Erroneous Brayton article pulled from multi-blogger news blog!
An article by BVD-clad yellow-journalist blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton has been pulled from the multi-blogger news blog Michigan Messenger! The post was titled "Bad Moon Rising: Moon and Conservative Politics" -- and now all that is left is the statement, "This diary has been removed." And I have good reason to believe that the reason for its removal was that I had poked some big holes it it! Here is the comment that I added prior to the article's removal:
.
I was on my way to poke some more holes in Ed's article when I discovered that it had been pulled.
Of course, Ed would have censored my comment if I had tried to post it on his own blog, Dispatches from the Culture Wars. Michigan Messenger's management has been fairly tolerant of Ed's censoring (in violation of Michigan Messenger's Code of Ethics) but there is a limit to how far they are willing to go.
Ed Brayton has posted three other articles about Rev. Moon on Michigan Messenger. Those other posts have no more credibility than the one that was deleted. Here is a comment where I point out Ed's continuing failure to identify his sources.
.
.
One of Ed Brayton's sources reported that 81 U.S. Senators and Members of Congress attended Moon's coronation:
On Mar. 23, 2004, in the Dirksen Senate Office building, in Washington, D.C. in the U.S., 81 U.S. Senators and Members of Congress...26 ambassadors to the United States...and some 450 leaders from various fields...came to participate in an Ambassadors for Peace Awards...and Crown of Peace Ceremony.
However, the Washington Post reported that only "more than a dozen" lawmakers attended:
More than a dozen lawmakers attended a congressional reception this year honoring the Rev. Sun Myung Moon in which Moon declared himself the Messiah and said his teachings have helped Hitler and Stalin be "reborn as new persons."
Also, the Washington Post article said -- as Ed did -- that several of the lawmakers felt that they had been misled:
Details of the ceremony -- first reported by Salon.com writer John Gorenfeld -- have prompted several lawmakers to say they were misled or duped by organizers. Their complaints prompted a Moon-affiliated Web site to remove a video of the "Crown of Peace" ceremony two days ago, but other Web sites have preserved details and photos.
Ed said, "The room was reserved by Sen. John Warner of Virginia." However, the Washington Post article said,
Use of the Dirksen building requires a senator's approval. [Sen.] Dayton said he gave no such permission, and Stallings [a key organizer] said the question of who did so is "shrouded in mystery."
Anyway, it looks like Ed has blown this coronation ceremony way out of proportion.
Also, Ed said,November 22nd is a famous day in American presidential history. It is, of course, the day that John F. Kennedy was shot in Dallas, Texas. 34 years later, the 41st president of the United States, George H.W. Bush, arrived in Buenos Aires, Argentina on a private plane. The event he was arriving for was the launch of a new South American regional newspaper owned by Rev. Moon and the Unification Church.
That statement is as dumb as claiming that Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin are connected because they have the same official birthdates.
I was on my way to poke some more holes in Ed's article when I discovered that it had been pulled.
Of course, Ed would have censored my comment if I had tried to post it on his own blog, Dispatches from the Culture Wars. Michigan Messenger's management has been fairly tolerant of Ed's censoring (in violation of Michigan Messenger's Code of Ethics) but there is a limit to how far they are willing to go.
Ed Brayton has posted three other articles about Rev. Moon on Michigan Messenger. Those other posts have no more credibility than the one that was deleted. Here is a comment where I point out Ed's continuing failure to identify his sources.
.
Labels: Ed Brayton (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 9/23/2007 09:11:00 PM
28 Comments:
It's kinda ironic that you are gloating over Ed's blog removal over his lack of sources and glaring inaccuracies when your own contributions to the Yecke article on wiki were removed due to the same problems. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
Ed's source was the "Crown of Peace" video that the Moonies used to promote the event after it happened. Although I can't be sure, it is reasonable to believe that the Washington Post article relied on the partial list of invitee's and those identifiable from the "Crown of Peace" video. The Washington Post is a "confirmed number" but that doesn't mean that there were a great many more present - just that the Post couldn't confirm a larger number.
>>>Ed said, "The room was reserved by Sen. John Warner of Virginia." However, the Washington Post article said,
Use of the Dirksen building requires a senator's approval. [Sen.] Dayton said he gave no such permission, and Stallings [a key organizer] said the question of who did so is "shrouded in mystery."<<<
An argument from ignorance is an ignorant argument. Does Larry believe that, since a brief investigation conducted three months after the event was unable to turn up certain details, it refutes any data later gathered? Too bad that reporter didn't follow up on his investigation, maybe then Larry might believe the data Ed provides.
