Off the air

Off the air
: Just got home from the Chris Lydon radio show. I had fun; who doesn’t love a microphone? But the problem is, whenever I get off their air it feels like the morning after: Did I make a fool of myself? (Of course.) Will anyone remember? (Well, it is radio.) Did I talk too fast? (Am I me?) I was quite honored Chris included me for an hour of his show and so, I also felt like a guest in his house, at his party, hoping I wouldn’t spill any red wine on the rug, wishing I’d get invited again.

It was amusing at the end listening to Andrew Sullivan go after Atrios and turn this into, oh, just another radio talk show, albeit one with bigger PBS words. What is it about conservatives and radio? Do the microwaves boil their blood? Sullivan said he criticizes Bush but Atrio never criticizes liberals. Atrios was nonplussed. I was merely amused. I did, however, join in when Andrew went after Atrios for being anonymous. Andrew set it up well, talking about transparency as a virtue of this medium and then accusing Atrios of being transluscent. I agree. If he has some good professional reason why he can’t, then he should at least give us a hint. He owes that to his readers.

I also enjoyed asking Frank Rich when he’s going to blog. He said he has no time and wants a life.

Net: I’m glad that Chris got two hours on many stations to explain and explore weblogs. This phenom is still damned new and now’s the time for this discussion. I hope it becomes a regular gig (and I hope he will invite me back after the carpet cleaners leave).

More links and comments over at the Blogging of the President site. And Doc practically transcribes the whole two hours (sorry I talk so fast, Doc).


  • anne.elk

    Yes, the anonymous are cowards and anonymity on the net should be outlawed. Hamilton. Madison. Adams. Franklin. Publius. So says the CATO Institute. Oh. No they don’t. They say it’s real important. So does the EFF. So does the Supreme Court.
    But I’m guessing Joe McCarthy would agree with you.
    So Roger L. Simon banned me yesterday after complaining I was cowardly for being anonymous.
    I brought up some very salient reasons for being anonymous: fear of employers, wishing to make the argument the focus and not the personality, fear of google, and fear of wackos. In mentioning my fear of wackos I brought in the eponymously named “Armed Liberal”, just as an example.
    Roger promptly banned me. The *anonymous* blogger, Armed Liberal, is a friend of Roger’s and I had impugned the anonymous blogger’s reputation.
    Interesting because Andrew Sullied tonight said that anonymous bloggers couldn’t be attacked and I guess Roger would disagree. It’s been noted though that Donald Luskin not only attacked Atrios but sued him.
    Tell me again about accountability?
    Talk about not being held accountable, Sullivan says there are no comments on his site because he’s afraid of the wackos. Jeff! You got real upset with CampaignDesk yesterday as they have no comments. Where were you to tell Sullivan of how much value there is in the conversation? Or why he is hermetically sealed?

  • Angus Jung

    That Red Bull is some good stuff, huh?

  • I agree with anne.elk, though I would tone down the rhetoric a couple notches.
    As I said in the “Oops” comments, as long as you go by a consistent pseudoname (there is a y in there somewhere), you can effectively be held accountable. I also think having comments is a much greater sign of accountability than not being anonymous.

  • anne.elk

    Andrew Sullivan is saying Atrios called him a liar when Andrew said Atrios never criticized the left and asked him to put or shut up
    . And Glenn Reynolds mirrors the challenge but doesn’t refute it.
    I have some comments showing many times Atrios has criticized the left.
    Since Andrew Sullivan doesn’t allow comments, and neither does Glenn Reynolds, there is no place I can present this information that I know will be seen by Andrew’s readers. I doubt they would read the comments at Atrios’ site, and yet, I have no faith that comments or a post that appears ONLY at Atrios’ site would ever be acknowledged by Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Reynolds.
    Since Andrew is afraid of wackos, and has hermetically sealed himself in, and yet since he has issued a challenge, perhaps you could do both Andrew and Atrios a favor.
    I strongly encourage you to start a thread where Atrios and others can post their evidence for Andrew to see.
    This would allow Atrios’ case to be heard. And it might help Andrew see that comments are to the benefit of all, and not something to be feared.
    Good idea, right?

