home

Late Night Blog Fight

I usually stay out of these, but this one is too weird not to mention. Law Prof Eric Muller, a mostly progressive blogger went after Michelle Malkin today. He tracked the times of her postings throughout the day and evening (actually, for 36 hours) and concluded that she doesn't write all her material and has other people writing in her name. Michelle responds here.

Eric probably got more comments on his blog from this post than any he's written in his several years of blogging. Almost all are very critical of his attack. Sure, some readers came over from Michelle's site, which does not allow comments, but there are lots of his own readers telling him how off-base he was.

Add me to the list. In fact, it's creepy, almost like cyber-stalking. (Although Michelle goes a little overboard in calling him "insanely obsessed" and "deranged.")

[Insert and Addition: I just want to make clear that I think what Eric did is creepy and like cyber-stalking, I don't think he is creepy or a cyberstalker. I understand he was trying to prove something about her writing. My concern is that it will give others the same idea to track bloggers' whereabouts, and I think that is a very dangerous path to go down from a privacy and security standpoint. End of Insert]

Here's my comment, which does not yet appear on Eric's site because it has to be approved:

Eric, I have to agree this was a cheap shot.

More importantly, an airline radio exec told me yesterday within the next few months domestic airlines will be equipped with wi-fi so we can blog in the air. He was excited about it because for the airlines it means that some of their in-air programming will be accessed by fliers via their computers on the internet, rather than by the airlines having to pay the cost to get a copy of the program aboard every plane. Or something like that -- it was a sales pitch call, so I was blogging as I was listening to him and may have missed something.

Also, I don't see anything wrong with changing the time of blog posts either to have them more spaced out throughout the day or evening, or to put a morning time on something that was written at 2 am. It's a privacy and security issue, I really don't want people to know when I'm online and when I'm not.

Say what you want about the content of a blogger's posts or their ideology, but to track their whereabouts over a 36 hour period is, as I said, creepy.

< Amnesty Int'l Releases Report on CIA Secret Flights | Brian Doyle and the Underage Sting >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 08:37:51 PM EST
    but to track their whereabouts over a 36 hour period is, as I said, creepy.
    Catching out these racist hateful Republican operatives by studying them.... hmmn Sounds like a boring job to me, but someone's gotta do it.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 08:51:55 PM EST
    Sounds like a boring job to me, but someone's gotta do it.

    Uh, no, they don't. There are plenty of folks who respond directly to Michelle's blog content. Heck, there is at least one blog devoted to refuting her alone. (And I have to say that's borderline creepy, but just borderline.)

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 08:55:20 PM EST
    Oh, and besides, the stalker in question demonstrates a surprising lack of technological savvy for a blogger. In short, Michelle's posting times were demonstrated by more than one respondent to be entirely feasible someone with good wireless access---even with her travel itinerary. If you're going to throw dubious accusations around, you need far better evidence than Eric has. You know, like have concrete examples of plagiarism in hand like people had with Ben Domenench.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 08:58:21 PM EST
    In fact, it's creepy, almost like cyber-stalking. Oh come on, it's nothing of the sort. Taking facts from her public website over a 17 hour period that she invites people to read and then drawing some conclusions from them? It's neither creepy nor cyber-stalking, it is merely fact checking. And though this does not reflect your views, Michelle is pro-profiling, pro-Able Danger programs, and pro-NSA-wiretapping. That is government stalking the people. She doesn't have a leg to stand on to complain about a private citizen reading her posts. It is analogous to O'Reilly's meltdown last month when he complained that callers to his call-in show were abusing the phone. You may have valid reasons for changing the times of posts, but I think that the casual reader and non-blog owner would never realize that without your disclosure. And to that casual reader, the times of posts are very important and can signify if a post was made before or after some news event, or before or after someone else's blog post. And bloggers on both sides have complained that the traditional media will change their articles on their websites without mentioning they have changed them, while bloggers mark updated posts as "updated." If you are going to change the dates and times of posts and space them out through the day, that should probably be disclosed, especially for a "journalist" like Malkin. And then to say that because sometime in the future plane blogging will be the norm that it should be considered the norm now? I luv ya TalkLeft, but you're completely all wet on this one.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 09:02:09 PM EST
    Oy, and then to see your "creepy" quoted by Malkin itself? Squick! (I do note that it is a 36 hour period, not a 17 hour period that I first calculated, but again, analyzing public posts on a public page of a famous blogger do not cyberstalking make.)

