Glenn Greenwald – Dishonest Blogger??? Patterico – Criticism Is Lacking Something… Perspective. UPDATE X 3
On the one hand, from what I’ve read on his blog, though I don’t think I’ve ever used him as a source for anything, Greenwald seems knowledgeable enough on the stuff that I’ve read. On the other hand, Patterico says he uses cheap party trick to make conservative bloggers seem disreputable, cherry picking, as it were. P says Greenwald’s hidden point was to show that conservative blogger Allahpundit was being irresponsible when covering the Fort Hood shootings. Here is Patterico’s assertion:
Greenwald’s implication is clear: right-wing blogger Patterico shouldn’t have recommended Allahpundit’s coverage — and right-wing blogger Glenn Reynolds shouldn’t have linked Patterico’s recommendation of Allahpundit.
Was Greenwald really trying to smear conservative bloggers?
I went to Greenwald’s site to see the original post, and of course, it turns Greenwald wasn’t cherry picking at all, and even states in the original piece that his intent is not to criticize Allahpundit, but to show the contradictions that the major media was reporting as the incident unfolded. G chose to follow A because A was one of the blogs that was doing “live” / “realtime ” coverage. A was simply the one-stop conduit by which G got access to the MSM reports. Here is what Greenwald originally wrote:
Upon reading that, I went to Hot Air to read what [Allahpundit] had written, and it’s actually quite revealing — not in terms of what it reveals about Hot Air (that topic wouldn’t warrant a post) but, rather, what it reveals about major media coverage of these sorts of events. Allahpundit’s post consists of a very thorough, contemporaneous, and — at times — appropriately skeptical chronicling of what major media outlets were reporting about the Fort Hood attack, combined with his passing along of much unverified gossip and chatter from Twitter, most of which turned out to be false. It’s worth focusing on what the major media did last night, and one can use the Hot Air compilation to examine that. . . . Here are excerpts from Allahpundit’s compilation, virtually all of which — except where indicated — came from large news outlets:
Greenwald is simply commenting on the inaccurate nature of “real time” reporting by the MSM, NOT Allahpundit. Isn’t that a conservative based criticism? After all, it was Fox News’s Shep Smith who pierced the veil on the inaccurate reporting of the Katrina Super Dome dreck. Allahpundit was simply the conduit used to get the MSM info. Here is more of Greenwald’s original write-up:
It’s worth focusing on what the major media did last night, and one can use the Hot Air compilation to examine that. I understand that in the early stages of significant and complex news stories, it’s to be expected that journalists will have incomplete and even inaccurate information. It’s unreasonable to expect them to avoid errors entirely. The inherently confusing nature of a mass shooting like this, combined with the need to rely on second-hand or otherwise unreliable sources (including, sometimes, official ones), will mean that even conscientious reporters end up with inaccurate information in cases like this. That’s all understandable and inevitable.
But shouldn’t there be some standards governing what gets reported and what is held back? Particularly in a case like this — which, for obvious reasons, has the potential to be quite inflammatory on a number of levels — having the MAJOR MEDIA (my emphasis) “report” completely false assertions as fact can be quite harmful. It’s often the case that perceptions and judgments about stories like this solidify in the first few hours after one hears about it. The impact of subsequent corrections and clarifications pale in comparison to the impressions that are first formed. Despite that, one false and contradictory claim after the next was disseminated last night by the ESTABLISHED MEDIA with regard to the core facts of the attack. Here are excerpts from Allahpundit’s compilation, virtually all of which — except where indicated — came from large news outlets:…
The color highlighting is my addition. Greenwald seems to be going out of his way to stress that his criticism is aimed expressly at the MSM, not the bloggers who are passing it on.
Winner… Greenwald.
UPDATE: Welcome fellow Instapundit…. And Sullivan readers. There are boobs a couple of posts below! Have to go pull my starter now (that would be the one on my car, pervs).
UPDATE # 2: This is pretty cool. I find myself in the middle of a full fledged blargument with Patterico. He seems to think I miss the whole subtext of Greenwald’s post, that Allahpundit and Patterico and Glenn Reynolds shouldn’t be trusted. All because of greenwalds use of ellipses in the post. If that’s the case, then is Greenwald also insulting New York Times writer Robert Mackey? Greenwald writes the following:
Isn’t it clear that anyone following all of that as it unfolded would have been more misinformed than informed?
The New York Times‘ Robert Mackey did an equally comprehensive job of live-blogging the media reports, and his contemporaneous compilation reflects many of these same glaring errors in the coverage: “CNN reports that two military sources say that the second gunman at Fort Hood is ‘cornered’ . . . Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison told Fox 4 News in Texas that one shooter was in custody and ‘another is still at large’ . . . CNN’s Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reports that 12 people have been killed and up to 30 wounded. One of the dead is said to have been one of the gunmen. . . . Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, just revealed that earlier reports that the suspected gunman, Major Nidal Hasan, had been killed were incorrect. Major Hasan was wounded but remains alive.”
Notice that Greenwald writes that Mackey does an “equally comprehensive job” of covering the media reports…. and uses more than a few ellipses. Here is how G closes his orignal post:
I’m obviously ambivalent about the issues of media responsibility raised by all of this. It’s difficult to know exactly how the competing interests should be balanced — between disclosing what one has heard in an evolving news story and ensuring some minimal level of reliability and accuracy. But whatever else is true, news outlets — driven by competitive pressures in the age of instant “reporting” — don’t really seem to recognize the need for this balance at all. They’re willing to pass on anything they hear without regard to reliability — to the point where I automatically and studiously ignore the first day or so of news coverage on these events because, given how these things are “reported,” it’s simply impossible to know what is true and what isn’t. In fact, following initial media coverage on these stories is more likely to leave one misled and confused than informed. Conversely, the best way to stay informed is to ignore it all — or at least treat it all with extreme skepticism — for at least a day.
The problem, though, is that huge numbers of people aren’t ignoring it. They’re paying close attention — and they’re paying the closest attention, and forming their long-term views, in the initial stages of the reporting. Many people will lose their interest once the drama dissolves — i.e., once the actual facts emerge. Put another way, a large segment of conventional wisdom solidifies based on misleading and patently false claims coming from major media outlets. I don’t know exactly how to define what the balance should be, but particularly for politically explosive stories like this one, it seems clear that media outlets ought to exercise far more restraint and fact-checking rigor than they do. As it is, it’s an orgy of rumor-mongering, speculation and falsehoods that play a very significant role in shaping public perceptions and enabling all sorts of ill-intentioned exploitation.
