GG posted the whole e-mail, linked to it, and called attention to the link. He responded to all of Boylan's "claims," including the ones you bolded. Did you even read GG's post?
Yes, except Greenwald printed the whole thing, just like you did here.
What a fucking dick.
Is your IQ 40?
Your lying and mendacity know no bounds. Glen Greenwald published the whole email, as noted above. However, I don't think it's because you're stupid (although you probably are). It's because you are lying, slanderous, evil person.
Nice job. Are you sure GG isn't hiding anything else?
So, are you going to apologize?
YEah, those "redacted" passages are sure exculpatory. What dumba$$. I love it! LOL!
"Below is what Greenwald claims is the full text of the email."
Except that, you know, he didn't claim anything of the sort. He explicitly said just the opposite.
God, you're dumb.
Apparently, DP doesn't know the meaning of the words, "The subject line of the email -- which I am publishing in full, unedited form here ..."
What a moron.
When are you going to apologize for smearing GG? He did include the entire text of the Boylan messge in his post. You should either 1)admit you made a mistake and apologize, or 2)admit you lied and apologize...
What cracks me up is that you're probably one of those idiots who applauds "For Service SPEAK ENGLISH" signs, while clearly being unable to read English yourself. 
You're embarrassed and humiliated, right?
wow.
dumb as a post.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."
John Stuart Mill
...
Don't be surprised when you turn up as someone's wanker of the day. Dumb ass.
Wow, Dread, you are one certifiable idiot! Learn to read, why don't you, before you embarass yourself any further.
Shot in the foot with your own smoking gun.
..."For Service SPEAK ENGLISH"...
Good point.
OTH, based on this post, I'd love to hear The Dread Pundit Bluto go on about almost anything because good comedy is rare in politics and Bluto has a deft touch.
Thanks, I had thought I was having a miserable fucked myself in my own asshole kind of day.
Welcome, everyone, and a big thank you to Br'er Fox for throwing me into that berry patch.
Be sure to review Glenn's correspondence with me, posted above.
To answer the question about why I requested that Glenn forward me the email; I wanted to give Glenn fair warning. A hit from Rio de Janeiro confirmed that he had read my first post.
Now some of you are going to be uncomfortable here, as I have little patience with fools. For you, may I suggest you visit someplace more in tune with your intellectual abilities? Here's one: smellypoop.com
tap tap tap!
You are a total fucking lying slanderous idiot, and as such you are a poster-boy for right-wing bloggers. Glen Greenwald did post the entire e-mail on his site, you ignorant fucking uneducated loser.
Why don't you just sit down and shut up and quit making a total fucking fool of yourself.
B-man: why don't you go to the Salon article that is linked here, read it, then slink away. Or, if you're a man, I'll accept your apology.
Your correspondence with Greenwald is even weirder than your original BREAKING BREAKING MUST CREDIT BLUTO DRUDGE SIREN CITIZEN JOURNALIST LOOK LOOK post.
You wrote:
The parts that Greenwald chose not to publish tend to contradict his characterization of the email as "bizarre" and "unsolicited".
He published the entire email. You got it wrong, you're backtracking, you're parsing. The intellectually honest thing to do here would be to just say you screwed up and didn't realize Greenwald had already published the email in it's entirety.
Arrrgh! Is it Talk Like a Pirate Day, matey?
You really are an ignorant fucking asshole, Dread, even for a rightwinger.
Never heard of this blog before. Hope to never again.
For you, may I suggest you visit someplace more in tune with your intellectual abilities? Here's one: smellypoop.com
I overestimated when I guessed an IQ of 40, apparently.
Not to mention an emotional age of, what, 4?
"Welcome, everyone, and a big thank you to Br'er Fox for throwing me into that berry [sic] patch....To answer the question about why I requested that Glenn forward me the email; I wanted to give Glenn fair warning."
