Where is Sullivan's Explanation or Denial?
Andrew Sullivan has been called a flat-out liar as regards his claims of "increasing bandwidth costs" which necessitate another round of $100,000-plus blegging.
He also claimed that these higher costs were due, partly, to his increasing traffic. But according to Alexa's blog-rankings Sullivan's audience isn't growing:
Feb: 1410869
Mar: 1250342
Apr: 1205536
May: 1233008
Jun: 1103882
Jul (incomplete): 833502
Now, he wasn't just called a liar by me. Since I've been tough on him, I could see him ignoring me.
But he's been called a liar (let's just say that's my own take on their charges) by Michelle Malkin, Spoons, and Wunderkinder, among others.
He's been called a liar. If it's not true, why doesn't he rebut the charge? Why doesn't he explain precisely how it's come to be that bandwidth is costing him more than any person on the planet?
Instead, he's choosing to ignore the charges entirely, much like Hillary Clinton. I suppose if you caught him on the street and asked about it, he'd give a Hillary style "a ha ha ha, how ridiculous" fake laugh.
A charge has been levelled, and it is entirely within Sullivan's power to disprove it, if it's not true. Evidence that he's lying has been offered; it remains at this point entirely unrebutted (and in fact entirely unaddressed).
This constitutes a tacit admission of dishonesty. It is simply not credible that he somehow missed Michelle Malkin's post (she's a power-player), or John Hawkins' (no slouch himself), or that he's just too "above" disproving a serious charge made against him on some sort of "I'm beneath that" principle.
I also seem to have missed Instapundit rushing to Sullivan's defense. If big bloggers really require such costly bandwidth, Insta-man would know.
Nevertheless, to be fair to Sullivan, I think we should email him (andrewmsullivan@aol.com) queries about his extraodinarily pricey bandwidth, and see what he might say about it. Those of you particularly concerned about Sullivan's dire financial predicament might want to send him along URL's from which he can purchase much cheaper bandwidth.
Seems to me that that would be an in-kind sort of donation that he would greatly appreciate, since you'd be saving him about $100K. Saving $100K is just as good as making it. I think it might even be fair to write "DONATION" in the subject line of such an email.
Thanks to Allah for pointing me towards Hawkins' take-down on Sullivan's claims of increasing traffic.
And Just to Clarify, Again: I've got no beef with Sullivan for trolling for donations. I'm about to execute a hoagie over donations, personally.
It's the dishonesty of the appeal that I object to. His traffic isn't rising, his bandwidth costs aren't rising, and furthermore they're fairly small costs in any event. It is dishonest for him to claim that these costs are coming out of his own pocket when he last made $120,000 in a pledge drive. He might want more money -- which I can understand -- but it's a lie to frame this as some sort of "need" in order to pay the basic costs of his shoestring operation.
PS: Please send me money. As you are aware, the costs of producing semi-colons have risen in recent months, due to increased fuel costs and labor interruptions in Malaysia (the world's largest semi-colon-exporting nations).
Now look. I try to provide a good site for my readers. And I try to provide the best, most accurate punctuation possible. But with semi-colons now costing more than ever, I'm afraid that unless I'm able to shake you folks down for additional cash I'm going to have stop using semi-colons entirely, perhaps replacing them with the amatuerish short-dash ("-": the Pabst Blue Ribbon of punctuation) or maybe some low-quality "factory irregular" ampersands that look like a cross between a percent-symbol and a testicle.
You want this site to continue with the same high-quality and varied punctuation you've come to expect? Then fork over the greenbacks. Right now I'm paying for my semi-colons out of my own pocket, and that's just not American.