I’m a student of mass media; it’s a large component of my B.A. in Telecommunications. I absolutely agree with the premise of the first paragraph, and I actually did ignore the first day or two of coverage of this story for the very reason G states. This isn’t a criticism of the media conduit, such as Patterico, Allah, and Insta-P, so much as a criticism of the dearth of information available, and the lack of proper fact checking and analysis that can only come a few days after a major event takes place. I, like Allahpundit, am very careful to load a post with caveats if the info for a story I’m writing about has not been verified. More than likely, I won’t even write about the story at all until a few days have passed. We all saw how the public, bloggers, and the news media got burned during the immediate Katrina aftermath, and, even after 9/11. Michael Moore took full advantage of the misinformation and, even after much of it had been refuted, still made a movie and a boat load of money off it, and Rosie O’Donnell made an ass of herself. Maybe I’m blind to the slights against Allahpundit and Patterico and Insta-P because I’m not a regular reader of Greenwald and not a card carrying liberal, nor am I a Rush Limbaugh Dittohead; I’m one of those misguided independent libertarian voters who don’t flock with either group. But I call ’em as I see ’em. And in this case, there seems to be mountains being made out of molehills, there’s much ado about very little.
UPDATE # 3: Here is even more text from Greenwald’s original post:
The fate of the shooter
One of the shooters is dead. . . One is dead, two more are in custody. Has there ever been a case of “battle stress” that involved a conspiracy by multiple people? . . . So poor and fragmented have the early media reports about this been that only now, after 9 p.m. ET, do we learn that … Hasan’s still alive. He’s in stable condition.
The weapons used
M-16s involved: . . . From the local Fox affiliate, how it all went down. Evidently McClatchy’s report of M-16s was wrong:
The shooter’s background
According to Brian Ross at ABC, Hasan was a convert to Islam. . . . Contra Brian Ross, the AP says it’s unclear what Hasan’s religion was or whether he was a convert. . . . Apparently, one of Hasan’s cousins just told Shep that he’s always been Muslim, not a recent convert. . . .
I’m hearing on Twitter that Fox interviewed one of his neighbors within the last half-hour or so and that the neighbor claims Hasan was handing out Korans just this morning. Does anyone have video? . . . . “Brenda Price of KUSJ reported to Greta at 10:33: ‘also, the latest I am hearing, this morning, apparently according to his neighbors, he was walking around kind of giving out his possessions, giving away his furniture, handing out the Koran…'” . . .: Evidently CNN is airing surveillance footage from a convenience store camera taken this just morning showing Hasan in a traditional Muslim cap and robe. . . “A former neighbor of Hasan’s in Silver Spring, Md. told Fox News he lived there for two years with his brother and had the word ‘Allah’ on the door.”
Miscellaneous claims
Good lord — there’s a report from BNO News on Twitter that new shooting is being heard on the base. . . . For what it’s worth, an eyewitness report of Arabic being shouted during the attack: . . .Federal law enforcement officials say the suspected Fort Hood, Texas, shooter had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats. . . . The $64,000 questions: What was he doing at Fort Hood among the population if he thought suicide bombers were heroes?
Is Glenn showing how the info went from scatter-shot, to more accurate? Yes. Does that show that Allah-P is whittling down the info down from conflicting and innuendo to accurate???? Check. Does it show that Allah-P is actually asking pertinent questions, some that the MSM took three days to ask??? Yep. Greenwald, yes, the evil lib Greenwald demonstrates that Allah-P is being a better journalist than the “journalists”. Probably lest a bad taste in his mouth. Your nit-picking in this light comes off as petty and thin skinned.
Sorry Patterico, but your criticism just doesn’t hold up.
Politics / Law Stuff, Stupidity / Satire, Tortured Logic | Sonicfrog November 8, 2009
54 Comments to “Glenn Greenwald – Dishonest Blogger??? Patterico – Criticism Is Lacking Something… Perspective. UPDATE X 3”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 12:15 am
Nice try at a defense of Greenwald, but your argument is not convincing. While his main target was indeed Big Media, Allahpundit (and by extension myself and Glenn Reynolds) were secondary targets.
Greenwald suggested that Allahpundit was not appropriately skeptical at all times — just “at times,” as I noted in my post. The clear implication was that Allahpundit was *not* appropriately skeptical at times. Then Greenwald painted a false picture of Allahpundit as gullibly swallowing one false fact after another. Greenwald did this by quoting Allahpundit passing along some information that later proved false — while surgically removing almost every expression of skepticism from Allahpundit’s quotes.
This made Allahpundit look like he was credulously passing along unverified information without caveats — even when Allahpundit was explicitly including those caveats.
I included several examples in my post. For example, Greenwald quoted Allahpundit as saying: “Good lord — there’s a report from BNO News on Twitter that new shooting is being heard on the base. . . .” when Allahpundit actually said: “Good lord — there’s a report from BNO News on Twitter that new shooting is being heard on the base. Nothing on the wires yet. Big grain of salt.” Greenwald failed to quote the final two sentence fragments, using an ellipsis instead.
Greenwald repeatedly used ellipses to eliminate all of Allahpundit’s careful expressions of caution and skepticism. I gave about 4 examples in my post.
If you think these were all removed by accident, then with all due respect, I suggest that you might be rather naive yourself.
By RNews, November 9, 2009 @ 1:51 am
great job clearing this up. thanks!
By Lil'D, November 9, 2009 @ 2:34 am
Geez, Patterico. Get over yourself. I spent a fair bit of time looking at the posts and you really are overcomplaining. Yes, it’s possible GG could have quoted Allahpundit differently, that will always be the case. Look at his core point. You just aren’t getting it – it’s just not all about you. Calm down, suck it up and move on, or get out of the business. You won’t be taken seriously if you continue on this self righteous rampage. It’s beneath you.