  • No, Anne, on my blog you implied Armed Liberal could have violent intentions toward you. For the record, that’s why I banned you. It had nothing today with names and everything to do with a hideous and false accusation of another
    blooger on my blog. I can’t countenance that. I doubt many others could either.

  • Angus Jung

    “Since Andrew Sullivan doesn’t allow comments, and neither does Glenn Reynolds, there is no place I can present this information that I know will be seen by Andrew’s readers.”

  • Criticizing people for being anonymous sounds a lot like people smacking the Net around and forcing it to grow up…

  • Anyone know where I can get an audio file of this program?
    — Patterico (who uses a consistent pseudonym, respects Armed Liberal, and has employment reasons for not revealing his name)

  • anne.elk
  • Anonymous

    Jeff, I have no idea how difficult this would be, but is there any chance of a slight redesign of comments? Put the commenter’s name at the beginning so it’s easier to avoid known nuts, and a dividing line at the end.

  • Sorry, Anne — I read the link and I think you are way off base. As Totten said on the thread you linked to: you need to chill.
    — the pseudonymous, though not truly anonymous, and most certainly unarmed, Patterico

  • Phillip G.

    The real reason both Sully and Reynolds are after Atrios is that Atrios regularly attacks their hypocrasy, dishonestly, stupidity and/or delusion and shows them to be the unreliable a$$holes they are.
    They are pissed because he exposes them for what they are. And they don’t like it and wish they could get back at him.

  • I liked the way Jarvis basically admitted he was hoping to make money off blogging. At least this clarifies why he’s positioning himself to get ads and contributions from business and conservatives.
    And Jarvis’ and Sullivan’s point about “transparency” is absurd. If someone – like Atrios, say, or Tacitus – presents an argument to you, with links to facts that back it up, what difference does it make whether they are anonymous or not? The fact is, if you had professional reasons not to want to write under your own name, it has zero effect on your ability to argue a point. Put another way, journalists like Sullivan and Jarvis aren’t seriously risking a reputation when they say something controversial.

  • You did great Jeff! Afterward they were saying how succinct you are. I said yep, he was that was in my Blogumentary interview too. Heck, my girlfriend liked ya too.
    I have Blogumentary audio and video of the Sullivan – Atrios exchange. (Sorry, I edited some of you out.) By video, I mean Chris Lydon in the MPR studio.
    Oh, about privacy: MeFi’s Matt Haughey and his wife were stalked and harassed by a wacko MeFi’er who didn’t like being censored. EVERYONE has the right to separate their job, family, and private life from their blog.

  • Hard to say —
    I can’t see why it’s extremely important that he byline his own name. His blog has a very large readership, and he’s not already a well-known person. If he was already a media-personality, I could understand it — but he’s not. Some of us don’t mind, and others do.
    On the otherhand, I have nothing against blasting Atrios…

  • Hipocrite

    If Andy is so worried about “Transparency,” why don’t we know the names of the people who are working for him? If Andy is so worried about “Transparency,” why don’t we know the names of the Liberals for Bush who email him all the time? If Andy is so worried about “Transparency,” why don’t we all have an email address that he actually reads instead of a staffer mail address? If Andy is so worried about “Transparency,” why don’t we have his home address posted so we can go visit him? If Andy is so worried about “Transparency” where is his phone number?

  • Hi Jeff,
    I listened to the radio show on NPR (it was a complete fluke that I even passed by the station and heard your name!) and thought you were really great. Keep up the fine work!

