The GoV campaign of personal destruction continues
To those who are understandably repelled by this GoV situation and who think I should stay above the fray and ignore the attacks on me, I ask that you actually read what is being said about me at the GoV thread discussed below. The latest group attack on me at Gates of Vienna concerns the charge that I quoted an e-mail from Baron Bodissey, and that this was a terrible thing to do, justifying other people’s treating me in kind or worse. I’ve become virtually an enemy of society. Fact: In the brief e-mail from Bodissey that I quoted, he was doing nothing more than explaining the rules of his website, the parameters of what he regards as acceptable and un-acceptable comments. There was nothing of a private nature about it. It involved no personal communication. By quoting it I was revealing no confidences. Bodissey was writing as the host of a weblog explaining the rules of his weblog. The same information could have, and doubtless has been, posted publicly at GoV. Yet the fact that I posted this non-private information is now being used by the GoV group as further ammunition in the war against me. Several commenters, including Bodissey, Conservative Swede, and Henrik Clausen go on about it at length Thus Henrik Clausen writes:
Now, I don’t know Auster from much except what has been going down here. [Nice. Solely on the basis of what’s being said by a group of people ganged up against me, he forms his opinions of me!]The truth, again, is that I quoted an e-mail from Bodissey of an impersonal nature having to do with his guidelines for comments at his website, yet this is now translated into: I publish whatever I like! Further, Clausen plainly suggests, since I don’t subject myself to ethical limits in my dealings with other people, other people don’t have to subject themselves to ethical limits in their dealings with me. Then, inevitably, the issue of my horrible mistreatment of Robert Spencer is brought up again. Clausen accuses me of posting private e-mails from Robert Spencer, at this VFR thread. Since Clausen is a fair-minded man, he might want to know that when I have posted Spencer’s e-mails at VFR over the last two years, that has been with Spencer’s full foreknowledge. As I’ve explained in detail here, after Spencer sent me an e-mail accusing me of “calumny” for a simple descriptive statement of his position, and after he repeated the “calumny” charge when I asked him if he was serious, I told him that I would have no further e-mail correspondence with him. I told him that if he sent e-mails to me, I would post and reply to them publicly at my site. That way, his charges against me would have to be made in the full light of day. I stated this to Spencer, and explained the same publicly almost two years ago. Spencer has known during this period that when he sends me e-mails, they may be posted, just as other VFR readers’ comments are posted. Conservative Swede also points to a VFR thread in which I quoted Spencer’s e-mails. Swede apparently doesn’t notice that at the beginning of that same thread, I once again explain what I explained here, that Spencer knows that I will post and reply to his e-mails publicly at my site. Also, in the same GoV thread, Paulsen writes:
Going to read the Auster post, I find this: And Paulsen then proceeds to condemn me harshly for saying it. But I did not say it . A commenter at VFR said it. If had looked over that comment more carefully before posting, I would noticed the extreme language and would have softened or deleted it. Obviously it does not reflect my views. Clausen’s statement that the comment as by me, is as false and damaging as Bodissey’s saying that my “complete cranks” remark was directed at all GoV commenters, when in reality it was directed at a group of three or four persons.
It was Adela G. who had written the “nest of whacked out liberals” comment, and I asked her if she would like to post at GoV explaining that I did not say it. Adela G. replies:
OK. I’ll try. I say “try” because since I last posted at GoV, I’ve been barred from even registering to post at another political blog. I have no idea why. My “nest of whacked out liberals” comment is the worst thing I’ve ever submitted to any blog.LA replies:
Thanks for reminding me of that. The people I called complete cranks were a group of people who were acting in full concert with the commenter “awake,” and who had no problem with his statement that I have been carrying out a “holocaust” of Robert Spencer.Adela G. writes:
You wrote:Gintas writes:
I’ve deleted my bookmark to Gates of Vienna. I have better ways of wasting time. Telling the truth there is just throwing pearls before swine. Now, if they were really swine, that would increase the chances of chasing Islam out of Europe.Gintas continues:
Not that I’m criticizing your initial engagement over there, you had to find out.posted August 5 LA writes to Adela:
I went to the GoV thread and your comment is not there. However, they discuss the exchange between you and me in this entry where I asked you to post there, and the mania of “awake” is shown in the way he deeply analyzes the most innocent, ordinary statements of yours about your intention to post a comment at GoV, in order to show how how off-the-wall and dishonest VFR is. It’s as though you said, “My husband and I are taking off for a vacation,” and “awake” said, “See? This proves these people are liars.”Adela writes:
I know. And because I was distressed that you took the heat for my intemperate remark, I’m your “loyal servant.” I’m surprised that doesn’t make me your lizard.LA replies:
But do you really think that a blog editor posting a comment from a regular commenter that begins, “I don’t agree,” is worth mentioning? Does that mere fact show that I’m not a tyrant etc.? The implication is that if I’m anything short of an absolute tyrant (i.e., short of someone who refuses to post a comment that says “I don’t agree with you”), then I’m open, non-cultish, etc. It’s like saying, “Auster doesn’t shoot people in the street; that shows he’s a regular guy.”Gintas writes:
That’s funny, I don’t normally associate LGF with the sayings of Jesus.LA replies:
Yes, quite right. It’s incomprehensible why they would find the “pearls before swine” allusion LGF-like (LGF-like meaning a mob-like campaign of personal smearing). Could it be that they are so overwrought that think that you, by quoting “pearls before swine,” were saying that they are swine? Are their minds are so blinded by animus that they are incapable of understanding a metaphor as a metaphor, even one of the most famous metaphors in our civilization? But then in the next sentence you said that they are not swine, and you express the wish that they were swine, so as to chase the Muslims out of Europe.. So, again, it’s hard to see any basis for Bodissey’s comparison of the exchange to an LGF thread, other than sheer animus.Steve R. writes:
Baron Bodissey: “Sometimes the best ideas come from the threads that are just a little bit edgy and over the top.”LA replies: Yes, I was addressing the host of that site questioning why certain types of comments were being allowed there, and he gave his reasons, and I quoted him. Now the GoV group treat that as a horrible violation of privacy.A reader writes:
There is not much I can add in your support that others have not already said. But I have removed Gates of Vienna from my blogroll. I am sad to feel the need to do so, because the site started well, has published worthwhile stuff, and I expect it will continue to from time to time. But this latest flap has convinced me it has attracted too many flaming nutters to be good for the anti-Islamist cause. GoV isn’t as depraved as LGF, but appears like it might be headed that way.LA replies:
“They are probably less numerous and outspoken than they used to be,”Adela replies to LA:
You write: “But do you really think that a blog editor posting a comment from a regular commenter that begins, ‘I don’t agree,’ is worth mentioning?” Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 04, 2008 06:45 PM | Send Email entry |