By Sonicfrog, November 9, 2009 @ 2:46 am
Patterico:
Greenwald goes out of his way to keep his focus on the MSM. Yes, he didn’t include AllahP’s every single warning to be skeptical, but AllahP’s skepticism wasn’t the focus of the post, and I don’t think he needed to. The point of Glenn’s criticism is the dissemination of instant news by the MSM, and all the inaccuracies that have been shown to occur in the process. I understand you and Greenwald have been parrying back and forth over the years, but this whole hidden meaning / agenda thing… come on. You come off as being a bit prickly and paranoid.
By Sonicfrog, November 9, 2009 @ 2:59 am
Patterico – I changed the title of the post from Criticism Is Lacking Something… Honesty to Criticism Is Lacking Something… Perspective. I don’t think you are being dishonest, just lacking perspective. And lets face it, if Greenwald wanted to make an issue out this and direct it at Allah, he would not have shied away from it. He would have openly criticized Allah for passing the info along, and not being one of the gatekeepers. In which case, I would be critical of him.
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 3:10 am
“Yes, he didn’t include AllahP’s every single warning to be skeptical . . .”
Dude, he cut out almost every single one. You really think this was an accident?! It’s a pattern. Since you didn’t bother to give any of these examples in your post, allow me to do so for the benefit of your readers:
Greenwald’s quotation of Allahpundit:
Allahpundit’s actual quote:
Greenwald’s quotation of Allahpundit:
Allahpundit’s actual quote:
Greenwald’s quotation of Allahpundit:
Allahpundit’s actual quote:
Almost every caveat offered by Allahpundit is surgically removed to make his coverage sound gullible when it was continually skeptical.
” . . . but AllahP’s skepticism wasn’t the focus of the post . . .”
Dishonesty is offensive even if presented as a secondary point.
Greenwald pointedly mentioned Allahpundit’s skepticism — and though you want to make it sound like he had nothing but praise for Allahpundit, he did not. Greenwald made a point of claiming that Allahpundit was skeptical only “at times,” and also criticized him for passing along Twitter rumors that Greenwald (falsely) claimed were mostly inaccurate. So Greenwald made a point of noting Allahpundit’s repetition of inaccurate information, and of claiming that Allahpundit was not skeptical at all times. Then Greenwald systematically cut out Allahpundit’s warnings, as I just demonstrated.
Your point appears to be that it is OK for Greenwald to surgically remove all of Allahpundit’s cautionary language, and then accuse Allahpundit of being skeptical only “at times” — as long as this wasn’t the main point of his post. In other words, a dishonest portrayal of someone’s scrupulous skepticism as gullibility is fair game, as long as you do it in an offhand manner.
How in the world do you justify this serial pattern of removing Allahpundit’s cautionary language and replacing it with ellipses?
To me, it’s part of a pattern of dishonesty that is in keeping with his history of dishonest sock-puppeting. And I really couldn’t care less who his target is. This kind of dishonest Dowdification is offensive regardless of the choice of target.
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 3:21 am
Greenwald cited me, Glenn Reynolds, and Allahpundit as examples of bloggers passing along flawed information by Big Media. We repeatedly cautioned readers that the information might be flawed, and Greenwald removed all of our warnings, which had the effect of making us appear to be gullible when we were not.
It’s not a big deal to you because it’s not your reputation being slandered at a widely-read site like Salon.com. If I unfairly portrayed your sentiments at a widely read site, perhaps you’d have a different view. Even if the slander of you were only a secondary part of a larger argument.
Are you quite certain that nothing you wrote in this post could be doctored with strategically placed ellipses to mislead readers as to your views?
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 3:27 am
“Patterico . . . it’s possible GG could . . . be . . . on [a] self righteous rampage.” — Lil’D
You said it, Lil’D, not me.
By Sonicfrog, November 9, 2009 @ 3:27 am
How in the world do you justify this serial pattern of removing Allahpundit’s cautionary language and replacing it with ellipses?
Because it doesn’t make a difference to the point that was being made. No, I didn’t take it that G had nothing but praise for Allahpundit but I just don’t see the demonic subtext either.
On the choice of ellipses and deleted text, to be fair, I will either comment about it at his blog (if he allows comments), or try to e-mail him.
Have to go cook dinner now.
By Sonicfrog, November 9, 2009 @ 3:31 am
Are you quite certain that nothing you wrote in this post could be doctored with strategically placed ellipses to mislead readers as to your views?
Uhm… I don’t really have any readers… except Jeff and Cliffie and Greg and Johnny and three other guys who stop by from time to time. 🙂
By Will, November 9, 2009 @ 3:33 am
Patterico:
I read GG’s post long before I read this one (or yours). It is clear to me that in his post GG is revisiting his common “MSM doesn’t engage in true journalism” theme, and not knocking Allahpundit or you. GG uses Allahpundit as an example of someone who was following the news as it happened. But by using MSM sources to rebroadcast information, that blogger ended up piecing together a conflicting, factually ambiguous, and at times absurd story about the day’s events. I’m not really familiar with Allahpundit’s blog, but I believe it’s more of a original commentary blog, and not a minute-to-minute news source type blog (it’s not typically a live-blog, in other words). It follows, then, that it would be as ridiculous to suggest that somehow Allahpundit had better sources than the MSM in Fort Hood than to suggest that I did or you did; instead we (Allahpundit, you, and me) rely on the MSM for information during these events. GG criticizes the MSM for reporting rumors and inaccuracies because we expect (and GG demands) accountability and accuracy (read: journalism) from the MSM. The problem in this specific case is not that Allahpundit was parroting debunked claims (GG often goes on the attack about that; calling Allahpundit “appropriately skeptical” is probably the biggest compliment I’ve ever seen him give to a conservative), but that the MSM was spouting nonsense, and leading people following the news (e.g. Allahpundit) to end up with and incoherent and opaque story from which little actual “knowledge” about the shooting could be drawn.
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 3:37 am
Greenwald’s surgical removal of my cautionary language:
Greenwald’s quotation of me:
My actual quotation:
Added to the four examples I gave above, that’s five examples of Greenwald quoting Allahpundit and me, in which he omitted our warnings that the information we’re passing along from Big Media might be flawed. That’s unfair of him, given that his post made a point of saying that Allahpundit passed along Big Media’s flawed information (and that I recommended Allahpundit’s coverage).