Oh wait. 28 days later, the same reporter from the Washington Post article Larry cited wrote a follow-up article:
Warner Helped the Rev. Moon
Senator's Office Says He Arranged for Meeting Space in March
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 21, 2004; Page A02
Sen. John W. Warner's office acknowledged yesterday that the Virginia Republican arranged for religious activists to use a Senate office building last March for a ceremony in which the Rev. Sun Myung Moon declared himself the Messiah and said his teachings have helped Hitler and Stalin be "reborn as new persons."
Read the article to find out why it took a month to find out who arranged the use of the building.
"but that doesn't mean that there were a great many more present"
"were" should be "weren't"
I apologize for any confusion and any other typos, which I appear to be rather indulging myself in today.
Either Larry is clueless again, or he's intentionally misrepresenting things.
All 3 installments of Brayton's series are alive and well:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
It's impossible to tell. Larry appears to claim that it is not one of those three but a fourth in the series, and there's enough detail to be relatively certain Larry didn't invent it wholesale. However, the link he gives does not follow the same format as the other articles on Michigan Messenger. It may be that the xxx#yyy convention means that it is the yyyth comment so far made, and appears on the xxxth diary, but it doesn't seem to work for other comments. It's really weird - I can't get MM to generate a matching format. It may be worthwhile to point out that the next diary id is also an article by Ed - it's possible that Ed pulled the trigger on the wrong article nd didn't correct the mistake before Larry started showing his usual poor investigative skills. Without more information, it's hard to tell. Given that Larry's off-topic posts have been removed by the administrator, not Ed, it's doubtful that Larry has actually forced Michigan Messenger to pull the diary. Certainly the "holes" Larry poked in it aren't the reason, seeing as they are facially inept arguments (and as I demonstrated, at least the second argument was inaccurate as well).
Anonymous driveled,
>>>>>> It's kinda ironic that you are gloating over Ed's blog removal over his lack of sources and glaring inaccuracies when your own contributions to the Yecke article on wiki were removed due to the same problems. <<<<<<
Dunghill Anonymous cannot see the difference between voluntary removal and censoring.
Also, my rebuttals on Yecke's bio had plenty of sources and the crooked Wickedpedians never found fault with any of them.
>>>>>> All 3 installments of Brayton's series are alive and well: <<<<<<
I never said that they were not alive, dunghill -- but they are certainly not well. Ed does not identify the sources of a lot of his material.
Kevin Vicklund said,
>>>>> Although I can't be sure, it is reasonable to believe that the Washington Post article relied on the partial list of invitee's and those identifiable from the "Crown of Peace" video. <<<<<<<
That's right -- you can't be sure. Who would you sooner believe -- the Washington Post or the Moonies?
>>>>>> Does Larry believe that, since a brief investigation conducted three months after the event was unable to turn up certain details, it refutes any data later gathered? <<<<<<
The name of the senator who reserved the room is hardly a minor detail. And Ed never identified the source of his information that Sen. Warner reserved the room.
>>>>>>> Read the article to find out why it took a month to find out who arranged the use of the building. <<<<<<
This information should have been available immediately.
>>>>> it's possible that Ed pulled the trigger on the wrong article nd didn't correct the mistake before Larry started showing his usual poor investigative skills. <<<<<<
"Poor investigative skills" indeed, you dunghill.
Ed didn't pull the trigger on the wrong article -- it was the only article that I contradicted with information from a reliable source.
>>>Also, my rebuttals on Yecke's bio had plenty of sources and the crooked Wickedpedians never found fault with any of them.<<<
Your contributions to Yecke's bio didn't rebut any of the points in the bio and the only references were yourself, yourself, yourself, and yourself, which is the reason they were rejected. By definition Wikipedia found fault with your sources.
>>>I never said that they were not alive, dunghill -- but they are certainly not well. Ed does not identify the sources of a lot of his material.<<<
Not identifying sources has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are factual. You end up with egg on your face every time you try to contest Ed's facts - even an earthworm learns from its mistakes, why can't you?