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#6)
    by Zeno on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 09:06:10 PM EST
    Hasn't there been better evidence that some of Malkin's stuff has been ghosted by her husband? (There was a flurry of discussion about this on Daily Kos last year.) Comparing her travel itinerary and supposed posting times doesn't do it, but looking at the style and vocabulary of the posts might. This isn't a particularly big deal, but Malkin does claim she does it all herself and that has long seemed unlikely. Yes, I question her honesty. We already know her historical scholarship is bogus.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 10:03:41 PM EST
    Oy, Malkin is clearly tryin' to have her cake and eat it, too. One minute she's a public figure than she vants to be alone. No sale, sweetheart. You've made your bones goin' through other peoples' garbage, don't cry to me when the tables are turned. Tell your troubles to Jesus, Charlie's gone ashore.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#8)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 10:04:34 PM EST
    Heck, there is at least one blog devoted to refuting her alone. (And I have to say that's borderline creepy, but just borderline.)
    Consider the number of commenters here devoted to refuting TChris posts...

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 10:04:35 PM EST
    Cut him some slack. He read a few of her posts and it started to rot his mind. Now he is a shattered man. A warning I should think. In any case, the sacrifice was wasted. If Ms. Malkin has not been made a pariah by her own words -- and she still appears regularly in several mainstream newspapers -- then this little exercise is useless. You say creepy. I say pointless.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#10)
    by anon55 on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 10:11:42 PM EST
    You must really be bored tonight. He simply took abstract information and provided his observation.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 10:21:43 PM EST
    Ba'al:
    In any case, the sacrifice was wasted. ... You say creepy. I say pointless.
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I say informative. If you don't want people to analyze your posts, don't blog.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 10:36:09 PM EST
    Oh, brother. First, it's not like he sat in front of his computer for three days tracking when she posted. He simply went back and looked at the timestamps. Secondly, she's the one who gives updates about here whereabouts: "Whoo-hoo, I'm in Minnesota today. People want to hear what I have to say, because I'm a famous author, Woo hoo!" And finally, it should be noted that Eric's interest in Malkin phony public "intellectual" persona developed when she started making up stuff about the Japanese internment - his area of expertise - and viciously slandering survivors. I'd say his curiosity was justifiably peaked.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 10:44:03 PM EST
    Oh, c'mon! Just call the whole damned exercise "How to expose Michelle Malkin as the fraudulent hack she is in 10 posts or less" and be done with it for Christ sake. There. You've got the whole thing covered. Straight. To the point. Truth in packaging. Let her rip.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 11:00:53 PM EST
    First of all, full disclosure here, I am a right-wing nutjob. With that said, onto the post. Sven, you may well explain Eric's motivation, but it doesn't change the fact this little hit job comes off as the blogging equivalent of firing with his eyes closed in some random direction to see what hits. (Cue Cheney joke in 3, 2, 1...) His suspicions in this particular instance were weak on their face and rather easily refuted by his respondents. Back during the CBS memo scandal, suddenly every right-wing blogger and freeper thought they were a document forgery expert. It was alternatingly humorous and maddening to see some people look at every document that came down the pike and scream "FORGERY!" "Typewriters in the 1990s couldn't produce that font!" (Well, no, but computers could by then.) "Oh. Well, um, but what about that funky serif there?" (That's a comma.) "Fine, but there's still something suspicious about this document, and I don't see anyone coming to defend it." I'm sure that some of you here would like nothing better than to see Michelle taken down by some scandal of her own creation. But until you get some Ben Domenench-quality evidence, it's really going to look stupid---not just to the right but to clear-headed peers on your own side of the aisle, too.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 11:08:24 PM EST
    I don't know about creepy. Its just investigative journalism, albeit by someone who doesn't usually practice it. You get a bit pissed and obsessed, so you do a little searching around to confirm that everything is what it seems. Its too bad our media doesn't research stuff as diligently as Prof. Muller did.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 11:12:39 PM EST
    Michelle, in an update on her site, talking about the flight, used the word "Stewardess". I believe they are called "Flight Attendants". Tsk tsk.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 11:21:55 PM EST
    I don't get this at all. "Creepy"? "Cyber stalking"? He didn't "track [her] whereabouts" - he just commented on the contents of her public blog. If she doesn't want people to know her whereabouts, she should stop posting the information!

