An answer to your question lawhawk
Charles is the one who started the vicious attacks on people who used to be his friends. Charles went from being a voice of reason to being a pale version of The Daily Kos. It is his rampant hypocrisy that is both so fascinating and repellent. Try telling Charles that you think that Global Warming is bunk or that you cannot recall the last time that Christian fundamentalists crashed airplanes into buildings!
168 lawhawk Fri, Sep 24, 2010 1:22:40pm re: #145 marjoriemoon
That’s just it – it’s Charles’ blog and we just post here. If someone doesn’t like what Charles posts or the slant of his postings, they’re free to go elsewhere. No one is keeping them here.
I just don’t get why people have to go out in a blaze of glory. I guess they need their egos stroked or something.
Fixating on a blog or anyone like this just can’t be healthy.
Stalker blogs? The amount of energy devoted to that kind of thing is just astounding. There are far more constructive things to spend your time on. There are real issues that need addressing. Try focusing on ‘em.
I don’t agree with all of Charles’ posts or every topic he chooses to post. I don’t come out and actively demand changes in Charles’ posts or slogging off in a huff because this is what Charles believes. I don’t demand that Charles posts more on X because that’s what he used to do. Heck, Charles used to spend quite a bit of time posting on cycling. He adapted and changed the blog to meet his changing interests and focuses.
Maybe more people should adapt and change instead of demanding the same. Besides, it isn’t like Charles isn’t already providing one-stop shopping for those other issues – the spinoffs and featured pages enable anyone to blog and start the conversation on their own.
And I really don’t understand the personal antagonism towards Charles – that visceral hatred. I really don’t. Folks just need to chill.
I’m disappointed with him and don’t feel like I know him anymore.
Hey lawhawk? http://www.quantcast.com/littlegreenfootballs.com#traffic
Heal thy self, lawhawk. You post on a blog that “stalks” Sarah Palin fer bob’s sake.
Oh, and try to post something in those spinoff links or featured pages that is not lizard approved and see how fast you last. Not quite what I would call starting your own conversation.
Ya wimp.
If Lawhawk thinks we are fixated on CJ and don’t devote attention to “far more constructive things” – this shows that he doesn’t actually read the multitudes of articles on 2.0: The Blogmocracy and on the other blogs that Blogmocracy members frequent.
I am quite an active blogger myself; it’s been a loooong time since I’ve blogged about CJ on 1389 Blog – it’s a big world out there and there’s plenty else to talk about. I just drop in here from time to time for a good laugh.
Lawhawk? I can talk to Guggi and I can talk to m. You can’t. ‘nough said.
~:D
/the check is in the mail!
Maybe we can talk about this puzzlement of yours after you explain CJ’s fixation on Pam Geller and Sarah Palin.
I can’t say I ever knew Lawhawk, but I felt likehe was a smart guy. This guy sounds like a groupie, more than anything else. Dude, do you have any political beliefs of your own? Any principles that you hold dear? I have to guess not. Otherwise, if Charles was on your side of that issue two years ago, he isn’t anymore. Wow.
“And I really don’t understand the personal antagonism towards Charles – that visceral hatred. I really don’t.”
But you apparently DO understand the visceral hatred Charles has towards such obviously decent souls as Song&Dance Man (“fascist-sympathizing freak”) or buzzsawmonkey (“evil-minded misogynist,”) just to name two. You DO understand the petty viciousness that moved Charles to decry the likes of mama winger, goddess of the classroom, and little old lady — none of whom “flounced,” BTW— as worthless
garbage. THAT you understand.
Who knows, maybe Lawhawk had a mild criticism of Charles for stuff like that in his original post and then it got ‘edited’ out by li’l stalin the revisionist blogtator. Stuff like that happens at Little Green Palimpsest.
Editing comments was pioneered at Realclimate. Of course, Chuck’s going to steal that.
“Stalker blogs? The amount of energy devoted to that kind of thing is just astounding.”
How would you know that?
Do you yourself stalk the “stalker blogs?”
Or do you simply rely on Charles’s constant babbling about what is going on, that is, on his continuous stalking of “stalker blogs?”
and yet, the fact that R3ggIe is constantly watching this site is not stalking?