LOL. Did you and Boylan take the same course in lying utterly unconvincingly when busted? Boys, the best thing to do when you've gotten yourself into a hole this deep is to stop digging.
u commie LIEberal traytors go home!!!!!george bush is the best persidentAmerica ever hat!!!!!!
"It's because you are lying, slanderous, evil person."
Er uh in print it's libel. Idiots.
Dammit Bluto, I wanted to be the "lying, slanderous, evil person."
sigh! always a bridesmaid.
Hey, look at the traffic! Cool beans.
Um, Br'er Fox threw Br'er Rabbit into the briar patch, not the berry patch.
Can you get nothing right?
And "Dread Pirate Bluto"? Jebus.
This is definitely better than Colbert. Hys. Ter. I. Cal.
Honestly, I'm having a hard time remembering why anyone ever took these guys seriously...
'Scuse me, I misread -- that's "Dread Pundit Bluto". Much more cheetolicious.
"Hey, look at the traffic! Cool beans."
Isn't it great? Bluto's 15 minutes of fame, now playing under the merciless floodlight of unmitigated worldwide humiliation.
hahaha - self-pwn.
Gosh, Bombadil, can't you read English? 
Somebody please pass the popcorn, extra butter!
Our host writes "I hope the Colonel did write it, and, if he did, that he gets a commendation for it."
The dream of the denizens of Greater Wingnuttia -- that someone will get a commendation for writing something uncivil to or about Glenn Greenwald. They can all hold out out hope that one day, they too will be able to have Somone in Authority pin a medal to their pajamas.
Um ... ? First sentence of Glenn's original post:
"I received this morning an unsolicited email from Col. Steven A. Boylan, the Public Affairs Officer and personal spokesman for Gen. David G. Petraeus (see UPDATE III below). The subject line of the email -- ******which I am publishing in full, unedited form here****** -- is 'The growing link between the U.S. military and right-wing media and blogs,' which is the title of the post I wrote earlier this week regarding the politicization of the Army in Iraq, as evidenced by its constant coordination with, and leaking to, the likes of Matt Drudge, The Weekly Standard, and the most extremist right-wing blogs -- in the TNR/Beauchamp case and also more generally."
Emphasis added. Nitwit.
u commie LIEberal traytors go home!!!!!george bush is the best persidentAmerica ever hat!!!!!!
Lord SCATula, Lord & Tyrant
Don't make fun of him!! Lord Spatula will kick your rolling pins out from under you and make you walk the cutting board with a sharp kitchen utensil!
Given all that's transpired, perhaps Our Host should rethink who gets the "Whiniest Little Snot of the Day Award" from yesterday, and keep it for himself. I believe a recount is in order.
Heh, for once I actually read GG's post on this one. Rusty's right he ripped him a new one. And glen did actually leave portions of the email out. Of course he posted the source but the front page of the article gives the wrong impression unless you really dig down deep into it. It had er uh "truthiness." All you had to do was keep interest long enough follow every link and real all the disclaimers.
It seems to me that Glen Greenwald's reaction to the email says it all. Only the truth can hurt you like that.
I do read his stuff once in a while Glen went to the Robert Reich school of writing. State four agreeable facts, then twist hard.
He just gets upset when anyone else does that.
...I wanted to give Glenn fair warning...
Brilliant!
Blutto: no comprende English? Or are you really this dishonest and stupid?
Hey, Jawa Correspondent Howie !
Great video of you and Rusty here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3...h?
v=3GJOVPjhXMY
Three cheers for this colonel if the email is really his. Your post sure has necessitated a host of updates at Greenwald's original post.
Benazhir Blutto?
Let me put this in a language you can understand:
You make stupid.
One more thing - the fact that you have to rely on moronic dumbassery like this to drive traffic to your site is pathetic.
I can decide who is the bigger idiot -- Bluto or Jawa Correspondent Howie:
And glen did actually leave portions of the email out. Of course he posted the source but the front page of the article gives the wrong impression unless you really dig down deep into it.
