Fatheaded Ed Brayton's new song and dance
BVD-clad yellow-journalist blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton has a new song and dance to explain the mysterious disappearance and reappearance of one of his articles in Michigan Messenger. His song and dance includes the following statement:
.
Ed, you stupid fathead, all I did was just re-post my original comment which had been rudely deleted. I played dumb about Senator Warner to see if you could independently verify your statement about him. Instead of showing that you could do that, you simply deleted my comment. Yes, I did make you look bad again.
I am obviously still able to post comments on Michigan Messenger but I now consider that blog to be a waste of time. Of course, there is the problem that my comments there are always being deleted even when they are on-topic, polite, and serious, but also very few of the articles there have any comments at all and those that do generally have only 1-3 comments. It is not a place to go for a discussion.
.
.
And as usual, his criticisms were way off base. He said, for example, that my statement that John Warner had reserved the room at the Dirksen building for the Moon gathering was wrong and he quoted an early Washington Post article saying that it was a mystery who had reserved it. Someone even posted, in a comment on Larry's blog, a later source where Warner had finally admitted to having reserved the room. AFTER he had seen that documentation on his own blog, he still posted the exact same claim in a comment when I reposted my article the next day. Clearly, Larry just doesn't care what the truth is as long as he can try and make me look bad.
Ed, you stupid fathead, all I did was just re-post my original comment which had been rudely deleted. I played dumb about Senator Warner to see if you could independently verify your statement about him. Instead of showing that you could do that, you simply deleted my comment. Yes, I did make you look bad again.
I am obviously still able to post comments on Michigan Messenger but I now consider that blog to be a waste of time. Of course, there is the problem that my comments there are always being deleted even when they are on-topic, polite, and serious, but also very few of the articles there have any comments at all and those that do generally have only 1-3 comments. It is not a place to go for a discussion.
.
Labels: Ed Brayton (2 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 9/28/2007 09:26:00 PM
12 Comments:
As usual, Larry doesn't provide the whole story. The first half of Ed's comment:
"As usual, Fafarman isn't even close. We have a bit of a glitch in the system at Michigan Messenger. There's two ways you can post a story, as a draft or as a published story. If you post it as a published story, everyone can see it even if it's not on the front page (it shows up in the top sidebar on the right hand side). If you post it as a draft and then edit it and change it to a published story so the editor can move it to the front page, for some reason it doesn't show up for her and she can't find it to move it. So basically, we have to keep it on our hard drives until they're ready to hit the front page, then publish them so the editor can promote them to the front page. In the case of that post, I published it late at night so she could publish it the next morning, but there was another story that had precedence for the top spot on the page, so I deleted it. Before I deleted it, Larry had already left a comment, but that is irrelevant because Larry has been banned from posting there. That comment was, predictably, posted under the third account he had opened after the first two were banned. All subsequent sockpuppets will be likewise deleted and all comments left will be as well. This can't possibly be a surprise to Larry; it's happened on practically every internet forum he's ever posted on."
Larry, let me explain this to you once again. When you are banned from a forum, that means you are not allowed to post comments to that forum. Any comments that you do post to that forum will be subsequently deleted, regardless of content - your initial off-topic, rude, and frivolous comments that were simply harassing Ed cost you the privilege of posting at Michigan Messenger. The reason you have to keep entering a new email whenever you try to comment is because you have been banned and are thus unable to comment using that account. When you say:
>>>I am obviously still able to post comments on Michigan Messenger but I now consider that blog to be a waste of time.<<<
that is a deliberate lie.
I should also note that this is not a "new song and dance" - this the same explanation as given previously, with more detail. It also matches my prediction of what happened.
Larry has gotten to the point where he is diving headfirst into laden egg cartons.
Dunghill Kevin Vicklund continues to take advantage of my no-censorship policy while ridiculing my opposition to arbitrary censorship on the Internet.
>>>>>> As usual, Larry doesn't provide the whole story. <<<<<<
Dunghill, I only wanted to comment about part of Ed's comment.
>>>>>>I am obviously still able to post comments on Michigan Messenger but I now consider that blog to be a waste of time.<
that is a deliberate lie. <<<<<<
Wrong, dunghill.
If Ed had left my re-posted comment undisturbed, there would be reason to believe him this time, but since he didn't, there is no reason to believe him. And there is no reason to believe you either, dunghill.
Larry:
YOU ARE BANNED AT MICHIGAN MESSENGER. BY DEFINITION, YOU ARE UNABLE TO COMMENT THERE.
Thus, any claim to be able to post there is a lie. Because you are banned, your comments are deleted as a matter of policy.
> Dunghill Kevin Vicklund continues to take advantage of my no-censorship policy while ridiculing my opposition to arbitrary censorship on the Internet. <
While engaging in arbitrary censorship yourself. Why did you ban ViW?
>>>>>> As usual, Larry doesn't provide the whole story. <<<<<<
> Dunghill, I only wanted to comment about part of Ed's comment. <
In other words, you didn't provide the whole story!
Larry, your nose has grown so large that it must be difficult walking. Then again I doubt that you ever leave your cave.
DUNGHILL, WHETHER OR NOT I WAS BANNED THERE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT FATHEADED ED DELETED HIS ARTICLE TO TRY TO HIDE HIS ERRORS.
ALSO, GIVE ME A REASON -- OTHER THAN MY NO-CENSORSHIP POLICY -- WHY YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BANNED FROM THIS BLOG A LONG TIME AGO.