Lawhawk, if you’re reading, let’s examine your two important points.
1 – “That’s just it – it’s Charles’ blog and we just post here. If someone doesn’t like what Charles posts or the slant of his postings, they’re free to go elsewhere. No one is keeping them here.”
Exactly correct … as far as you go. But there’s a bit more.
The type of blog that LGF was (in 2006, when I registered), was political, and clearly and publicly Right Wing / Conservative / Capitalist / … ; not Left Wing / Socialist / whatever.
Everyone who “registered” knew this. Remember registration? It was a public event. Everyone who registered was essentially invited in. As long as they played nice and remembered the rules, everything would be “groovy” …
What model did LGF fit: “living room in a private home”, or “bar / lounge / club”? Since the LGF threads are publicly visible, and registration was in fact an invitation to The Public to enter, “bar / lounge / club” fits better than “living room.
I suppose we all know how bars / lounges / clubs work; there are disagreements, even fights. Some people get tossed out for bad behavior by Management / the patrons, but usually not by Management for voicing opposing viewpoints.
2 – “I just don’t get why people have to go out in a blaze of glory. I guess they need their egos stroked or something.
Fixating on a blog or anyone like this just can’t be healthy.”
Again, expecting people, invited into one’s home, to behave accordingly, as a guest in a private home, is reasonable. But holding commenters on a blog to the same rules? Given LGF’s Rules, comments and conduct between 2002 and, say, September 2007?
Let’s be intellectually honest; few, if any, of the commenters listed on Nodrog’s list or Kirly’s list would have remained as commenters at LGF had they realized that they were expected to behave as guests in a private home would. I would have never registered, and my guess is that few others would have.
Before you retort with something like “I’m talking about people, not nics”, re-read your words: “I just don’t get why people …”. You, too, see these nics as proper names with all the usual implications, not some throw-away handle or sock-puppet.
Nics have become an extension of The Person. A lot of commenters built up a lot of recognition, credibility, respect, etc., under their nic. Sort of like journalists used to, and lawyers try to. Many commenters use the same nic on different blogs, and are recognized and treated accordingly. Insulting their nic is just like insulting them to their face. Many of the better-known nics aren’t anonymous, at least not anymore; an unfortunate side effect of “meet-ups” and making the mistake of ordering merchandise.
Lawhawk, how do you respond when insulted, ridiculed, etc.? When in the home of someone else, that you don’t know particularly well, do you leave, immediately? Most do.
Now, how about in a bar or club? Yeah, a bar or club is real different.
Notice the parallel to real life?
Let’s put the puzzle together.
Larches represented LGF in a certain way, and just about everyone understood and agreed (including Larches himself).
But in late-2007 Larches did, effectively, a 180degree political turn. And suddenly, disagreement with Larches (or certain other commenters), was cause for being banned. We all know this; it’s public knowledge and there’s plenty of public data.
When a bar changes themes, or a radio station changes music selection, there’s usually some sort of notice. PATRONS are inconvenienced, maybe annoyed, but adapt or move on. No one gets hurt.
Where was the notice at LGF, the thread titled:
“My political views have changed. Drastically. About 180 Degrees. Also, I Expect All Commenters to Comport Themselves as Though They Are Having Afternoon Tea in MY Living Room, and Comment Accordingly. Or Leave.”
There seems to be no such thread.
LGF looks like a setup. Maybe it wasn’t intended, maybe the change was not thought out, maybe the whole situation was just unfortunate, maybe ……
However, many commenters were publicly insulted, and held up to public scorn and ridicule, i.e., banned.
“And I really don’t understand the personal antagonism towards Charles – that visceral hatred. I really don’t.”
Really?
Lawhawk, I have always had respect for you. It is obvious you are intellectually bright, and hold your own in almost any topic of conversation.
My attitude was the same at one point as well. The only problem being, it is one thing to change course such as topics of discussion, or to persuade the tone, etc.
Charles has gone out of his way to smear people. Politics has always been nasty, and always will be. At one point in time, you had massive debunking skills, and could fact check people’s ass with the best of them. There was an honesty to the focus of the blog.