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 02:58:33 AM EST
    wg's First Law: No person can be fluent in two or more languages.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 04:45:07 AM EST
    All Things Beautiful TrackBack The Eye Of The Beholder:
    "Michelle Malkin, has an unhinged Law Professor by the name of Eric Muller on her case stalking her every keypad move, timing her itinerary...The Talk Left comment is excellent and should be publicized..."


    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 05:25:21 AM EST
    Posted by Alexandra von Maltzan April 5, 2006 05:45 AM All Things Beautiful TrackBack The Eye Of The Beholder:
    "Michelle Malkin, has an unhinged Law Professor by the name of Eric Muller on her case stalking her every keypad move, timing her itinerary...The Talk Left comment is excellent and should be publicized..."
    Gee, this is like learning that some skateboard punk stuck a banana in the tailpipe of The deputy press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Brian J. Doyle. The horror. The horror.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 05:25:57 AM EST
    (1) I have next to no sympathy with Michelle Malkin. (2) I think Eric Muller's attack is fundamentally silly. I've changed the timestamp on my own blog posts for all sorts of reasons. I've even set posts up to appear while I was travelling or asleep, for one reason or another. It doesn't signify the things Muller is suggesting it signifies. (3) I think calling what Muller did "almost like cyber-stalking" is as silly as anything else in this food fight. Yes, let's characterize someone's intense critical engagement with a loaded term ("stalking") and then lard on a Scary Internet Adjective ("cyber-"!) Good god, Jeralyn, that's the kind of demagoguery I'd expect of a prosecutor.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 06:16:19 AM EST
    Outting people for more than one person posing as one is as old as the usenet and not new. It was perfectly fair game before the rise of the web, and it is perfectly fair game now. MM's action, if true, are slightly slimey. The Prof's action, however, are far from such, since there is no firm "ethical rule" about such action it is hard to call his actions such. This isn't even close to stalking. We all change time stamps on blogs, that is perfectly acceptable, however, MM's posting seem to be possibly be more than that. Reading over the blog postings at issue, however, her syntax seems to be that of one writer. With that said, all this appears to be is the blog version of a flame war. All I know is I wish I could figure out a good flame war or two to drive traffic to my site, this has to be good for stats.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 06:37:07 AM EST
    Outside of just looking for something to complain about, why would anyone care when a post hit the net, versus when it was written? A morning paper is written the day/night before, yet no one seems to mind that it is called the day it hits their front yard. Watching you folks attack MM reminds me of the old Earl Flynn movies where our hero would, without breaking a sweat, would sword fight dozens, save England and retire to his ship with the blessings of Queen and country.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 06:42:29 AM EST
    What is it with lawyers and accusations? Several years ago in Atrios' comments Tena (of First Draft) accused me of cyberstalking because I commented on her pattern of quotes and the language she used. Accusations of cyberstalking are particularly pernicious since real-life stalking is a criminal act, since there have been terrible real world acts caused by Internet interactions, and since cyberstalking itself has such a vague definition. Here is the the DOJ says: What Is Cyberstalking? Although there is no universally accepted definition of cyberstalking, the term is used in this report to refer to the use of the Internet, e-mail, or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person. Stalking generally involves harassing or threatening behavior that an individual engages in repeatedly, such as following a person, appearing at a person's home or place of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person's property. Most stalking laws require that the perpetrator make a credible threat of violence against the victim; others include threats against the victim's immediate family; and still others require only that the alleged stalker's course of conduct constitute an implied threat.(1) While some conduct involving annoying or menacing behavior might fall short of illegal stalking, such behavior may be a prelude to stalking and violence and should be treated seriously. Jeralyn, Muller's behavior in no way approaches this. IN NO WAY. What he did is no different from bloggers noting the disappearance of pages from the whitehouse.gov site, or bloggers FOIAing for photographs of the Iraq dead, or bloggers like Billmon, Atrios, Roger Ailes, FDL, Glenn Greenwald, TBogg, General JC Christian, and the many others googling other bloggers and political figures and noting the changes and the flip flops and the discrepancies between past and current views. Shame on you.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 07:00:05 AM EST
    Every comment posted here has a date-time stamp on it. When a comment is written (posted) is part of the the context of the comment, as is where, by whom, etc., is it not? If something prompted Muller to suspect that Malkin uses ghost writers (which in my view would be akin to if not equal to lying) it would be natural to investigate the date-time stamps. They are public information, in the same sense that the time and date you see you neighbor walk past your house every day are. Would looking at your watch and noting the time every time your neighbor walks by be considered stalking? I fail to see a problem here. If I'm missing something - what?