The second line of Greenwald's post:
The subject line of the email -- which I am publishing in full, unedited form here -...
"Dig deep" must mean actually reading the post, and then clicking the link to the entire email.
Jawa wins the moron contest.
Um, of all the updates to Greenwald's original post, exactly none of them has anything to do with Dread Pootie Blotto's post.
However, the title of Greenwald's follow up post ("Abject stupidity defined") fits Our Host to a T.
the front page of the article gives the wrong impression unless you really dig down deep into it.
wait, clicking the very descriptive link in the second sentence of the blog post is "digging deep" to you?
is this why the job at the funeral home didn't work out?
To new readers of DPB--if you are waiting for him to admit an error, a mistake, or even changing his mind--don't hold your breath. He's stated in the past that liberal bias in the media is worse than slavery ever was, among other afactual and ridiculous assertions. DPB's modus operendi is to repeat an error, with abusive commentary. He never retreats, because if he once admitted a mistake, his worldview would crumble. Remind you of anyone?
What is so funny is that he doesn't realize that really smart people are willing to admit fallibility, willing to reconsider positions. As Plato puts in Socrates mouth: the wise man is he that knows how little he knows. By that standard, DPB can be harshly judged. He literally has no idea how dumb he appears. It makes his postings comedic in unintentional ways.
I'm no spring chicken, but after all these years of seeing a bunch, I didn't think it was possible to be as publicly stupid as the asswipe blogger who posted this.
I overestimated when I guessed an IQ of 40, apparently.
Not to mention an emotional age of, what, 4?
Cole Sear | 10.29.07 - 3:03 pm |
Cole,
I know you are taking a shot but, in all seriousness, when I see something like this it makes me wonder if this Bluto person isn't actually a bit mentally retarded. I feel bad enough for most wingnuts as it is but I would really feel bad if we were lowering the boom on someone with real mental problems. This may not be the case but I am having trouble believing any mentally competent person would post something like this.
I mean I know wingnuts are less intelligent as a rule but this is way beyond your average dumbass Malkin situation.
Mwhahahahaha
What a fucking idiot.
Ok... What part of "-- which I am publishing in full, unedited form here --" don't you understand?
He published the full-UNEDITED email as stated in the 2nd sentence of the first paragraph.
Greenwald published the full-UNEDITED email as stated in the 2nd sentence of the first paragraph.
What part of: -- which I am publishing in full, unedited form here -- is " do you not understand?
What part of: -- which I am publishing in full, unedited form here -- is " do you not understand.
A HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Oh, don't worry--DPB isn't RETARDED! Willfully stupid as the situation requires, but he's fully capable of average intellectual accomplishments. On topics he has more than normal knowledge, such as TSA procedures, he can be quite insightful. But he's as stupid as he needs to be to keep pretending he's always right. It's like Boylan--Glenn says, hey, this hack from Cheney came out to Iraq and advised them on how to do communications. Boylan says--he's not here now, you moron! Do some research! But Glenn never said he was there NOW. He said he had been there. So Boylan pretends to be dumb, pretends it so that it appears, to a dumb reader, that he has refuted Glenn. DPB is smart enough to realize this isn't shoddy research, but that's what he calls it.
You see how it works? DPB isn't THAT stupid--he's just stupid enough to think we don't see through this.
Did you even *have* any credibility before this? 'Cuz you don't now. Thickhead.
How many of you lefties read both articles? Hmmmm? Seriously, it's not the link in question. It's the difference of how they read. It's amazing that all of you are droning on about how stupid Bluto is because (you say) he missed a link, when that is not what he was posting about in the first place...
Slow day on the 9/11 conspiracy blogs?
You have been entered into the illustrious annals of the Execrable Blog Detector. You have joined a select but rapidly growing group known for their rank stupidity, envy, illiteracy, and bigotry. Your utter lack of reading skills gives you a special place among our membership. We congratulate you for being an exemplary cautionary tale for our nation's youth.