Now, and I mean this, you are a party to someone who revises his own blog history, only admitting to it when his is caught. He has allowed his own people to go shit on other blogs, but threaten banishment to anyone doing it on his. Has tolerated outing people, and has told adults who have accounts at his place where they are allowed to go, or suffer losing their account.
Lawhawk, you are too fucking bright to be wasting your time there. What has to happen before you finally decide enough is enough? The latest whitewashing attempt for the muslim brotherhood? Go back 5 years and see the investigative work done on that group, and the stealth jihad, with what I would imagine a fair amount of posts by you. Wait, you might not be able to. It might not be there anymore.
That should be enough right there.
Agreed, but one point. He didn’t just “tolerate” outing people. He did it himself. Before anyone even thought of doing that. He thought he could intimidate us into shutting up.
First he said upfront that he wasn’t going to allow us to talk about him anonymously (such a vindictive, petty, whiney little bitch isn’t he?), and later he claimed he only posted the names of people that threatened him which is a flat out lie.
He was trying to squash dissent. All he did was strengthen my resolve.
Lots of people who are too poor for a lawyer gets the likes of Lawhawk and they are up the creek without a paddle. Lawyer my ass. Passing the law exam does not mean you don’t lack reasoning and it does not mean you are not a weak,pathetic boy under the desk.
it was my understanding that lawhawk is his attorney
As a fellow attorney of some 25 years experience, it is my considered opinion that Lawhawk, based on his pallid defense of one Chunky The Wonder Manque, would not make the cut for the “Dream Team.”
I didn’t know him in the “Before-Time,” not that I recall. I was away from LGF for several years after my first banning, and didn’t return until I had heard all hell was breaking loose and Chunk was banning everyone who burped. Anyone who stands with the deluded, paranoid, misinformed, petty, nasty individual who is running that blog into the ground presently is not tracking too well. If you don’t think nominally-intelligent lawyers can become weak excuses for human beings, you need to catch up on your newspaper reading.
Lawhawk used to hold his own. He always had factual based retort, and rationale debate. He would not get excited, but also would cut through the bullshit. Why he decided to do this, I don’t know. It is beyond reason.
I agree that LGF very likely was a setup from the get-go. I had CJ figured out as a traitor back in 2007. The signs were already there.
Slight clarification; my words “LGF looks like a setup.” didn’t quite retain their intended contextual meaning.
LGF may indeed have been intended as a setup from the beginning (2001?), but I think it unlikely. But by Summer 2007 … well, 1389AD has a point …
My intent at the time of writing was to show that the sequence of events, and the way Larches handled them / allowed them to happen, gives the appearance of a setup.
And perhaps not a well-contrived and cunning plan, to perhaps gain public support for some later political whackiness (see “Global Warming c. 2010″, “C&T”, “ObamaCare”, Passing Bills Just So We Can See What’s In Them, Every Single Bailout Since 21 Jan 2009, etc.), but rather a small, opportunistic “Screw-em”.
There’s a rumor it was for money, which apparently is not forthcoming (and looks like it never will be … bad ratings).
I don’t see this sort of shabbiness being planned, and certainly not intended or desired by Larches & minions. Just about anyone could do much better, but 1389AD has a point. Or two.
Who can explain the decisions and inner workings of LGF 2007-2010?
Perhaps Mandy …… no, she was banned recently; an un-permitted downding, IIRC.
Cato. Yes; Cato the Elder …… no, file Cato under the epitaph “Do It.”
Who then?
I doubt this topic will receive mention at LGF, or even that one of the real heavyweight commenters at LGF will respond.
It seems that permission is needed for a 2010 Lizard to comment at any blog not on the approved list …… well, except for certain Lizards … First Among Equals, The ‘Leet Ones, The Ones allowed to wear the boots, tights, utility belt, cape, mullet and ‘stache in Mom’s basement, but only in sekret (i.e., keep the Cheeto-munching quiet, and wash-up when you’re done).
It seems that life has come full-circle for LGF Lizards. Where once Truths that The MSM Forbade Could Be Spoken, and The MSM feared and hated you for it, now there is only The Approved Message and Supporting Truths.
Congratulations. You are again voiceless.