Kevin Vicklund said,
>>>>>> Although I can't be sure, it is reasonable to believe that the Washington Post article relied on the partial list of invitee's and those identifiable from the "Crown of Peace" video. <<<<<<
>>>That's right -- you can't be sure. Who would you sooner believe -- the Washington Post or the Moonies?<<<
How about I compromise and say that I can honestly believe both without being hypocritical.
>>>>>> Does Larry believe that, since a brief investigation conducted three months after the event was unable to turn up certain details, it refutes any data later gathered? <<<<<<
>>>The name of the senator who reserved the room is hardly a minor detail. And Ed never identified the source of his information that Sen. Warner reserved the room.<<<
Did I say it was a minor detail? It is, in fact, a detail, one which certain parties went to a great deal of effort to hide. And the only problem with Ed not revealing his sources is that you keep winding up with egg on your face for challenging him on the facts. Not that most people here think that that is a problem - the reason we keep coming back is because of your amusing pratfalls caused by your overweening ignorance.
>>>>>> Read the article to find out why it took a month to find out who arranged the use of the building. <<<<<<
>>>This information should have been available immediately.<<<
Then the fact that the government tried to hide this information for a month is rather damning, wouldn't you say?
>>>>>> it's possible that Ed pulled the trigger on the wrong article nd didn't correct the mistake before Larry started showing his usual poor investigative skills. <<<<<<
>>>"Poor investigative skills" indeed, you dunghill.
Ed didn't pull the trigger on the wrong article -- it was the only article that I contradicted with information from a reliable source.<<<
So you deny that Ed wrote the next diary entry (126) entitled School Dress Codes and the Law? Because that was what I was saying - that he may have been writing both articles and accidentally sent the incomplete Moonie article instead of the completed dress code article. I've seen him do this a couple of times on his own blog over the past two years, because he usually writes the articles in the evening and then schedules them to post in the 9 o'clock hour the next morning. I mention it only as a possibility.
>>>>>Also, my rebuttals on Yecke's bio had plenty of sources and the crooked Wickedpedians never found fault with any of them.
<<<<<
Name one dumbass! One newspaper article, audio recording, or something entered into public record that would blow Yecke's connections with creationism and intelligent design out of the water. Your own opinions don't count.
You really snagged yourself with this latest hypocritical bullshit and your damage control is like pissing into a tire fire.
Even if Ed's assertions are found to be false, at least he took the effort to find sources that initially supported his claims. He even one-ups you on the removal if it was indeed voluntary because at least he has the integrity to retract his claims when the possibility of them being false exists.
Compared to Ed, your own behavior is just disgusting and you even have the nerve to harp on journalistic integrity when you yourself violate its one main rule of presenting the facts above all else.
Kevin Vicklund driveled,
>>>>>> Your contributions to Yecke's bio didn't rebut any of the points in the bio and the only references were yourself, yourself, yourself, and yourself, which is the reason they were rejected. By definition Wikipedia found fault with your sources. <<<<<<<
You are so full of living crap that it is coming out of your ears. I refuted the attacks in the bio and I even removed my name to avoid charges of "self-promotion," even though the names of Fatheaded Ed Brayton and Ding Elsberry are still there. And as I have said a zillion times, truth is a defense against charges of libel but it is not a defense against charges of censorship. Anyway, the Wickedpedian's efforts fell flat on their face because Yecke is one of three finalists for the position out of 24 that were originally considered.
>>>>>> Not identifying sources has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are factual. <<<<<<<
But there is no evidence that the information is true unless the sources are identified, dunghill.
>>>>> How about I compromise and say that I can honestly believe both without being hypocritical. <<<<<<
How can you believe both if they don't agree?
>>>>>> And the only problem with Ed not revealing his sources is that you keep winding up with egg on your face for challenging him on the facts. <<<<<<
What I say or do has nothing to do with Ed's obligation to identify his sources, dunghill.
>>>>> Then the fact that the government tried to hide this information for a month is rather damning, wouldn't you say? <<<<<
And Ed's failure to identify his sources is also rather damning.
It looks like my "trigger" theory was right after all. Ed now has the completed article on Michigan Messenger.
The egg on Larry's face appears to have reached monumental proportions.