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 3:41 am
“Uhm… I don’t really have any readers… except Jeff and Cliffie and Greg and Johnny and three other guys who stop by from time to time. :-)”
I thought it was fairly clear that I was asking you to imagine that the misquotation of your language occurred at a widely read site. Like Greenwald’s misquotation of me and Allahpundit happened at Salon.com.
“On the choice of ellipses and deleted text, to be fair, I will either comment about it at his blog (if he allows comments), or try to e-mail him.”
Do you not know whether he allows comments? (He does.) Do you not know anything about his blog?
And if you e-mail him, I assume you will simply accept his self-serving explanation for his serial misrepresentation of our comments? I don’t remember getting an e-mail from you before you wrote a post calling my writing “dishonest” (something you have since retracted as inaccurate).
By Tim McD, November 9, 2009 @ 3:41 am
Of course it makes a difference that Greenwald removed the caveats! It had to be deliberate, and it was obviously an attempt to make the bloggers look like they were uncritically accepting whatever the MSM was reporting.
Greenwald is slimy, and your attemted defense falls short.
By Sonicfrog, November 9, 2009 @ 5:38 am
And if you e-mail him, I assume you will simply accept his self-serving explanation for his serial misrepresentation of our comments?.
It depends on what he says. I think it is a fair question as to why he took the bits out. You have much more pull in the blogosphere than I do (is that two “g”‘s, or one in blogosphere) and would have gotten an answer right away from him had only you asked. I much doubt he will respond to my inquiry, but I’ll give it a shot. That said, I’m sorry., I don’t see his original post as a specific slight against Allah or you or Glenn (who I do read all the time).
BTW: You don’t need to keep repeating yourself. Got the point the first two times. I’m not quite as dense as you seem to believe. I just don’t agree with you.
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 5:53 am
“You have much more pull in the blogosphere than I do (is that two “g”’s, or one in blogosphere) and would have gotten an answer right away from him had only you asked.”
One “g.”
I don’t think you realize the history I have with him — namely, the numerous false accusations he made against me, and my subsequent discovery that he sockpuppeted. He is not someone who would simply respond to me — nor did I need to ask the question, as I knew exactly why he was doing what he was doing.
If you really read Instapundit all the time, you would know how Greenwald has lied about him as well. Instapundit is honest enough to link to contrary viewpoints, but trust me: he isn’t buying your argument (even though he linked it). That’s because, like me and unlike you, he understands Greenwald’s history of serial deception.
But hey, your post is catnip for the likes of the equally dishonest Andrew Sullivan. So as long as you can provide cover for liars like him and Greenwald, who cares if the reputations of Reynolds, Allahpundit, and myself are dragged through the mud by liars like Greenwald?
By el loco, November 9, 2009 @ 6:01 am
It never fails to amaze me how big whiners are these nutjobs. Patterico, stop complaining, take your beating like a man, STFU you goddamn pussy. BTW, you have no f@cking reputation you piece of sh@t.
By flanders, November 9, 2009 @ 6:22 am
patterico-
if this is an example of “serial deception” you need to calm down. wow. did you even read GG’s post? or was it a little too dense?
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 6:59 am
“amaze me . . . big . . . goddamn pussy.” — el loco
“GG [is] a little too dense” — flanders
“Uhm… I don’t really have any readers . . .” — Sonic Frog
Oh, I don’t know. Seems to me like you have some real winners here.
By Will, November 9, 2009 @ 6:59 am
Patterico:
It’s clear that you’re having a great time pushing this blogger around and wallowing in your proclaimed victimhood. But here’s the thing: although you obviously wish that GG had dedicated his column to how awesome you are, he didn’t, and it doesn’t matter that he didn’t. The post wasn’t about you, or Allahpundit. The post was about how the MSM presents regularly presents flawed information as news without any regard to whether it is true or not, and as a result, people who follow the news (like the aforementioned group of me, you and Allahpundit) end up with a babble of confusing, unintelligible crap, as much untruth as truth. It’s bad reporting and bad journalism. And GG was attacking the MSM for that, as he has in the past. This is the sequence of events that lead GG to post:
a. You say Allahpundit is good for breaking news
b. GG looks at Allahpundit’s site
c. Because he is following MSM sources, the story that Allahpundit posts on his blog makes no sense (see the contradictions posted in GGs site).
It doesn’t matter whether you or Allahpundit hand-painted signs that said “take this with a grain of salt” and appeared behind Al Roker in the crowd on the Today show: nobody could possibly make a coherent story out of what was posted on Allahpundit’s site, regardless of how many grains they were taking, because all of the information was garbled and contradictory. Your proclamations to “not jump to conclusions” and Allahpundit’s similar advice don’t matter in this account because it’s not about your meting out of information, but rather about the information that was meted out to you. Thus I agree with the OP’s point that your reaction to GG’s post was unnecessary, self-pitying, and certainly misleading (you do not, by any stretch of the mind, “destroy Greenwald’s thesis,” because his thesis, as discussed, doesn’t concern you our your bold and visionary proclamations to not “jump to conclusions”).
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 7:00 am
“Of course it makes a difference that Greenwald removed the caveats! It had to be deliberate, and it was obviously an attempt to make the bloggers look like they were uncritically accepting whatever the MSM was reporting.”
Dingdingdingdingding!!
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 7:00 am
We have a winner!
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 7:04 am
“It’s clear that . . . GG . . . appeared behind Al Roker . . . GG . . . was . . . self-pitying, and certainly misleading . . .” — will.i.am
By Will, November 9, 2009 @ 7:13 am
How was the uncritical blogger attempt “obvious”?
GG’s thesis is that the MSM *did* not get the story right, so people who followed the MSM *could* not get the story right. Allahpundit, despite being “appropriately skeptical,” could not present a coherent account of what was happening because MSM sources failed to coherently present the facts. The MSM, not the blogger, is the bad guy here. I suppose you could argue the population at large that consumes MSM and perpetuates its existence is also at fault, and because Allahpundit is in the population at large, GG faults him, but that is a really thin argument. And not the argument that you’ve been angrily making.
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 7:19 am
“He seems to think I miss the whole subtext of Greenwald’s post, that Allahpundit and Patterico and Glenn Reynolds shouldn’t be trusted. All because of greenwalds use of ellipses in the post. If that’s the case, then is Greenwald also insulting New York Times writer Robert Mackey?”
