think we know, we are honest. Of course, we fail, and unlike many of those who call themselves "liberal," since I'm as chary of those labels as you are, we don't believe that having an appreciation of our bias exonerates us. And really, we tend to regard many expressions of altruism with a very jaundiced eye, particularly when the claim is mobilized to justify the redistribution of other people's property. At root, we have probably more critical of human nature than the great majority of those who would self-classify as "liberal," while at the same time believing that people ought to be left to their own devices as much as possible as typically uniquely qualified to make decisions for themselves. Whether that amounts to small-l "libertarianism" or not I'll leave to you, because I don't use the term very much and am not a student at all of the subject.

Having said that, if you regard yourself as a "libertarian," I don't feel it's my business to contradict you, because I feel that you argue in good faith, and make the effort to inform yourself and to consider other people's views. This is why, as well, I'm not interested on what Frum or Brook or Friedersdorf or Moran have to say about what a true conservative is, and how awful Beck is for the "conservative movement," which is apparently on the wrong track whenever it deviates from their opinion. The citizen aggregate in the free market is massively parallel in the computational sense, which is another way of saying that we believe in the unseen hand of the marketplace, but from a more systems-theoretical point of view, perhaps. And we see the dangers, too, in "overconnectedness" within systems, and the likelihood of unintended consequences, which we believe that the present, wonkish administration will eventually come to understand, to our national sorrow. Experimentalism is necessarily wasteful from a certain theoretical perspective. At the same time, it's indispensable.

We are avid defenders as we iell of the Western philosophical/scientific tradition. We find it extremely strange that many beneficiaries of that tradition denigrate it as a result of its own insights into its own bias, which is wielded against it by chauvinists for other traditions that will not tolerate such self-inquiry. I think it's safe to say that most of us believe that many of the "academic liberals" seem to have no sense of allegiance to or even gratitude for the achievements from which they've benefitted. Michael Moore's grotesque insistence that he hasn't gotten anything from capitalism at all is a recent example. The peculiar selfish turpitude of the Hollywood defenders of Mr. Polanski is another, and so is the disdain for "the man on the street" shown by some of Obama's czar picks.

Yes, I would say that your two examples are fair. I think, though, that to state that a different company or organization that has subscribed to provide government-funded care ought to be free to laud the presumed characteristics of a bill that hasn't even been subject to public scrutiny is wrong. The government is not the executive branch, and the denial of franking privileges to minority Congressmonsters, the refusal to post the bill as Obama had promised for public perusal, much less broadcast the negotiations on C-SPAN, the firing of IGs, flouting of rules of succession in Massachusetts at whim by rewriting, and so forth really do indict the superior moral authority and transparency of these people.

The second one's just silly, and you have the right of it.

I've always found you civil at PW.

Before you go and say something flattering about me, though, keep in mind that I'm just older than a lot of the commenters there. I get my strokes at home, and my wife and kids don't really read what I post. I don't think that I'm smarter or wiser than most people over there, and honestly, and I'm just as narcissistic as anyone else who thinks his opinions are worth posting on the web, and dreadfully proud of my humility. So, don't feel as though you need to treat me gently.

Also, I haven't posted at PW since June, so you're welcome to use any of this or ask me anything else you like, but I really haven't been over there recently.

Best regards,
Dan

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Dan-

Thanks again for taking the time to talk to me. I spoke with Jeff a bit earlier today, and we had a good conversation about the nature of political debate on the internet and some of the problems that are particular to that medium, as well as the specific drawbacks that can be seen at PW in the context of some of the debates I've had with commenters there.

The reason this article is focusing on PW is the same reason I've been debating there for so long to the exclusion of all other blogs - of all of the anti-Democratic blogs (I hesitate to call it "conservative"), it has, I think, the most cerebral commenters, and this of course is a function of Jeff and his unique style and viewpoints. I'm picking on PW's commenters because they're the best, which is to say that any faults they exhibit are probably going to be found among all lesser people as well.

So this article is going to draw heavily on incidents in which I've encountered illogical or dishonest debate tactics on the part of some of the commenters there. I know, of course, that I'm accused of being illogical and dishonest, and I'm going to give anyone who wants it a chance to respond to my article and point to any instances of rhetorical wrongdoing on my part, and I'll link to these from my article.

As you might expect, I'll be pointing to you, Jeff, and a couple of commenters like Sdferr as the reason that PW is the best and most interesting blog of its sort, as you in particular aren't afraid of conceding a minor point or making a correction if you're convinced that it's warranted; I remember one incident in particular when you'd gotten the impression from another, sloppier blog that a certain story was being "trumpeted by the MSM," and then immediately corrected that line when I noted that the MSM hadn't touched the story. Obviously, a lot of people would have gotten defensive and refrained from making a correction at all; I've run into some static at Daily Kos, for instance, trying to get people to correct minor points such as that.

So, I've got a couple of questions for you.

1. What sets PW apart from other blogs, particularly those in the anti-Obama/Democrat/"liberal" camp?

2. Take a look at these two incidents and tell me if you think that I'm right to see these as examples of poor logic:

MARKETING INCIDENT

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15330 Darleen Click tried to claim that Obama had no respect for the First Amendment because Humana was told to cease sending out marketing materials that referred to government policy, with this being a violation of the agreement it had signed with the feds upon receiving a contract to sell federal medical treatment.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15330#comment-788190 Carin quoted a news article; her excerpt began with the following sentence: According to a source with inside knowledge of the way CMS regulates marketing guidelines, Medicare providers are only allowed to communicate with plan members about the benefits they have now, not about possible changes to benefits.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15330#comment-788201 Yea, I found it interesting that BB is changing this issue into code words. It was marketing. This was when I decided it would be a good idea to write this article.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15330#comment-788211 I noted this.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15330#comment-788229 And, honestly - BB twists until the argument fits into his nice little package. Humana said it would refrain from certain marketing so all we have to do is call whatever we dont like Marketing and theyre in breach. So, that's her response to that.

"They did it, too!"

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13135#comment-508729 Big Bang Hunter wrote: Barrett, does it ever occur to you that arguments to the effect well they did it too, qualifies at the level of 5th grade discourse?"

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13135#comment-508736 I responded: Im sorry, BBH, Im going to have to direct your comments to Mythos McGee, who was overheard to have told the duchess:
Remember the laudatory proclamation that Gerry Studds (D-MA) got after he got caught shtumphing the pages? Uh-oh! Blowback!
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13135#comment-508738 Rob Crawford responds: WTF is your point?
3. Would you describe my contributions to PW as being generally civil?

4. Do you think I am being dishonest when I describe myself as a libertarian?

If you have anything else you'd like to mention for use in the article, feel free to add it. The piece will appear first on True/Slant, then possibly at Huffington Post and later my weekly column here in Brooklyn. An extended version will be used as the last chapter in my upcoming book, which will be released next year.

Thanks,

Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY
512-560-2302

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Dan COLLINS <vermontaigne@gmail.com> wrote:
What did you need?

Thanks,
Dan