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#27)
    by roger on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 07:35:19 AM EST
    This is usually reffered to as "traffic analysis". The government does it all the time. "yawn"

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#28)
    by orionATL on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 07:54:31 AM EST
    "creepy" is a word with very powerful connotations these days. fear is the principal emotion behind that. when one uses "creepy" one is revealing more about one's inner concerns than than about an external reality. perhaps because i do not blog and am not a woman i am less sensitive to this than i might be but for me eric muller is, as j.p. flathead said, just collecting info from a web site, and a public one at that. let me ask this: if this info were revealing in an important way, and from my viewpoint that is impossible because the whole matter is trivial, should eric muller have self-censored and not collected the info? i hope not. what about context? in muller's case, is there any additional info suggesting "stalking"? if not, that is kind of an ugly term to apply to a man criticizing a woman's web site. kind of like calling a critic of the americian-israeli political action committee an anti-semite. maybe, maybe not but it takes more than a rhetorical epithet to make the charge true.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 08:24:43 AM EST
    I don't agree with the stalking part, but it is creepy. More than anything else, it's a stupid post (from a law prof no less), especially the update, where he claims to have proven that she didn't have time for the three hour flight. Never mind that there's a gap of 4 hours between 8:25 and 12:31, because she updated another post sometime in those same four hours. And Lord knows, nobody could update a post and take a three hour flight in four hours.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 09:31:42 AM EST
    It sort of Ironic, the name of his 'law' blog and what he did. Not completely but sort of.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 09:42:33 AM EST
    Who's Michele Malkin?

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 09:52:54 AM EST
    Earl Flynn. That was the guy that helped Ron liberate the death camps wasnt it? Or was that Errol Flynn?

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#33)
    by eric on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 09:53:12 AM EST
    I don't think that he is making any conclusion with his post. He is just putting some information out there. And, from my perspective, it does seem that the post times do make one wonder if she is doing them all herself. He just posted the information, and posited a theory. Give him a break.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 10:02:09 AM EST
    Posted by sarcastic unnamed one April 5, 2006 10:42 AM Who's Michele Malkin?
    The guy that writes all of my posts for me asked the same question.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 10:04:35 AM EST
    Btw, Since o.t comments from the wingnut special prosecutors office vis a vis McKinney are allowed to stand, how long before Brian J. Doyles out of court conviction?

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#36)
    by Patrick on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 10:06:28 AM EST
    Well, he certainly got his a$$ handed to him. Perhaps that is the most effective "editor" on the internet. SUO, I'd heard of her, but never seen her site till this AM.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 10:46:50 AM EST
    Yeah, right. It's just like an Errol Flynn flick. Michelle Malkin, Swashbucklin' Harlequin Heroine. She's a loathsome, disgusting creature on her best day. A lying, cretinous hypocrite of coulter's caliber who would be the first to take someone to task for time stamp inconsistencies and has never let the facts get in the way of one of her odes to Joe McCarthy and the magic that was Manzanar. If she was floatin' in a flaming oil slick I'd throw her Wile E Coyote's Acme Anvil.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 11:02:37 AM EST
    One aspect of this that I think you've missed is that there is a history behind Muller's accusation. Over the past year or so there have been several people (myself included) who have brought forth compelling evidence indicating that Michelle's former RAND Corporation analyst Mr. Mom husband Jesse is responsible for some of the content on her blog. This is an accusation that the Malkins' have paradoxically both denied and conceded, depending on the context. What is indisputable from their own statements is that Jesse has on more than one occasion produced content for Michelle's site that "ran" under her byline - not his. This isn't earth-shattering, but it is interesting at the very least. The bulk of the Malkins' response to these allegations has been denial. Muller was aware of this and Muller took this most recent blogging history of Michelle's as yet another example of Jesse posting as Michelle. Given the fact that she was, indeed, traveling and that she has, indeed, conceded that her husband has posted as her in the past, Muller's allegation is anything but outlandish.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#39)
    by Sailor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 11:17:58 AM EST
    rumi got it in one! 'nuff said.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 11:24:21 AM EST
    Patrick-
    Well, he certainly got his a$$ handed to him. Perhaps that is the most effective "editor" on the internet.
    I am not sure that your observation holds water. It is certainly not true at TL.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 11:29:14 AM EST
    I don't think that he is making any conclusion with his post. You're joking, right? I mean, I'll concede there's no direct charge in the intial post, but in the update, he says "Somebody'soccasionally posting for you, Michelle, and maybe even occasionally writing for you too." That's as direct a conclusion as you can get. Besides, Eric Muller has already admitted to, and apologized for, his implication that Michelle didn't write the specific posts in question. He still sticks to his ghostwriter conspiracy theory, but what the heck, nobody's perfect.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#42)
    by roy on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 11:47:58 AM EST
    There's a lot of fair criticism to level at Malkin on various issues, but this is silly. I guess we should start complaining that Last Night in Little Rock isn't always in Little Rock -- or even Arkansas -- when he posts. Malkin hasn't explicitly claimed this, but don't writers who work on longish pieces often have several going at once? A post that took hours to compose can take a few minutes to finish & post, doable while Wi-Fi is available inside a plane before the door is closed. Plus not all computers and software setups handle time zones and Daylight Savings Time the same way, so the times listed may mean what we think if they're accurate at all. (Disclosure: If you apply a similar analysis to my comments here, you'll find that many occur during the 9 hours I'm working. This is due to my computer using a 24-hour clock while yours uses a 12-hour clock. But, uhm, don't tell my boss.) (Further disclosure: I don't actually care about this issue, I just thought I couple things I wrote were funny)