I don’t know. Is Greenwald dishonestly omitting a bunch of cautionary language from Mackey’s post? Do you care? Does the consideration of that issue form any part of your analysis? Do you even understand why Greenwald’s post was so offensive and dishonest?
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 7:22 am
“and because Allahpundit is in the population at large, GG faults him”
Yes, Greenwald does fault him.
Tell that to the proprietor of this site, who doesn’t seem to understand that.
Of course, the population at large doesn’t explicitly express its skepticism of the media’s stream of facts, as Allahpundit did. And that’s the point: Allahpundit included the caveats, and Greenwald “faulted” him while pretending the caveats weren’t there. It’s the height of dishonesty — and it’s typical for Ellers and Ellison and all the rest of them.
By Sonicfrog, November 9, 2009 @ 7:23 am
If you really read Instapundit all the time,….
Hey look. More ellipses (don’t think I’ve ever typed the word ellipse more in my life).
Somehow, I knew you were going to go there. There is no way I can prove it, but I can show you my first blog. Note that Insta-P is on both new and old blogrolls. I only include links to stuff I read constantly. I do read Glenn R all the time. He has linked my posts from time to time, and unlike some, is not offended by POV’s contrary to his. It’s one of the reasons why I like him so much.
Yes, I figured that you and GG have a bit of a history. That, however doesn’t mean that every single post is somehow a barb aimed your way.
So far as your reputation goes, do you really think that there is anything that anyone could write, especially a non-entity such as myself, that would cause someone who hasn’t already made up their mind about which camp they’re in, to change allegiances? Those who read your blog are going to sid ewith you, those that read Sullivan’s blog are going to side with him.
I don’t care about your past history. I don’t care if GG has lied about you in the past. I don’t care what Sullivan thinks. I don’t even care that I, as a libertarian minded individual, probably would agree with you on many of the posts you’ve written more than I would with Sullivan’s. My observation, after reading Insta, you, and Greenwald’s original post, is that you’re reading too much into the ellipses.
PS. Sorry I haven’t followed your conflicts and disagreements with GG. I’ve have had the pleasure of following Insta and Sully’s five year back and forth. It’s been fascinating to watch over the years, and interesting to see where they fall in line when they do every so often agree on something.
By Sonicfrog, November 9, 2009 @ 7:28 am
“amaze me . . . big . . . goddamn pussy.” — el loco
“GG [is] a little too dense” — flanders
“Uhm… I don’t really have any readers . . .” — Sonic Frog
Oh, I don’t know. Seems to me like you have some real winners here.
Please. I challenge you to find those people posting on any other post on my blog before this post went nuclear.
I thought it was fairly clear that I was asking you to imagine that the misquotation of your language occurred at a widely read site. Like Greenwald’s misquotation of me and Allahpundit happened at Salon.com.
God> no one ever gets my sardonic sly sense of humor. (note the smiley face on the end of that post)
Lets examine, shall we, the text that GG pulled from A’s site:
The EXACT point of that quote was to show how much the story was changing in real time the media, not on whether A was being skeptical or not. Note the inclusion of many sources of initial info is included.
I’m sorry that you feel GG has slighted you, but in this case, I think you’re overreacting. I’m not going to change your mind, so we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this.
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 7:42 am
“Yes, I figured that you and GG have a bit of a history. That, however doesn’t mean that every single post is somehow a barb aimed your way.”
I can’t remember where I argued that “every single post” was a barb aimed my way. Since I know that you’re trying to engage me honestly, without resorting to exaggeration or strawmen, can you remind me where I argued that? Thanks!
“Please. I challenge you to find those people posting on any other post on my blog before this post went nuclear.”
You’re coming off a bit prickly and paranoid here. It’s not all about you. If I had wanted to say that these people had posted on your blog before, I would not have shied away from it. I would have openly accused you of tolerating these morons on other posts. Since I did not make that accusation, I think you’re being a bit thin-skinned and narcissistic by acting like this whole thing is about you and your blog and who has commented on your blog and such.
“I don’t care if GG has lied about you in the past.”
Would you care if Greenwald had lied about you? I submit you would. But you don’t care if he lies about others.
This is not about principle for you. It’s about what affects you. If it affects you, you care. If people lie about you, you care. If people lie about others, you don’t care.
That’s fine and typical. Just don’t pretend you’re acting on principles or that you’re somehow the honest broker here.
By Will, November 9, 2009 @ 7:43 am
Patterico: “the population at large doesn’t explicitly express its skepticism of the media’s stream of facts, as Allahpundit did. And that’s the point: Allahpundit included the caveats, and Greenwald “faulted” him while pretending the caveats weren’t there.”
Greenwald: “Allahpundit’s post consists of a very thorough, contemporaneous, and — at times — appropriately skeptical chronicling of what major media outlets were reporting”
Looks like GG explicitly does *not* fault Allahpundit.
I know that you wish Allahpundit’s noble, poetic “grains of salt” and the like to be included in GG’s post, but being as GG’s post wasn’t about Allahpundit’s reporting but rather the MSM (“one can use the Hot Air compilation to examine that”), there was no need to include Allahpundit’s specific skepticism, especially because he gives a nod to it at the beginning of the post.
As for the perceived ” –at times –” slight, Allahpundit does, in fact, report some new updates without the requisite grain of salt advice. But who cares? It’s not the point of the post.
By Sonicfrog, November 9, 2009 @ 7:54 am
Good nite all.
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 7:55 am
Hahahahahahahahahaha.
Will defends Allahpundit with the same kind of selective quotation B.S. that Greenwald engages in.
Observe:
It sure does look that way!
That is, it looks that way . . . when you quote Greenwald that way. By cutting off his quote mid-sentence.
I guess you figured that if you left out the ellipsis, that we wouldn’t know that Greenwald said more?
Funny thing, though. I read Greenwald’s post before I wrote my post. And that’s how I know that Will is either a liar, or that he just happened to stop reading Greenwald right before Greenwald faulted Allahpundit.
For the benefit of anyone following this comment thread who is tempted to believe Will’s little truncated quote above, let me provide the full quote:
Wow. Now it looks like Greenwald *did* fault Allahpundit! But I guess, to know that, you have to read Greenwald’s actual quote, as opposed to Will’s dishonest truncated quote.