Anonymous moans,
>>>>>Name one dumbass! One newspaper article, audio recording, or something entered into public record that would blow Yecke's connections with creationism and intelligent design out of the water. <<<<<
You worthless sack of shit, I never said that Yecke has no connection with creationism and ID. There was just a minor incident four years ago that was blown out of proportion. She said that creationism could not be taught but that local school districts should decide whether or not to teach ID, and she cited the Santorum Amendment in support of her position.
>>>>> Your own opinions don't count. <<<<<<<
I know -- the only opinions that count are yours, Fatheaded Ed Brayton's, Ding Elsberry's, etc..
>>>>>> You really snagged yourself with this latest hypocritical bullshit and your damage control is like pissing into a tire fire. <<<<<<
Damage control, my eye. Speaking of pissing on fires, I wouldn't piss on you, Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Ding Elsberry, etc. if you jerks were on fire.
>>>>>> Even if Ed's assertions are found to be false, at least he took the effort to find sources that initially supported his claims. He even one-ups you on the removal if it was indeed voluntary because at least he has the integrity to retract his claims when the possibility of them being false exists. <<<<<<<
Dunghill, the only reason why Ed removed his post was to hide an error in one of his sources. He never acknowledged the error.
Kevin driveled,
>>>>>> It looks like my "trigger" theory was right after all. Ed now has the completed article on Michigan Messenger.
The egg on Larry's face appears to have reached monumental proportions. <<<<<<
You dunghill, this only shows how dishonest Ed is. Instead of acknowledging the apparent error, he just deleted the whole post and re-posted it in revised form. And the post still contains unsubstantiated information.
> The egg on Larry's face appears to have reached monumental proportions. <
Yes, but he is too dumb to see it!
Larry has yet to point out any apparent error made by Ed, so how could Ed acknowledge it?
And the official word on what happened:
Escaped the queue
Very sorry for that; we'd originally planned for this piece to appear on Tuesday as part of our weekly story budget.
This piece was accidentally posted early and was pulled back to be reposted in its originally planned slot. You'll note that the next part in this series is scheduled for Thursday this week.
Nothing changed in the article save for a typo and the addition of the photo.
Thanks for watching our site so closely!
by: LoRayne Apo-Joynt @ Tuesday (09/25) at 12:45 PM
I did take the liberty of writing as if I had noticed the post go up, to avoid any bias that might have arisen had I indicated it was a result of Larry's posts that I knew about the take down.
So much for Larry's theory of dishonesty on Ed's part. Unless Larry can point to a substantial change (ie, a change in actual wording, rather than simple spelling or grammar change), it looks like Larry just took another hit from the egg cannon.
Cattle and horses don't use bathrooms, dunghill.
:-( Tsk tsk!
For God's sake, Larry. If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Escaped the queue
Very sorry for that; we'd originally planned for this piece to appear on Tuesday as part of our weekly story budget.
This piece was accidentally posted early and was pulled back to be reposted in its originally planned slot. You'll note that the next part in this series is scheduled for Thursday this week.
Nothing changed in the article save for a typo and the addition of the photo.
Thanks for watching our site so closely!
by: LoRayne Apo-Joynt @ Tuesday (09/25) at 12:45 PM
So the article was posted a little early -- so what? My comment was lost when the article was removed. Did Lorayne Apo-Joynt care about that? No.
By the way, Ed Brayton admitted that the article was changed before re-posting! And there is good reason to believe that the change was in response to my comment.
> And there is good reason to believe that the change was in response to my comment. <
You remind me of a dog that used to bark at the trains as they came through on the tracks that ran through his master's property. Invariably when the train got too close the dog would lose heart and start running away, but when he found that the train was passing him by, he would regain his courage and chase the train off of the property.
After this he would come strutting back believing that he had done his duty for the day and was quite convinced that the train had departed the property solely due to his efforts.
Larry is a lot like that dog.
>>>>>
I know -- the only opinions that count are yours, Fatheaded Ed Brayton's, Ding Elsberry's, etc..
<<<<
You failed to mention that in their respective blogs, both Ed and Elsberry go on to cite specific sources to support their opinions, whereas yours is severely lacking. You have an opinion and want it to be important? Back it up with some supporting sources.
I think you should re-read the Yecke article to understand WHY Elsberry was even mentioned in the article. However, given your (lack of) reading skills, I'll just break it down for you: the only reason Elsberry was mentioned was due to efforts by Reputation Defender to have him remove a statement regarding Yecke's links to intelligent design on behalf of Yecke herself. Since that section of the article was on Yecke's recent attempts at white-washing her past, the references to Elsberry are relevant since Reputation Defender directly contacted him on behalf of Yecke.