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 12:24:04 PM EST
    Apples and orangutans. One can blog from the road and one can certainly make note of a change in location and circumstance when blogging. As for the long piece or multiple long piece angle, Malkin ain't no Tolstoy in any location under any circumstance. None of which changes the ultimate fact that Malkin - like Coulter - never cut anyone any slack under any circumstances. She's vicious, dishonest, disreputable, dyspeptic and in this, her hour of need, deserves to be thrown the anchor she would surely throw anyone else on the other side of the fence.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 03:09:51 PM EST
    Well said Charlie, one has only to read her classless Lizzie Borden hatchet attack on Theresa Kerry to know that she's an open sore crying out for cauterization.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#45)
    by Tom Maguire on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 03:23:06 PM EST
    There is even more to the backstory - from Muller's bio (who is stalking now!?1) we see this: His book "Free to Die for their Country: The Story of the Japanese American Draft Resisters of World War II," was published in August of 2001 by the University of Chicago Press. Given his interests, one might guess that he has a strong point of view about Ms. Malkin and her WWII internment thesis. And one would be right - here is his Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 04:04:24 PM EST
    The perceived offensive behavior from the original issue is the same as what's involved in the illegal domestic surveillance problem. It doesn't get enough attention but all of our daily activity is collected and subjected to 'deep link analysis' by both business and government. Every move we make, every breath we take,.....ok, no singing, but all we do is under scrutiny for possible, potential threat. Dataveillance: Creating a reason to investigate you

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 04:33:59 PM EST
    Yikes. It puts the lotion in the basket.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimcee on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 06:58:02 PM EST
    Cyberstalking? No. Creepy? No. Silly? Kind of. Prick-like? Sure. Tedious and boring? Uh-huh. Does anyone really care? Nope. I think the profeesor could really use a hobby or a social life or a combination of the two. It just seems these professorial types have an awful lot of spare time.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 05, 2006 at 07:05:25 PM EST
    Nah, it seems your girl got busted for bein' the fraud she is.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 05:05:36 AM EST
    Michelle Malkin is a creative, talented, level-minded person. She looks at an issue from all sides before making a judgement. Unlike most demorats and some readers on your weblog- she doesn't jump to stupid conclusions. I post in several different blogs/journals several times a day. Wanna stalk me? I'm sure you'll draw the same 'ghostwriter' conclusion! Come on- might be fun... if you're a lamebrain with time to waste. Three words for the professor who did this 'study' -- "Get A Life!" - Oh, and where were your pupils during the time you were stalking Michelle Malkin? There was no true purpose for the 'professor' to do that. Maybe he's just upset that Michelle Malkin is a fair and balanced reporter...Or, maybe he's just upset that she works for FOX News- and FOX has been kicking everyone's butts in ratings for years? (He might be a CNN kinda guy)... Maybe the professor would be so inclined to bloviate with Bill O'Reilly on this matter. THAT- THAT- Would be interesting! (*But I'm sure the professor doesn't have the balls!*) Anyway- what a silly retarded thing for ANYONE to do. ...And to the person who stated Michelle Malkin was a racist- um... can you prove that to me? Maybe you just don't know who she is... maybe you've just heard her name before... but I am 100% sure that she is NOT a racist. Low blow Demorats- Low Blow. In fact, I don't even think it counted.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 05:46:20 AM EST
    Nice try. The fact that you're a 100 percent sure she's not is a pretty good indication we're barkin' up the right tree. You're girl's been nailed. Gee, that's a shame.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 07:45:32 AM EST
    What an interesting web we weave. Arianna gets caught posting fake blog entries under someone else's name and the left jumps to her defense claiming that because the person in questin said these things, it's perfectly acceptable to present separate quotes as a unified piece that person wrote for her blog. Malkin get accused of posting material someone else wrote, based on the amount of time she would have to be awake to do this much blogging, and the left screams for her head (and this in a time when defense lawyers routinely bill for thousands of hours of work on single cases, much of which is done by their assistants and interns). And to top it off, this is considered worthy of notice on a liberal news blog covering injustice and crime related events. Must have been a really slow news day in Colorado.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 07:59:50 AM EST
    JP-
    Arianna gets caught posting fake blog entries under someone else's name
    Great distortion JP. Did you get that from powerline or Malkin?