Will, you have truly learned well at the feet of the master.
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 8:07 am
“The EXACT point of that quote was to show how much the story was changing in real time the media, not on whether A was being skeptical or not. Note the inclusion of many sources of initial info is included.”
You don’t need to keep repeating yourself. Got the point the first two times. I’m not quite as dense as you seem to believe. I just don’t agree with you.
Your point is that Allahpundit cited many media sources and some of the claims were false and Greenwald’s main point was to criticize the media sources on which Allahpundit relied.
My point, which you are either too dense to understand or which you are purposely avoiding responding too, is that I don’t care whether smearing Allahpundit was Greenwald’s main point, or whether it was merely a secondary little bonus point. He still made a point of noting that Allahpundit had quoted all this material. He still made a point of suggesting that Allahpundit had not been appropriately skeptical at ALL times — just “at times.” And he still made a point of quoting Allahpundit’s claims four times — while omitting Allahpundit’s caveats with ellipses each and every one of those four times.
You, being ignorant of Greenwald’s site (to the point where you don’t even know if he allows comments), ignorant of his history of sock-puppeting, ignorant of his history of lying about me and Glenn Reynolds and many others . . . you come along and render your uninformed opinion, without addressing Greenwald’s clear omissions from the quotations of me and Allahpundit. You get a link from Glenn Reynolds because he publicizes opposing opinions. You get a link from Andrew Sullivan because he is a moron who hates me and Glenn Reynolds. But none of that renders your admittedly uninformed opinion relevant to anyone who is paying attention.
My main point is not to note that you are dishonest. My main point is that Greenwald is dishonest and you are ignorantly enabling him. If you have a beef with my secondary point, I refer you to my main point, and would remind you not to whine like a little girl about secondary points. Good DAY, sir! (You don’t even know what I mean when I say *that*, do you?)
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 8:08 am
too = to
(I don’t have the benefit of revising already published comments, as you did above.)
By Will, November 9, 2009 @ 8:16 am
Patterico,
I did address that issue: “Allahpundit does, in fact, report some new updates without the requisite grain of salt advice.”
Do you dispute that? Did Allahpundit include a “hey, remember, this is just stuff I’m getting from twitter and whatever, so it might not be true” before every update? No, he did not. At times he is skeptical: “big grain of salt here,” etc. At times – most times – he doesn’t say anything like that. If anything, his advice to take a grain of salt with some items gives the impression that the other items are for sure, lockdown, we know this so no sodium is necessary. But again, Greenwald doesn’t make this point; he makes the point that Allahpundit, or anyone getting their info from MSM, got it wrong because the MSM got it wrong.
Even if you do choose to read it in your somewhat goofy focus on Allahpundit rather than the real target of GG’s post (MSM), I still think that you’re not justified in your scandalized resentment. At the beginning of the post, GG lays out what he is doing (using Allahpundit as a template for someone who live-blogged the events using MSM and twitter sources), and gives Allahpundit some props for being at least somewhat vigilant. The large body quotations, served up in big blocks, show that the information from the MSM (not Allahpundit) was a mishmash of “one shooter, two shooters, shooters dead, shooters alive, it’s all over, it’s not all over, etc.”. As I’ve said before, the point is that nobody, not you or me or GG or anyone else, could use a stream of updates from the MSM to inform ourselves about what was actually happening or had happened. In this the MSM failed. Read the post in that light. It’s not necessary, or coherent writing for that matter, for GG to quote and cheer for Allahpundit every time he expresses skepticism – that’s not what the post is about. You claim that you’ve taken down Greenwald’s thesis, but you don’t get his thesis.
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 8:35 am
Will the factless says:
Actually, every single report Allahpundit passed along from Twitter that proved not to be true, he warned readers not to trust.
Every single one.
Turns out Greenwald lied about most of the Twitter reports being false. (Lied, or simply asserted without research, which isn’t much better.) I’m working up a post now that shows that 4 of the Twitter reports were true. 2 of them were false, and Allahpundit warned against trusting both of them. (Not that the lying sack Greenwald told you that.) And one was mixed.
“You claim that you’ve taken down Greenwald’s thesis, but you don’t get his thesis.”
I get his thesis and I have taken it down. And I’m about to take it down again. You don’t care about the facts so you won’t care. But anyone who cares about the facts will care. And will see how cavalier you have been about the facts.
Next time, pay attention and research. kthxbai
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 9:22 am
Greenwald claim that most of Allahpundit’s Twitter citations were false?
Yeah, Greenwald lied about that too.
Or, if we give him the big Benefit of the Doubt, maybe he just popped off without researching his assertion.
Either way, it’s an unfair insult. Chances of a correction: zilch.
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
I know this part of Greenwald’s quote is not bolded in your post, but if Greenwald merely intended to attack Big Media and not Allahpundit, then why did he explicitly state that Allahpundit engaged in the “passing along of much unverified gossip and chatter from Twitter, most of which turned out to be false”?
That’s not a criticism of Big Media at all. It is a criticism of Allahpundit.
It also happens to be a false criticism. Most of the “unverified gossip and chatter” that Allahpundit passed along from Twitter turned out to be true — and when it wasn’t, he warned readers that it wasn’t.
Now why do you suppose Greenwald found it important to include that (dishonest) phrase, when his sole target was supposedly Big Media?
And why do you suppose that he is (in an update to his post) lying about having made that comment, and falsely claiming that the only commentary he had regarding Allahpundit was praise?
By N, November 9, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 7:42 am
You’re coming off a bit prickly and paranoid here. It’s not all about you. If I had wanted to say that these people had posted on your blog before, I would not have shied away from it. I would have openly accused you of tolerating these morons on other posts. Since I did not make that accusation, I think you’re being a bit thin-skinned and narcissistic by acting like this whole thing is about you and your blog and who has commented on your blog and such.
Projecting much?
By Sonicfrog, November 9, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Pat…
Glenn’s original thread on this post is closed. I posted the question of “Why did you
Here is the complete text:
It seems I got myself into a bit of a blargument with Patterico over Glenn Greenwald’s latest criticism of the media.
