Ken Layne: Under No Circumstances Will I Ever Delete That Post
Ken Layne, Take Two: That Post Has Been Deleted. Our Apologies For The Oversight.

From Tommy Christopher -- here is Ken Layne's response to his question about taking that post down.

As for taking down the post, as you know on the internet there is no “taking down the post.” Why even try that? So people like you can get another freelance internet column out of it by feigning outrage again?

Note he only thinks about taking the post down in terms of how he benefits from such an action. His belief is that the move only makes sense if it can get him out of trouble -- not if it's the right thing to do to apologize and demonstrate that by confessing error through a deletion.

And of course he insists that any and all outrage is of the "feigned" type.

In a different section of the letter, Layne tells us the obvious -- he's doing this crap expressly to outrage people and get hits. So what is his claim about "feigned outrage"?

I have been editing and writing for political satire websites for 15 years, including on AOL where not a single AOL subscriber ever had *any idea* what I was doing and the whole point was to drum up as many insane comments as possible. People are going to act outraged about things on the internet.

So why is the outrage which you deliberately provoke "feigned"? Seems, asshole, like you're attempting to provoke real outrage. And you know it.

But of course you can't credit the people you're trying to upset as being upset do to your deliberate attempts to upset them -- that would suggest that the fault likes with you, asshole, rather with them, and we can't have that.

So outrage is either feigned or real depending on what Ken Layne needs it to be this second.

Continuing with his poor-me crap about deleting the post not helping him:

(“They tried to take down the post, but we found it on Google cache!”) There is nothing in “political media” approaching even the most basic intellectual honesty, so why would any website fall for that “You should take down the post” thing? Wouldn’t that be crazy? So of course you never take down a post. But in this case, like all such cases over the decades, you sometimes put a note on the post apologizing for offending anyone, and making it clear that your target is Sarah Palin, an empty grifter and dollar-chaser and tabloid-fame monster with a delusional following of poor white people who somehow think her interests converge in any way with their interests. It is certainly not about her innocent child.

Please don't click over there, but that post now reads:

Rude Post Deleted By Editor; Author Apologizes

By ADMIN
9:17 PM APRIL 18, 2011
NO COMMENTS 106 VIEWS

A post on this page satirizing Sarah Palin using her baby as a political prop was very badly done and sounded like the author was mocking the child and not just Sarah Palin/Sarah Palin’s followers.

The writer, Jack Stuef, has apologized for it. And we have decided to remove the post as requested by some people who have nothing to do with Sarah Palin, but who do have an interest in the cause of special needs children. We apologize for the poor comedic judgment.

If Jack Stuef is apologizing, why was this done against his will? Note that the author of this post is not Stuef, offering an apology, but "ADMIN," telling us Stuef is sorry.

And the ADMIN, Ken Layne, sure didn't sound very sorry a few hours ago.

posted by Ace at 03:05 PM

| Access Comments