Post Deleted/Undeleted: Insidey Blog War Stuff You Probably Don't Want To Read

Update: Paul says he's quitting.

I'm not sure whether or not to leave this up. Is it vindictive to do so? Or is it dishonest to take it down?

Update: Paul called me a coward for taking it down, so I guess I have his permission -- nay, his insistence -- I air his dirty laundry out for him.

It seems embarrassing for both of us, but if that's what he wants, so be it.

...

I'm warning you, this is personal blogger versus blogger stuff, and it's not terribly interesting for anyone else. You're welcome to read it if you're not a blogger, but really, this is inside crap that you probably have no use for.

If anyone wants to get in touch with me about this, please do. I intend to do a little essay, and I'd like input from the blogosphere.

Basically, Paul, the Jackass from Wizbang!, wrote a post in which he acknowleges that he was wrong in the Glenn Greenwald matter.

Except he doesn't. Rather than just say, "I was wrong," he attempts to concoct some strange theory by which he was actually right when he was wrong, and we were wrong when we were right, and only now that he says that we were right, are we in fact right.

As I told him in one of the posts he deleted-- a man who cannot say the words "I was wrong" is not a man.

A man who is so concerned about his ego will lie and bully to preserve it.

A man like that should not be considered a credible source or thoughtful writer by anyone.

He says he's speaking "like a lawyer," but he seems to think an "alibi" -- as he calls Glenn Greenwald's tale -- consists of nothing but a suspected person's claim that "I didn't do it, it was someone else" with no corroborative evidence whatsoever, nor even a witness to back the story.

He is, in short, and idiot.

And when I pointed out in his thread that he was being transparently dishonest -- that almost all of the evidence cited by Patterico was available a week ago, uncovered by he himself, and me, and Dan, and Shawn, and etc. -- and that he was simply pretending that some new evidence had been discovered to give him the cover to reverse his position without confessing actual error -- he simply deleted my posts.

And then he claims he deleted them... to spare me the embarrassment of having them read.

Yes.... I think that's the blogosphere's take on Paul from Wizbang. The kind of guy who's so thoughtful of others that he deletes posts that are embarrassing to people arguing against him. The kind of guy always on the look out to spare his opponents any undue embarrassment.

He doesn't delete posts embarrasing to himself, of course. No-- he closes threads, and deletes posts, to spare others the embarrassment of having words they've written read by their intended audience.

I don't know how much time I want to spend on this nobody -- who apparently has let Kevin Aylward's success get to his own head -- but right now I'm thinking along the lines of Jeff Goldstein. I want to turn this prick's name into an Internet verb.

No wonder he spent so much time defending Glenn Greenwald and denigrating Greenwald's dishonesty-- Paul practices the same techniques himself, and has, perhaps, an even larger ego to protect (and, I must say, a more undeservedly large one at that).

No wonder he says "So what?" to obvious lies.

It's Paul's stock in trade. He has a vested interest in defending such behavior.

Well, Pal, since you like to denigrate other people's traffic, let me clue you in on something:

Kevin created Wizbang, not you. You are just hitching a ride, given a platform you do not deserve. Why you think you can behave in such a high-handed fashion when you are -- and understand that here, I am merely using your own technique of evalutating someone's worth by their traffic -- a goddamned nobody and a freeloading guest in someone else's house is beyond me.

And seriously-- where did you get that crap about demeaning other bloggers because they have less traffic than "you" do?

It would be a jackass thing to say even if you did have traffic-- but you don't even have that. When you put down a blogger for having low traffic, what you're really saying is "I'm better than you, because of Kevin Aylward's traffic levels."

Since you're a man of logic, as you persistently, and ineffectually, attempt to convince people, can you explain to me the logic behind that?

What has Kevin Aylward's traffic got to do with you?

Not a damn thing, Hoss. Not a damn thing.

posted by Ace at 06:17 AM

| Access Comments