  • Great job Jeff! You were one of the best parts of the show. Your voice sounded much different than I expected somehow. You did talk really fast, which I did expect, but it was still all understandable so still good radio, I think.
    Naturally, I disagree with some of what you have to say about Sullivan’s portion. I thought he came off as charming and affable. It seems a bit Old Thinkish for you to call him a conservative. He was pro-Iraq war, like you, but also has a whole range of opinions which might be described as liberal. And I don’t just mean his support for gay marriage, but also his opposition to the war on drugs, and general social/cultural liberalism. In fact, I’d dare say that most of his stances line up with yours, aside from the fact that he would probably generally favor a lower rate of taxation and of government services than you might. Is he a conservative? Are you? Who knows? Things are in flux. Saying that he’s just another conservative going crazy on talk radio makes it seem like he’s just another Hannity or Limbaugh and that’s not fair.
    The moment when Sullivan challenged Atrios to name one instance in which he had criticized someon on the left and he couldn’t think of one was absolutely brilliant.
    And, I like you am glad that Sullivan took on the pseudonymity issue. I hope this is the beginning of a shift in attitude in the blogosphere, and that everyone using real names and the greater civility that will afford becomes the norm. At the very least, I hope that pseudonymous bloggers and posters will get the message that they should avoid ad hominem attacks and stick to a discussion of ideas, as the good ones such as Armed Liberal and Wretchard (the Belmont Club) do. Unfortunately, Atrios does not, so he deserves to be called on it.

  • Hipocrite

    You don’t mind if I post your name, phone number and place of buisness, do you, Eric? Can I get anne.elk to call your boss to complain about your posts? How about if you piss off a lawyer? Should they sue you, or where you work? Are you representing the opinions of your employer?

  • Ebb Tide

    Well, the show really wasn’t exclusively about blogging, it was more about the internet and the role it plays in politics, so I think I was a bit disappointed that in 2 hours blogging took up a minor part of the discussion.
    As a courtesy to his listeners, Lydon should have explained what a blog was simply by mentioning web log more frequently, in passing, and saying “or blog.” Kind of like how during baseball games on radio, they give the score throughout the broadcast, just to clue folks in who are passing through and weren’t listening from the beginning.
    I liked that he had on a variety of guests and Jeff was by far the one guest who “got it” and explained it the best.
    I was sorry the conversation at the end broke down into a sniping contest, that was a bit sad to see, but I did like to hear everyone’s voice, that was fun. And I didn’t think Jeff spoke fast at all!

  • Well, I’ve already posted my name. As for phone number, that wouldn’t be my preference, but as I’m already available by e-mail (which I’ve posted everywhere on the internet with no discernible increase in spam, BTW) I don’t really see how that’s an issue. If I ran an extremely high-traffic blog I would probably set up a phone number or voice-mail for the blog specifically, just as “real” publications do, and just as there are phone numbers connected to If your implication is that revealing one’s name is tantamount to revealing all that other information, I challenge you to run my name through search engines and see if you can find my phone number, (like most people now I only have a cell), and employer. You could only get that information through conventional web searches if I had some prominent job or media job. I had no web presence whatsoever until I started blogging and commenting and that’s the sum total of what’s out there about me. I think it’s fair that people be able to see what I’ve said in the past because it’s relevant.
    Now, as far as “anne.elk” complaining to my boss, my guess is that I would probably come off as a bit more balanced than her or other pseudonymous internet trolls if there were a “real-life” conflict so I’m not too worried.
    The other scenarios seem rather overwrought and paranoid. As I don’t engage in on-line libel I don’t really see how anything I say could be actionable.

  • burnplant

    The fact is Sullivan and Jeff don’t have to worry about being anonymous because their opinions are status quo. We get their opinions in the mainstream media every day, I’m not even sure why they feel the need to have a blog, but I guess it’s all about the money.
    That’s the difference between these guys and Atrios and it pisses them off. And that’s why ordinary Americans like me turn to Atrios for news and opinion.
    If I knew Atrios’s name was Dirk Diggler, it wouldn’t change a thing for me, but you can bet it would for him; have you ever seen the freaks at Free Republic and Little Green Footballs attack liberals?? As an example, LGF recently posted the PO Box of Rachel Corrie’s parents (she is the American who was run over by an Israeli tank while protesting in Palestine) asking readers to send hate mail to them admonishing them for the way they raised their daughter. Now that’s classy…and these people hate Atrios.
    Eric, if you want to go to Atrios site you will see that he does criticize liberals, all the time. But then you might have to expose yourself to something besides Sullivan’s lies, so take baby steps…

