Re: The O'Donnell Crowd vs. You
Subject: Re: The O'Donnell Crowd vs. You
From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
Date: 12/18/10, 20:25
To: Patterico <patterico@gmail.com>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6i5eBpYWcs

On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
I certainly apologize for not having read it; I did intend to, but my inbox is ridiculous these days and I am notoriously disorganized; just yesterday I got an angry e-mail from a scientist at a Chinese university who was upset that I failed to respond to his request to work with us on our science journalism program, and this guy was someone whom I obviously do really want to work with due to his credentials, but I'd read his e-mail and intended to get back to him but didn't. I've got a ridiculous amount of shit going on but obviously you're someone whom I enjoy hearing from. Anyway, I've just read it (I have more free time now that I've gotten kicked off of two blogs in the space of one day, which is a record that will never be broken) and yes, you were certainly in the right and they were in the wrong. 

As I was telling someone else just now, I am rarely astonished by anything. But I was absolutely astonished at the way in which things proceed at LGF. I'd never really read it; I just cross-posted some articles and otherwise used it as a means of getting out certain information.

Anyway, I'm still pissed off at Johnson for the Wikileaks thing and his hypocrisy as well as letting people libel me at his site while banning others for pointing out obvious things. I've gone on record as calling him a paragon of integrity, so I have to decide now how to correct that error.

On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Patterico <patterico@gmail.com> wrote:
This is the e-mail I sent you with the link to the post about how Charles banned me.  I remember I followed up with you later to see if you had read it and you said you would.

I don't know why I would be someone you wouldn't listen to as I got into a huge brawl with McCain over a racist comment he had made.

But whatever.  The link I sent you in October is below.  Now that you know what Johnson is actually like, you might be able to process what I said without the filter of pro-Johnson bias that evidently kept you from even reading the post before.

In short, I wasn't even banned for leaving a comment over there. I was banned for pointing out, in a blog post of my own, certain ways in which he had misrepresented my argument.

He is a piece of work.

P

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patrick Frey <patterico@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: The O'Donnell Crowd vs. You
To: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>


Not for print:

The bumper sticker deal was a reaction to portrayals of Southerners by Northerners.

The "natural revulsion" quote reeked of racial obsession.

Johnson lumped them together and could never be talked out of that.  He is as blinded by his new ideology as the O'Donnell supporters are blinded by theirs.

If you want to see how Charles misrepresented my arguments and banned me for a post I wrote that was accurate, check out this:

http://patterico.com/2010/01/02/patterico-banned-at-lgf/

Feel free to follow the links for the history.  I am proud of all those posts, and Charles should be ashamed for how he treated me.


P

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 16, 2010, at 2:11 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with you, making jokes about slavery or racism does not equal pro-slavery sentiment or racism. I used to work as a humorist for The Onion and National Lampoon and things of that sort and I've made all number of jokes that could be willfully misinterpreted as any number of terrible things, as many people do not understand what humor is and what it means. Context is indeed important - and McCain's context involves a demonstrable tendency towards "racial realism," as it's called by one of the outlets he secretly wrote for.

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Patrick Frey <patterico@gmail.com> wrote:
http://patterico.com/2009/12/18/robert-stacy-mccains-suggested-bumper-sticker-about-whipping-slaves-just-a-joke/

Still holds up.

P

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 16, 2010, at 2:00 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

> Regarding R.S. McCain, I've included here the manuscript of my upcoming book
> on American punditry, as there is an entire chapter on McCain, whom I've
> included alongside far more notable commentators because I think that whole
> affair is very telling - and I don't mean that it shows conservatives to be
> racist, which it doesn't, but rather shows the extraordinary intellectual
> dishonesty of a sizable portion of the movement conservative tendency. I do
> think there is quite a bit of overreaching by leftists who go after
> conservatives on the racism point, and those bumper stickers would not be
> proof of anyone's racism by themselves, but there is quite a bit that hasn't
> even gotten out about McCain yet that collectively drives home the point.
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Patrick Frey <patterico@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Again not for print:
>>
>> The R.S. McCain episode was a good example.  I argued that the
>> "natural revulsion" comment was racist and saw my words twisted and
>> misrepresented by Goldstein.  I was savaged over that but I was right.
>>
>> But the bumper sticker deal was not what Charles made it out to be.
>> You also overreached on that.  I initially thought it was evidence of
>> racism but learned otherwise.
>>
>> Again, this is all on my site.
>>
>> I am about to leave for two weeks and will be mostly unreachable.  If
>> I don't respond to any further e-mails it's nothing personal.
>>
>> P
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Oct 16, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Patterico-
>>>
>>> This is Barrett Brown; you may recall linking to my Vanity Fair piece on
>> Charles Johnson a while back, as well as disagreeing with it.
>>>
>>> I'm writing to you because I've noticed that a number of the conservative
>> blogosphere's less competent members have turned on you lately due to your
>> criticism of O'Donnell, and that the argument is quite demonstrably
>> one-sided insomuch as that you have been more than willing to address any
>> points made in her favor while those with whom you disagree have often
>> failed to even acknowledge several of your points, such as the suing of the
>> think tank as well as the bizarre claims about her education and her alleged
>> electoral victories. Rather, Dan Riehl, Jeff Goldstein, and other such
>> figures have generally responded by characterizing you in such a way as to
>> depict your points as somehow illegitimate for reasons that are never quite
>> spelled out, but which often involve you secretly being a Marxist.
>>>
>>> I wanted to ask you a question about all of this. In all honesty, can you
>> see how this situation is at least somewhat comparable to the situation
>> Charles Johnson has been in, and would you agree that Johnson himself may
>> very well have honest and sometimes legitimate reasons for disassociating
>> himself from some of these people, just as you do? I'm not asking this as a
>> gotcha question or even for print, although I'd be happy to use any quote
>> you'd like to give me for a piece I'm writing on this general fissure and
>> the nature of those on the other side of it. I'm just curious about what
>> your answer would be.
>>>
>>> At any rate, you may be aware that Johnson has been working with me a bit
>> on this thing I'm doing, Project PM, which will involve a loose network of
>> bloggers whose work will transfer around the network by way of a schematic
>> that's been designed to hypothetically ensure that the most important of
>> their posts (as determined by a sort of human-driven "logic gate") will
>> spread farther through the network. I've got a few bloggers who've agreed to
>> give it a shot when the software is ready, but only a couple of
>> conservatives such as E.D. Kain. In the unlikely event that you'd be willing
>> to participate in such a project,  I'd be happy to have you on board as I do
>> think well of your work even if I disagree with a portion of it.
>>>
>>> Take it easy, yo.
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Barrett Brown
>>> 512-560-2302
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Barrett Brown
> 512-560-2302
> <HFC ARC 7-17-2010.pdf>



--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302




--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302



--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302