Again, your own contributions were based solely on your own opinions and nothing else. Also, the fact that you were rude and obnoxious about it probably expedited its removal.
>>>By the way, Ed Brayton admitted that the article was changed before re-posting! And there is good reason to believe that the change was in response to my comment.<<<
Yes, he did, because unlike you, he has integrity and is willing to make corrections or refinements, regardless of who notices the error or, in this case, unresolvable dispute over precision. Of course, as I noted earlier, both the Washington Post and the Moonie promo can be correct, since 81 is in fact more than a dozen.
>>>You are so full of living crap that it is coming out of your ears.<<<
If I am in contact with shit, it's only because you are spewing it.
>>>I refuted the attacks in the bio<<<
You refuted none of the "attacks" in the bio. Rather, you made a lame attempt to refute "attacks" made outside of the bio, as I documented elsewhere.
>>and I even removed my name to avoid charges of "self-promotion," even though the names of Fatheaded Ed Brayton and Ding Elsberry are still there.<<<
Yet your four sources were still yourself, yourself, yourself, and yourself, which is why your contributions were removed for self-promotion. The references to Ed and Wesley did not suffer from this defect, and so were allowed.
>>>And as I have said a zillion times, truth is a defense against charges of libel but it is not a defense against charges of censorship.<<<
Which is a meaningless platitude. Censorship for cause is a defense against a charge of arbitrary censorship, and one such cause is falsehood. But in any case, it has no bearing on the issue, since you weren't censored for falsehood - you were censored for self-promotion and subsequent violations of Wikipedia rules.
>>>Anyway, the Wickedpedian's efforts fell flat on their face because Yecke is one of three finalists for the position out of 24 that were originally considered.<<<
Their efforts weren't aimed at keeping Yecke from making the final list. They were aimed at maintaining a semi-reliable online encyclopedia full of interesting subjects and preventing nutjobs like you from using Wikipedia as a springboard for self-promotion of their own agenda.
Bill Carter drivels,
>>>>> You remind me of a dog that used to bark at the trains as they came through on the tracks that ran through his master's property. <<<<<
Here is the correct story, you worthless sack of shit. The train stops, people get off the train and start chasing the dog, the dog chases the people back onto the train and the train leaves. The dog then thinks that it chased the train off the property.
Kevin drivels,
>>>>>> Of course, as I noted earlier, both the Washington Post and the Moonie promo can be correct, since 81 is in fact more than a dozen. <<<<<<<
That is an awfully big discrepancy, dunghill. Congress ought to have some way of determining which members attend these functions.
>>>>>> Censorship for cause is a defense against a charge of arbitrary censorship, and one such cause is falsehood. <<<<<<<
Wrong -- censorship is censorship. Known falsehood is rebuttable. And some things are neither true nor false -- they are just matters of opinion. I used the same sources as Yecke's critics -- I just interpreted them differently.
>>>>> you were censored for self-promotion and subsequent violations of Wikipedia rules. <<<<<<
Again, you are full of crap, dunghill. I removed all mention of my name from the article, but that still did not satisfy the Wickedpedians. Ding Elsberry and Sleazy PZ Myers are still mentioned by name in the article. The Wickedpedians violated the rules by allowing citation of some personal blogs (citation of personal blogs is normally against the Wikipedia rules) but not others.
The asshole said "Here is the correct story"
He actually believes that he has said and done things that are significant. He is obviously living in a dream world.
Larry, you have managed to spend six decades, some of which has been on this planet, and have yet to do anything significant in your life except to provide a great deal of entertainment to those who enjoy schadenfreude.
Get the psychiatric help that you badly need and you might be able to change that dismal record.
You stupid fathead, all I did was just put two and two together. The article disappeared hours after I posted a critical comment. Then the article reappeared with my comment missing and with a change in the article that was apparently a response to the comment. The lame excuse given for pulling the article was that it had "escaped the queue" and that "we'd originally planned for this piece to appear on Tuesday as part of our weekly story budget." All just a coincidence?
You should be committed to an institution for the profoundly retarded.
> all I did was just put two and two together <
And as usual, you got five.
Post a Comment
<< Home