  • burnplant:
    If you think the fruitcakes that infest LGF and Free Republic are nuttier than those that infest (e.g.) ‘Hesiod’ and DailyKOS, you need to think again. And having one’s PO box published is not the worst thing that can happen to one. I’ve had my real name, address, and telephone number published on ‘WarBloggerWatch’ with a thinly-veiled invitation to their crazed commenters to call me up. (This was back when they still had readers.) They got the information from a WhoIs on my domain name. I move a lot, so I was using my parents’ address at the time for low-frequency mail like domain registrations and alumni magazines: far less likely to get lost that way. Of course, if there’s anything I don’t need, it’s WBW trolls calling my elderly parents in the middle of the night with insults intended for me.
    Anyway, I’m pseudonymous (but not anonymous, thanks to WhoIs) because I teach at a Catholic high school and don’t want my students to be able to find my site by Googling my name. While never X-rated, some of my posts aren’t entirely appropriate to the age-group and would probably raise a few parents’ eyebrows. So what’s Atrios’ excuse? And Hesiod’s? And shouldn’t those who conceal their names so thoroughly be a little more careful about (e.g.) calling other people ‘chickenhawks’ for not enlisting? Surely hiding behind an impenetrable pseudonym is more gutless than failing to volunteer for military service.
    Not giving a name is no big deal, but why no hint about their day jobs or (in Hesiod’s case) location? ‘N. Z. Bear’ conceals his name, but we know he’s an IT professional in Southern California. If Atrios and Hesiod won’t even give that much, it makes some of us wonder who’s paying their bills. Are they employees of some political party or campaign?
    By the way, one reason I use a pseudonym is that my real name is Michael Hendry, and many bloggers who link to me also link to Mike Hendrix of Cold Fury (no relation and I’ve never met him). ‘Dr. Weevil’ is actually more distinctive than my real name, though anyone who goes to a little trouble can find out the latter.

  • jon

    Atrios anonimity is a straw dog issue…instead of countering his insights, opinions and views, his critics attack who he is, or who he might be. While at some point of the counter-arguing with Atrios that MAY be relevant, it should not be where you start.
    In addition, with 3-4 years of blogging, “Atrios” has as much credibility and character as just about any commentator out there.

  • Hipocrite

    If you think, Eric, that it costs more than $50 to get more information than you can even imagine on an “Eric Dreamer living in New York,” you have quite another thing coming.
    I’m happy to send you that information, if you send me $49.90. I care about $.10 about your personal info. However, I’m not crazy. If I were crazy and wanted to get you really really badly, I’d spend the $50.00. Google is not what Private Investigators use, for good reason.
    What leads you to believe that someone who dislikes you can’t make up lies about you and call your boss with them, and sound perfectly reasonable? Whose boss wants twenty voicemails from angry people telling them what a jerk you are?
    No, I expect that Atrios will post his name as soon as you guarantee he’s not going to get fired for it.
    Regarding actionability – things don’t have to be actionable for you to get harassed over them. Witness, ironically, that Gollem Luskin sent Atrios an expensive lawyerletter.

  • Atrios wasn’t sued. The matter was worked out.
    Someone could stalk me in the manner you describe if they so desired (I don’t imagine they would) whether or not I said things on the web.
    The scenario with the phone calls to my boss is also extraorinarily unlikely. I find it even less likely that anne.elk, our example from before, could sound reasonable in any context.
    These are lame excuses. Of course, Atrios hasn’t even offered these kinds of lame excuses. And, if he’s not willing to take these risks (minimal and exagerrated as they are) how can he possibly impugn or personally attack those who are willing?
    I think you mean to say “Gollum” not “Gollem”. That ad hominem insult still doesn’t make sense though I’ve seen it on a lot of lefty boards. Unless you care to elaborate what in the analogy is the ring, who’s Sauron, who’s Frodo, etc.