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 08:20:31 AM EST
    Squeaky, It is a fact, which even Arianna now admits, that she posted to her blog a compilation of comments which George Clooney had made in interviews, arranged to appear as if they were a single coherent whole, and that she posted them under his name, making it appear that he had posted them. How is what I said a distortion of this? She did in fact post fake entires under someone else's name. Even she admits it and has apologized for doing so.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 08:33:59 AM EST
    Yes, JP. You're right. Arianna did apologise. How does that change the fact that malkin is lyin' lowlife scum? That's what I thought.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 08:47:21 AM EST
    Michelle Malkin is a creative, talented, level-minded person
    I'll give you creative...you'd have to be to come up with some of the tripe she publishes. I'll even give you talented...it does require some talent to spew such tripe with a straight face. Level minded? You are outta your mind. She is an extremist. And should be delegated to the fringe where extremists belong. I couldn't care less if the boogey man wrote her work...the ideas in here work are crappy, that's all that matters.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 08:49:29 AM EST
    JP-
    How is what I said a distortion of this?
    Most likely it had to do with your intent. Arianna's intent was positive, she made a poor jugement call and apologised. Your intent was/is.... well it speaks for itself and is as clear as day.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#58)
    by swingvote on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:04:34 AM EST
    Most likely it had to do with your intent. Arianna's intent was positive, she made a poor jugement call and apologised. Your intent was/is.... well it speaks for itself and is as clear as day. Yes, it was so clear that you can't even dream up a way to distort it. How typical of you. Arianna's "intent" was to make it look like George Clooney was such a fan he would take the time to write posts for her blog. The only "positive" about this was that she positively meant to deceive her readers. My "intent" was to point out that presented with a clear cut case of someone posting fake comments on her blog, the liberals here and elsewhere rallied around their sister and insisted, as you are doing now, that there was nothing wrong with her misrepresenting the facts, but presented with only an accusation of a conservative blogger posting more work than someone thinks she is capable of, you all jump on the bash-Michelle bandwagon. Tell me, Squeaky, if Arianna's intent was so pure, why did she have to pull the post she claimed had been made by Clooney and issue an apology for her actions? Malkin may well have posted comments somone else wrote without noting the authorship. I don't know. Neither do you. But I also don't care, anymore than I cared about Arianna's lying about who was posting comments on her site. They're just bloggers, and in both their cases they are more comedian than journalist. Why are you so upset by this? Could it be that your intent is to smear someone you simply disagree with? Yep, I'd say that's pretty clear and self-evident.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#59)
    by swingvote on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:08:21 AM EST
    My apologies, Squeaky. I forgot that the liberals here like to redefine words to fit their preferences. While I can't be sure what your new definition of "distortion" is, it clearly does not mean to misrepresent what someone did, as we have well established that Arianna did in fact post fake comments to her blog under someone else's name. I guess that should have been clear, but you'll have to forgive me for holding on to the hope that people using the english language actually understand it.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:16:32 AM EST
    Evidently, shrub authorized libby to do the Plame leak. That's what libby testified to the Grand Jury. It's official ladies and gents. I mean, it's not like there was any doubt, but it's official, shrub's scum.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:33:26 AM EST
    JP-Maybe this will help answer your less than sincere question
    How is what I said a distortion of this?
    It is much like this, in plain english:
    My apologies, Squeaky.
    I do understand that your apology is plain english on the surface but means the opposite of what the words say.
    .... you'll have to forgive me for holding on to the hope that people using the english language actually understand it.
    We understand english quite well. Hiding behind Sleazy rhetorical tactics endemic to the wingnut echochamber doesn't wash well here. Your motives and way of expressing them are quite transparent. Contrary to popular belief, the current WH propaganda theory which encourages parroting untrue remarks over and over does not, make them become true.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:55:33 AM EST
    Nah, JP, your intent was the same as it always is, to shill for shrub.You're just not very good at it. Ya can't go inside and ya can't go outside and let's face it, pal, it's not like you can go to your left. The two right feet thing's not doin' ya any favors either. There's not an argument you make that can't be taken apart piece by piece.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#63)
    by swingvote on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:31:08 AM EST
    Hiding behind Sleazy rhetorical tactics endemic to the wingnut echochamber doesn't wash well here. Unlike hiding by blanket claims of "distortion" that you are unwilling to support with even an argument, let alone actual proof. Your motives and way of expressing them are quite transparent. As are yours. But whereas yours are, and always have been, to slime anyone you disagree with as a dreaded "conservative/neo-con/fascist", I am merely pointing out your hypocrisy. If Michelle Malkin was a liberal blogger, you'd be defending her to the death, because your "principles" are entirely subjective depending on who is involved or whether the topic falls into your neat little world of liberal vs. conservative theology. Face it Squeaky, there was no distortion in my statement. Arianna did exactly what I said she did. Your reading motives into my statement doesn't change the validity of my statement, and your charge of distortion simply does not hold water. And it's now you who are practicing distortion, assigning, as you are, intent based on your preconceived notions of what my motives are. But why would I expect anything else?