If Ed deleted his article to try and hide his "errors" (as pointed out before, both sources could be correct, since Larry's source only provided a lower limit and was a second-hand account three months after the fact), why did he openly admit to making the change? For that matter, why did he prominently make a correction to an actual error pointed out by someone else in a private communication, rather than simply change the wording? Your hypothesis just doesn't hold any water, Larry. The simple fact is, your comment would have been deleted regardless of whether the original post was left up, because you had already been banned. At least this way, Ed made the change and explained why the change was made. "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth."
You, of course, have the right to ban me at any time, as this is your private blog. Of course, you would be banning me because I am constantly demonstrating that you are ignorant, lying, or incapable of understanding basic concepts of law and science. If you started banning those who demonstrate that you are wrong, your blog would soon be page after page of you ranting to yourself, with possibly the occasional limerick. Kinda like at the beginning of the year, when we decided to give you the silent treatment for a month.
> DUNGHILL, WHETHER OR NOT I WAS BANNED THERE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT FATHEADED ED DELETED HIS ARTICLE TO TRY TO HIDE HIS ERRORS. <
Temper, temper. Your being banned there is a fact. Ed deleting h8is article to try to hide errors is either one of your many lies, or one of your many misconceptions.
> ALSO, GIVE ME A REASON -- OTHER THAN MY NO-CENSORSHIP POLICY -- WHY YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BANNED FROM THIS BLOG A LONG TIME AGO. <
What "no-censorship" policy? You have admitted censorship in the past and you have banned ViW.
If Kevin disappears, we know it is because you have never been able to win a debate with him and he is always pointing out your lies and illogic.
Of course if you ban him, you might lose your position as the only member of the Association of Censoring Blowhards.
Kevin Vicklund drivels,
>>>>> If Ed deleted his article to try and hide his "errors" (as pointed out before, both sources could be correct, since Larry's source only provided a lower limit and was a second-hand account three months after the fact), why did he openly admit to making the change? For that matter, why did he prominently make a correction to an actual error pointed out by someone else in a private communication, rather than simply change the wording? <<<<<<<
No, it is not possible for both sources to be correct -- there is a huge discrepancy between "more than a dozen" and 80. Also, Ed said,
I did reword one section: the phrase "more than 80 American legislators and political leaders" was changed to "dozens of American legislators and political leaders."
Where did he get "dozens" and "political leaders"? Nowhere. He just pulled these words out of thin air.
The error was not pointed out in a "private communication" -- it was pointed out in a comment posted on the blog.
>>>>> The simple fact is, your comment would have been deleted regardless of whether the original post was left up, because you had already been banned. <<<<<<
All just a coincidence, huh?
I don't even know whether I have been banned or not. All I know is that whenever I tried to post another comment, I kept getting the message, "you must be registered to comment." I assumed it was just a software glitch, so I re-registered by changing the form of my name, e.g., L Fafarman instead of Larry Fafarman. I even asked them to fix their software. Had I known that they were deliberately blocking my comments, I would have used a false name. Also, blocking my comments would be a violation of the blog's Code of Ethics.
>>>>>> You, of course, have the right to ban me at any time, as this is your private blog. Of course, you would be banning me because I am constantly demonstrating that you are ignorant, lying, or incapable of understanding basic concepts of law and science. <<<<<<
Wrong, dunghill -- I would ban you because I have to waste my time refuting your comments for the benefit of readers who might believe you, either because they are too dumb or because they are innocently ignorant of the facts. But there is another reason why I would ban you -- you go around to other blogs encouraging the bloggers to censor my comments.
>>>>>> Kinda like at the beginning of the year, when we decided to give you the silent treatment for a month. <<<<<<
PLEASE give me the silent treatment -- forever.
Also, you wrote on Fatheaded Ed's blog,
>>>>> Not only did I find the source were Warner admitted to reserving the room, it was the very first hit on the very first Google search I performed. <<<<<<
It is bad enough when Ed gives no sources for his statements of fact, but when it is pointed out that a reliable source contradicts him, it is his job to provide his source. And as I said, I played dumb about Warner because I wanted to see if Ed could independently verify his statement. He failed.
Anonymous driveled,
>>>>>> Your so-called policy of non-censorship is nothing more than a piss-poor excuse to rationalize your stupidity and blatant hypocrisy. <<<<<<<
My no-censorship policy is not "so-called," dunghill. I follow it to the letter.
You have some nerve coming here and condemning me while treating those sleazebags on Pander's Thumb and Wickedpedia like paragons of virtue.
> I would ban you because I have to waste my time refuting your comments <
Stop wasting your time. You have never been successful at refuting Kevin's comments. You have only shown your ignorance.
> My no-censorship policy is not "so-called," dunghill. I follow it to the letter. <
That is an outright lie. You have even admitted censoring right here on this blog. Of course you tried to rationalize your reasons.
P.S. Why did you ban ViW?
> My no-censorship policy is not "so-called," dunghill. I follow it to the letter. <
Are you intentionally trying to make a fool of yourself? It is hard to believe that this is just an error. You have already admitted, more than once, to censorship on this blog.
ViU has a point. Why did you ban ViW?
> My no-censorship policy is not "so-called," dunghill. I follow it to the letter. <
Then did you lie when you admitted past censorship?
Why did you ban ViW? He didn't seem to be as much of a problem to you as Kevin. Then again, everyone was showing you to be a buffoon.
Post a Comment
<< Home