  • Hipocrite

    Thank you for correcting my spelling.
    The matter was worked out because Atrios is big enough to have driven the traffic to make the risk much greater than the reward. It would not have been the same had Luskin gone after, say, you.
    Someone is more likley to stalk you like that if they don’t know you but have listened to you. Seems that one of the only ways to get that without also having a powerful corporate backer is the web. Thus, while not directly linked (the only way to get stalked is to post) they are related.
    You think that ann.elk couldn’t sound reasonable, and you might be right. Are you sure that everyone out there is at the same level of irrationality? Even the people who just read and don’t post? I’m not betting my life on it.
    You are, however, wrong about Atrios not offering those excuses, and I quote: “I don’t have much to add to this issue, really. I’m anonymous because I worry about employment and personal consequences of what I write here. Given the excitability of certain online elements, I don’t think the latter concern is that unreasonable. As for the former – maybe that’s paranoia but given the long memory of Google I don’t want my current and future employers being able to hold my words against me. A casual overview of what other Bloggers do tells me that many are either self-employed or otherwise have either financial/job security or careers which appear not too likely to be impacted by doing this type of thing. I don’t make a living doing this, so I have to worry about that.”
    The refrence is to this:

  • >No, Anne, on my blog you implied Armed Liberal could have violent intentions toward you. For the record, that’s why I banned you. It had nothing today with names and everything to do with a hideous and false accusation of another
    blooger on my blog. I can’t countenance that. I doubt many others could either.
    Of course you are failing to mention that she apologized for it and retracted it when you called her on it.

  • What’s the deal with quoting “Cluetrain”, Jeff? Most of it is total garbage, as you well know.

  • Angus Jung

    “If I knew Atrios’s name was Dirk Diggler, it wouldn’t change a thing for me”
    We know.

  • Hipocrite

    And the resident homophobe comes out. Thanks for showing the maturity and tolerance of the right Angus Jung.
    Atrios responds to Andrew’s lie right here:

  • Atrios is big enough to have driven the traffic to make the risk much greater than the reward
    Sounds quite menacing, though I’m not sure exactly what it means.
    If that is Atrios’s concern then why didn’t he explain himself as such while he was talking to a relativly large audience? His response instead was to defensively dismiss the question. I guess my point is that anonymous/pseudonymous bloggers just need to accept that these questions will be asked and that their decision to remain anonymous/pseudonymous ultimately undercuts their credibility, not totally, but some. If given the choice between listening to someone who is willing to shoulder the risks as you and Atrios describe (which description even he admits probably springs from paranoia) and someone who does not have the courage of their convictions to the same extent, obviously I’m more inclined to listen to the person who uses their real name. The gracious response would be to say something like: “Look, I have my reasons. I’m worried about my privacy and my job security. I realize that for some my choice of this publishing arrangment will make me seem less credible, but unfortunately there’s nothing I can do about that.”
    Instead, the usual response is some form of “How dare you!?” which is laughable. If you spend your whole day pseodnymously raking over the coals politicians, journalists, and bloggers whose real name and information are widely available how can you possibly not expect anyone to ask you to hold yourself up to criticism on the same existential level?
    The other, more ridiculous response is some variation of “I remove my ego so I can operate purely on the rarefied plane of ideas”. Some do, but most pseudonymous bloggers don’t, especially Atrios. If you’re going to go pseudonymous you should at least have the decency to confine yourself to discussing ideas and issues without making personal attacks, like Atrios’s recent series of puerile gay-baiting remarks about Sullivan.

  • Angus Jung

    “And the resident homophobe comes out.”
    I came out a long time ago, sugar!
    Boy, Atrios had a lot to say, didn’t he? Somebody struck a nerve.

  • Hipocrite

    Eric, you write, and I quote, “which description even he admits probably springs from paranoia.” This is a deliberate misreading of Atrios’ statement, which states that it “maybe” paranoia. Stop spinning.
    Then, of course, you spin again:
    “Atrios’s recent series of puerile gay-baiting remarks about Sullivan.”
    Peurile: juvenile.
    Is it juvenile to state that Andrew works for a man who advocates gay genocide? How so?