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:40:18 AM EST
    Without a doubt, this fine community has the most civil and polite insult/flame behavior than any other I know.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:45:31 AM EST
    jp-you are more coherent when your hate is direct and not couched in sarcastic rhetoric. Interesting that the right's most favorite retort when criticized is that they are being slimed. One of their most bandied words I believe, just ask PPJ. Funny, that....given what they do.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:26:04 PM EST
    Squeaky - Its a favorite metaphor of the anal retentive.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 05:33:38 PM EST
    Posted by charliedontsurf1 April 6, 2006 06:46 AM Nice try. The fact that you're a 100 percent sure she's not is a pretty good indication we're barkin' up the right tree. You're girl's been nailed. Gee, that's a shame.
    Posted by charliedontsurf1 April 6, 2006 10:55 AM Nah, JP, your intent was the same as it always is, to shill for shrub.You're just not very good at it. Ya can't go inside and ya can't go outside and let's face it, pal, it's not like you can go to your left. The two right feet thing's not doin' ya any favors either. There's not an argument you make that can't be taken apart piece by piece.
    Posted by charliedontsurf1 April 5, 2006 08:05 PM Nah, it seems your girl got busted for bein' the fraud she is
    Charlie- do you ever post anything other than hateful sniping?

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 07:26:12 PM EST
    Yeah, I post the truth. You just find it to be hateful sniping. That's unfortunate.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:16:11 PM EST
    Jondee-
    Its a favorite metaphor of the anal retentive.
    Is that why they also love to claim that the left is smearing them? Never thought about it that way, but you are right, they must all be neat freaks. Funny how they are so neat and they think about feces more than anyone else,

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:04:42 PM EST
    Squeaky - I just reread that Huffington thread on which, according to justdisengenuous, "the left jumped to her defense", and it turns out that all the regulars pretty much roundly condemned what she did. So, the "validity of his statement" holds about as much water as a leaky thimble.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:07:01 PM EST
    "All the liberals here rallied around thier sister." Sorry, but what a putz.

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:09:05 PM EST
    This thread is just about done, but can you all get back to the issue of tracking blogger's whereabouts through their posting times and whether it's a security and privacy issue?

    Re: Late Night Blog Fight (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:17:07 PM EST
    Jondee-It is exactly how their system works. A deduction presented as inconvertible truth based on things they make up.