In a nutshell, Patterico thinks that Greenwald had dubious intent when he wrote about the media coverage of the Ft. Hood shooting, implying that Allauhpundint, Glenn Reynolds, and he, were all dissed because Greenwald edited out the various caveats Allahpundit included as he passed on info during his coverage of the event. Greenwald used that subtext to smear the three conservative bloggers.
Here is Patterico’s exact description, no ellipses:
Greenwald painted a false picture of Allahpundit as gullibly swallowing one false fact after another. Greenwald did this by quoting Allahpundit passing along some information that later proved false — while surgically removing almost every expression of skepticism from Allahpundit’s quotes.
I say that Pat is reading too much into it, that Greenwald didn’t include the “take it with a grain of salt” warnings passed by Allah-P because it was not pertinent to the narative of the piece GG wrote.
In the various comments between myself and Patterico, I told Pat that I would try and ask Glenn exactly why he omited the warnings of caution. This is my main purpose here:
Glenn, why exactly did you omit the warnings of caution Allah provided.
Thank in advace
Michael Alexander aka Sonicfrog.
By Sonicfrog, November 9, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
UPDATE # 3: Here is even more text from Greenwald’s original post:
The fate of the shooter
One of the shooters is dead. . . One is dead, two more are in custody. Has there ever been a case of “battle stress” that involved a conspiracy by multiple people? . . . So poor and fragmented have the early media reports about this been that only now, after 9 p.m. ET, do we learn that … Hasan’s still alive. He’s in stable condition.
The weapons used
M-16s involved: . . . From the local Fox affiliate, how it all went down. Evidently McClatchy’s report of M-16s was wrong:
The shooter’s background
According to Brian Ross at ABC, Hasan was a convert to Islam. . . . Contra Brian Ross, the AP says it’s unclear what Hasan’s religion was or whether he was a convert. . . . Apparently, one of Hasan’s cousins just told Shep that he’s always been Muslim, not a recent convert. . . .
I’m hearing on Twitter that Fox interviewed one of his neighbors within the last half-hour or so and that the neighbor claims Hasan was handing out Korans just this morning. Does anyone have video? . . . . “Brenda Price of KUSJ reported to Greta at 10:33: ‘also, the latest I am hearing, this morning, apparently according to his neighbors, he was walking around kind of giving out his possessions, giving away his furniture, handing out the Koran…'” . . .: Evidently CNN is airing surveillance footage from a convenience store camera taken this just morning showing Hasan in a traditional Muslim cap and robe. . . “A former neighbor of Hasan’s in Silver Spring, Md. told Fox News he lived there for two years with his brother and had the word ‘Allah’ on the door.”
Miscellaneous claims
Good lord — there’s a report from BNO News on Twitter that new shooting is being heard on the base. . . . For what it’s worth, an eyewitness report of Arabic being shouted during the attack: . . .Federal law enforcement officials say the suspected Fort Hood, Texas, shooter had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats. . . . The $64,000 questions: What was he doing at Fort Hood among the population if he thought suicide bombers were heroes?
Is Glenn showing how the info went from scatter-shot, to more accurate? Yes. Does that show that Allah-P is whittling down the info down from conflicting and innuendo to accurate???? Check. Does it show that Allah-P is actually asking pertinent questions, some that the MSM took three days to ask??? Yep. Greenwald, yes, the evil lib Greenwald demonstrates that Allah-P is being a better journalist than the “journalists”. Probably lest a bad taste in his mouth. Your nit-picking in this light comes off as petty and thin skinned.
Sorry Patterico, but your criticism just doesn’t hold up.
By Will, November 9, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
Ok, point taken re: twitter updates. But what about other “unverified gossip” from the MSM?
Allahpundit: “Hasan’s still alive. He’s in stable condition” Nothing in that update to suggest that that might be false, just that earlier updates might be false. Thus leading the reader to think, again, that this update is acutally factually true. (It was not).
And again, I point out that in GG’s large block quotations from Allahpundit, there is as much truth as there is lies: the MSM (and Allahpundit) reported about there being one shooter and then about three shooters and then back to one; we know know that yes, there was only one shooter (truth), but it makes it very hard for an interested follower of the news to understand what is happening cogently when the same source also reports that there were 3 shooters, according to “eyewitnesses” (untruth). That is the thesis of GG’s post, not that Allahpundit did a *bad* job of reporting what was reported to him. He did that very well; GG admits that his account was “very thorough [and] contemporaneous”. It just was also hopelessly garbled due to his MSM sources. But while we don’t necessarily expect crack reporting from Allahpundit (his blog is not about that), we do expect it from the MSM, whose industry is about having good sources, reporting only the truth, etc.. I know GG doesn’t like you, or Allahpundit. But this post isn’t about you.
By Will, November 9, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
Ok, and I tap out. I read a report early on that Hasan was dead, and he’s not. Big hole in my argument.
By Patterico, November 9, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
I provided proof above that Greenwald lied in his update and it was ignored. That tells me all I need to know about the intellectual integrity of the arguments here.
My point is that even offhand dishonesty matters. It is not my point to point out that Sonic Frog parroted Greenwald’s dishonest defense of his lies because Sonic Frog cares more about ideology.
By Ryan, November 9, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
This is insane. I followed a Sullivan link here. I have never read Patterico and started reading Greenwald a whole week ago. I have never visited this blog either. I do read Sullivan but don’t find him trustworthy. I’m about as close to a neutral reader on this as you’re going to get.
I read the Greenwald post in question when it was first published, and the structure of the argument was plain as day: GG wants to make a point about the unreliability of MSM reporting on fast-developing stories. He finds evidence of that unreliability *compiled* by — not exemplified by, but compiled by — somebody named Allahpundit. He therefore cites Allahpundit’s compilation at near-exhaustive length. He doesn’t quote every expression of skepticism because it would be redundant — he sets the whole thing up, at the start, by characterizing Allahpundit as having demonstrated appropriate skepticism! The whole thing was basically an ‘attaboy’ from Greenwald to Allahpundit — muted only by the fact that GG’s goal was obviously to praise the insight, not the person who came up with it. But there was no backhanded snark. It was straight up. If Patterico sees some subtextual snark, I feel sorry for him, because he’s obviously so deep in the weeds of some personal feud that it’s coloring everything he reads.