  • burnplant

    Dr Weevil
    Right wing fruitcakes may not be more nutty than the left wing variety, but they are more violent. I don’t read Hesiod, but I can assure you that the Daily Kos people aren’t going to track you down like some Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler would.
    It’s funny that you discount giving out someone’s PO Box as “not the worst thing in the world” while failing to note that it was given out with the intention to harass some parents about their dead daughter. If Hannity could use big words he’d call that intellectually dishonest. Yet you then go on to whine about someone contacting your elderly parents in the middle of the night. Hypocritical? No, just the neocon way, right?
    There’s a slight difference with Atrios giving out his info, and you, Dr Weevil giving out yours. It’s kind of like the difference between the Beatles and Herman’s Hermits.
    You’re anonymous blogger vs chickenhawk argument is stupid, they aren’t the same thing. Quite getting you’re style from Instahack.
    Why do you need to know someone’s day job? That’s bizarre…”ooh, just give me a hint, I need it soo bad”, why?? Maybe it’s because the right wing are snobs and you want to know if Atrios has “credentials” as impressive as Sullivan’s? “If he’s not a certified media whore his opinions are of no worth, therefore I don’t have to listen to him” – is that what you are thinking?

  • Perhaps ‘burnplant’ could provide some evidence for the bald assertion that “Right wing fruitcakes” are “more violent” than the left kind? Some posters on DailyKos strike me as none too stable, and most are anonymous. Blanket assurances that they are harmless are therefore worthless. No one could possibly know that.
    I have written nothing to defend in any way sending foul messages to the Corries or encouraging others to do so: I thought it went without saying that that’s a bad thing. My point was that people on the left have on occasion done as bad or worse. The thing about P.O. boxes is that the foulest messages left in them don’t _directly_ disturb or threaten the recipient, as telephone calls and knocks on the door do. Do I really have to explain this? The whole point of having a P.O. box is to keep the outside world at a distance. You can have someone else go through your mail and throw away the nastiest stuff without even seeing it yourself, as I trust the Corries are doing. It’s true that knowing someone’s P.O. box makes it theoretically possible to kill him (or his mail-checker) with a letterbomb, but knowing his street address makes it possible to kill him a dozen different ways. It’s a far more personal piece of information, and far more threatening to publish it.
    Of course I never claimed that anonymous blogging and not joining the service are the same thing. My argument was a simple ‘a fortiori’: it takes far less guts to put one’s name on a blog and risk possible job loss or rude telephone calls or the occasional threat than to join the service in wartime and risk death. Sneering at ‘chickenhawks’ while hiding behind a fake name does seem hypocritical. Again, I’m amazed I have to explain something so simple.
    One more time: I am curious as to whether Atrios and Hesiod (among others) are actual paid party hacks, or just amateurs with websites like the rest of us. It seems a fair question. Those two seem to have an awful lot of free time for blogging. Perhaps they’re independently wealthy and ashamed to admit to something so right-wing?
    Finally, if you want to convince anyone that you’re not some kind of partisan hack yourself, you might want to cut out all the stuff about “InstaHack” (how original!) and “media whores” and right-wing snobbery. It doesn’t help.

  • It’s been my experience that the left harbors more people than the right who will try to deal with uncomfortable opinions by silencing their authors, making complaints to employers, digging through credit histories, and threatening phone calls. Erin Pizzey, founder of the first shelter for battered women, was shot at and had her cat killed by angry feminists after she wrote a book on violent women, and similar things have happened to others who stand up to the left.
    It’s always seemed to me that Atrios’ pseudonymity was a self-serving pose by someone with little to lose from public exposure. Look at Michael Moore, who’s become a millionaire from his “champion of the working man” schtick.

  • Hipocrite

    Perhaps ‘burnplant’ could provide some evidence for the bald assertion that “Right wing fruitcakes” are “more violent” than the left kind
    I certainly can: how many politically motivate killings has the american far left undertaken in, oh, the past decade? Some woman had her cat killed?
    Compare and contrast with the american far right. Don’t forget any bombings of abortion clinics, federal buildings, and any sniper attacks.

  • burnplant

    I don’t know about the partisan stuff, but I hope to someday rise to the level of “Hack”.
    Your PO Box argument is an excellent example of the Instahack style; don’t argue the point, everyone knows giving out the PO Box was wrong, so steer the argument to PO Boxes vs adresses and which is worse. If you were truly in agreement that it was wrong, you would say, “that was wrong, it shouldn’t have been done”. Instead you argue on trying to make it better by saying they could have people filter the hate mail to their dead daughter…oh you’re right, I’m sure Jesus would have sent hatemail to someone’s PO Box, but NEVER to their home address, that’s insane!
    Same deal with right wing wackos – they kill doctors. They bomb federal buildings. They form militias and murder non-whites. They assault and kill gays. Why doesn’t a major Republican figure ever speak out against the killing of doctors who provide abortion? How about at one of their Conventions, that would be a perfect time for the Republicans to come and say they are pro-life, but killing doctors is just wrong. It’s never happened and it never will. They’ve got to keep their base, you know.
    chickenhawks vs anonbloggers is still lame. Keep trying, just watch the lather.
    Perhaps they’re independently wealthy and ashamed to admit to something so right-wing?
    Now THAT’S original, maybe you are a paid party hack!

  • If I were truly in agreement that publishing someone’s PO box and encouraging people to send hate mail to it was wrong, I would have written exactly what I did. Clue: saying that A is “even worse” than B already clearly implies that B is a bad thing. No one would say “a broken leg is even worse than an apple pie”. Many people would say “a broken leg is even worse than a broken arm”. Perhaps some of them would be trying to pretend that a broken arm is no big deal. It would be unfair to assume that they were doing that without further evidence. In fact, I was replying to the implication that only left bloggers have to worry about dangerous weirdos. I know from personal experience that that is false, and gave a specific example.

  • burnplant

    I like you’re Instahack argument better than mine:
    a broken leg is even worse than an apple pie …that sums it up better than my PO Box vs Address. Thanks!
    While your example of someone waking up your mom and dad may be true, it hardly measures up to the history of right wing wackiness that I put in my post, and which you have now chosen to ignore. Inconvenient to your argument, I guess.
    Given your partisanship, I kind of question the whole incident…how do you know this person found you from the blog? What did they say to your parents? Maybe it was a wingnut who called when you, like Sullivan, had the gall to criticize Bush…which I’m sure you do all the time, right?

  • I did not compare messages received, partly because I have no way of knowing what messages the Corries may or may not have received at their PO box. All I compared is the publication of a PO box to the publication of my name, parents’ address, and phone number. Got it? If I had a choice, and a PO box, I would far rather dangerous weirdos knew my box number than my actual home address or phone number — or those of my parents. That is my point, and it is a very simple one, that you persist in pretending not to understand, because you don’t have the decency to admit that people on the right also have to worry about weirdos. Why not ask an abortionist which he’d rather see posted on an anti-abortion web-site, his PO box or his street address and telephone number?
    Of course, it’s hard to take seriously someone who thinks that repeated references to “Instahack” and lying claims that his opponent is somehow borrowing his arguments from him will convince any fair-minded reader.

  • burnplant

    Or, why not ask the parents of the dead healthcare provider if they would rather have their PO Box posted on a wingnut site, or rather not have any of their information posted at all.
    To quote your faux frustration above, “do I really have to explain this”?
    People on the right do have to worry about weirdos, too – stray bullets and accidental discharges don’t care about the political affiliations of their victims. Ha Ha Ha Ha, look at me, I’m an instahacker!

  • I’m very sorry I wasted my time, and that of any others who have read this far, replying with reasoned arguments to someone who turns out to be a common troll. If ‘burnplant’ had used the giveaway word “wingnut” in his first post instead of the last, it would have saved us all a lot of effort.

  • burplant

    I’m sorry you feel like you’ve wasted your time. I think you’ve got your point across well and I believe I will now be voting for Bush.
    I am all for fiscal irresponsability, big government, poison air and water, healthcare only for those who earn it (especially lazy kids), and, as you can tell, bad grammar…Bush is my man!!