By Ryan, November 9, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
Uh oh, after posting my last comment I followed one of the links provided by Patterico (the one alleging sockpuppetry by Greenwald) and now realize there are some deep, deep weeds here. And what’s worse, I have the misfortune of sharing a screen name with one of Greenwald’s alleged sock puppets. Plus I use hyphens and (I dare say) write well, though at less length. And Greenwald has not appeared in this thread! No doubt all of this casts great doubt on my genuineness. Oh well.
By Sonicfrog, November 10, 2009 @ 2:09 am
Ryan, this whole brou-ha-ha makes more sense with the backstory.. I still think Pat… is in error here. If there was some subtext, it certainly wasn’t done well. Here is the test I used:
When i came across the original Pat… post on Insta-P, I read that, then went to GG’s post. He had written a response but I purposely skipped it. I wanted to see if Pat… was on to something. Sorry, it just didn’t come through, not to the extent that he’s milking it to be. At first the titled of my post reflected that I thought that Pat… was being dishonest. When I realized that there was history between the two, I changed the title. When you’re in a blood feud, your judgment get clouded by personal animosities. Once I better understood the dynamic, I changed the title to reflect Pat…’s lack of perspective.
Now, Pat…
Yes I read your comment and your post. Some of us can’t spend all day responding to challenges. Plus, lets face it, you don’t seem the type to consider that you may have over reacted a bit. So i’m not sure why I should waste time talking to a brick wall..
On the Twitter accuracy: – It doesn’t matter much. Yes GG err’d when he said that most of the Twit’s were wrong. But it doesn’t matter much. Allah was not the author of the Twits and cannot know if they are true or false when he posts them. Contrast that with Rather-Gate. The producers, Mapes and Co., knew exactly what they were doing when they passed the forged docs. I don’t recall if it was positively shown that Rather knew the docs were suspect, but he became a party to the game when he stuck by his stubbornness and didn’t admit the error. Since Allah-P wasn’t the author of the Twits, and, when acting as a news aggregate as he was on the fifth, he has no responsibility to be able to instantly confirm the veracity of the info, no matter what anyone says. He was not, and as an aggregate, cannot be, the “perfect gatekeeper”.
If you read this, you will no doubt use Rather-Gate to show how GG purposely did what you accuse him of. That’s fine. Just give me credit for the meme.
Gotta go to rock out with my socks out and go to band practice.
By Patterico, November 10, 2009 @ 2:38 am
More lies from Greenwald that will be ignored here:
“[T]o the extent I commented on Allahpundit’s commentary at all, it was to state that ‘at times’ he was ‘appropriately skeptical.'”
That is a lie. Greenwald actually said more about Allahpundit:
“Allahpundit’s post consists of a very thorough, contemporaneous, and — at times — appropriately skeptical chronicling of what major media outlets were reporting about the Fort Hood attack, combined with his passing along of much unverified gossip and chatter from Twitter, most of which turned out to be false.”
Amazingly, rReenwald tells this lie in an update to the very post where that quote appears. In other words, it is as if Greenwald said: “I did not say the words you are about to read in the post below.”
Ironically, in denying any intent to slam Allahpundit, Greenwald just can’t help but slam him several more times. Greenwald dismisses Allahpundit’s commentary with phrases like “right-wing bloggers who copy down what they are hearing on TV” and “Hot Air’s dutiful passing on of their reports” and “Allahpundit’s thorough stenographic recording of what he was hearing.”
As much as he wants to deny that he intends to slam Allahpundit, these phrases reveal quite clearly that Greenwald is portraying Allahpundit as a mindless stenographer who dutifully passes along anything he sees on TV. In that regard, then, Greenwald’s update confirms precisely what he is trying to deny. Which renders his Dowdification that much more clearly dishonest.
But it’s quite amazing that he flatly denies saying anything about Allahpundit other than that he was appropriately skeptical. I look forward to you acolytes of his turning somersaults to justify that blatant lie, too.
“And what’s worse, I have the misfortune of sharing a screen name with one of Greenwald’s alleged sock puppets.”
Yeah? How about an IP address? You share that with him too? Because the “Ryan” Greenwald sock puppet did. Ryan even e-mailed Greenwald to ask a question, to which Greenwald replied as if he had never met “Ryan.” Even though they were posting from the same static IP address.
Ryan was my favorite sock puppet of all, because of how stupid that e-mail stunt was. Thanks for reminding me of that!
By Jeff Alberts, November 10, 2009 @ 2:43 am
Just for the record, this is not a comment on this blog.
By Patterico, November 10, 2009 @ 2:45 am
“Some of us can’t spend all day responding to challenges.”
Yeah, and despite your dishonest implication, I am one of those people myself. You aren’t any busier than I am, so don’t pretend you are.
You are, however, pretty thick. Honestly. Most of your arguments show that you don’t even bother to read what I say. For example, your idiotic statement “But this post isn’t about you.” I have already responded to that stupid point many times over — 1) it’s more about Allahpundit than me; 2) it doesn’t matter who the target is when Greenwald is dishonest; 3) secondary, offhand dishonesty is still dishonesty. Etc.
You’re not debating honestly. You’re not engaging what I’m saying. You’re just making snide and dishonest implications and repeating things that I have already discredited. In other words, you’re wasting my time.
By Patterico, November 10, 2009 @ 3:05 am
“The whole thing was basically an ‘attaboy’ from Greenwald to Allahpundit — muted only by the fact that GG’s goal was obviously to praise the insight, not the person who came up with it. But there was no backhanded snark. It was straight up.”
Certainly. When Greenwald said Allahpundit engaged in the “passing along of much unverified gossip and chatter from Twitter, most of which turned out to be false” — that was a big ATTABOY! There is no other way to read it!
Let me give you a similar attaboy, Ryan. Most of what you say in your post is false.
By Patterico, November 10, 2009 @ 4:51 am
Sonic Frog, after all this unpleasantness, I feel like I owe you an “attaboy.” You have passed along a lot of false information in this post.
By Jeff Alberts, November 10, 2009 @ 4:59 am
I don’t think I’ll be reading any of those other blogs.
By Sonicfrog, November 10, 2009 @ 5:40 am
You’re not debating honestly. You’re not engaging what I’m saying. You’re just making snide and dishonest implications and repeating things that I have already discredited. In other words, you’re wasting my time.
Then… uh… why do you keep coming back?