Wow, DPB... Looks like you stirred up a nest of retarded wasps! If the libtards are jumping in this with cries of "LINK! CHECK THE LIIIIIINK!!! WAAAAAHHH", you just know they're agitated from all their recent humiliations.
I'd check the IP's of all the commentors...they may all belong to the same person...
Nah, people don't do that.
Of course he posted the source but the front page of the article gives the wrong impression unless you really dig down deep into it.
Ha ha ha ha. This is too ridiculous. WHat exactly to the "censored" passages do to further your argument anyway, dummy?
I'm bookmarking this site. It's almost better than Newsbusters and Gathering of Eagles!
How many of you lefties read both articles? Hmmmm?
Yeah, everyone who makes fun of idiots is a "lefty". That's some shit to get on an old-school conservative's nerves.
I read all articles relevant to this I could find, and most of the comments attached. I had to "dig deep", because the articles were CLEVERLY HIDDEN behind "hyperlinks" (this is hacker talk for blue words you can click). The LIBTARDS tried to keep the TROOF from me, but I was able to DECODE their SEKRIT MESSAGES!
...and it turns out Bluto's tarded.
So let me get this straight.
Greenwald can't reprint excerpts for discussion UNLESS he first prints the ENTIRE ORIGINAL in the SAME POST.
Is that the rule that YOU follow? You don't post an excerpt of ANY article, post, diary, etc. unless you have FIRST fully published (and not by link, but by posting the FULL TEXT) of the source material?
.
Comparing Dread Dumbnuts' blog to Glenn Greenwald's is like comparing the crayon scrawl of a 5-year-old to a Picasso. Except a 5-year-old could probably discern the difference.
But, hey, thanks! – these comments entertained me while I was eating my sandwich.
I'd check the IP's of all the commentors...they may all belong to the same person...
shit, son, you ALL BELONG TO ME NOW! with my leeto hacking skills that can uncover BURIED INFOES hidden behind CRYPTOLINKS, soon everyone in the whole world will have MY IP! hahahahahaha!
How many of you lefties read both articles? Hmmmm? Seriously, it's not the link in question. It's the difference of how they read. It's amazing that all of you are droning on about how stupid Bluto is because (you say) he missed a link, when that is not what he was posting about in the first place...
Slow day on the 9/11 conspiracy blogs?
Ron | 10.29.07 - 4:10 pm |
Wingnuts are seriously the most dishonest group of people on the planet.
They are precisely who Scott Peck was referring to when he wrote People of the Lie. It is scary to see them in action.
.
So why not just post the whole email? Oh year I forgot. He got his ass handed to him.
See when you read a liberal blog you must read every link. He doesn't say.
this orignal is way different than what I have here. Just here is the source.
We post the source to back up our post. Glen G posted the source, but his post, besides sucking, is still decepetive. True he did provide the source, but the post does not suggest that it differs substantially from the assertions he made.
He counts on the reader to be lazy. Personally I enjoyed the post. It was nice seeing his squirm over nothing.
If anyone else had written the same thing he would have ignored it. But he never passes a chance that he might get a military man in trouble, whihc is his obvious intent.
Dread Pundit,
You need to offer an apology and retraction.
As many others have pointed out, Greenwald was perfectly upfront about what he was printing in that entry, explaining that the quotes were "multiple passages."
He also linked to the full text of the colonel's e-mail.
The "mischaracterizations" are coming from you. Is it irony or hypocrisy?
But he never passes a chance that he might get a military man in trouble, whihc is his obvious intent.
attenshun sir, you appear to be operating the internet while well over the legal dumbness limit. Please exit the computer-y place in an orderly fashion and ask the kid next door to work your machines for you from now on. Prepare to be blackmailed by him if you have naughty pr0ns.
Dude, you totally fail.
Give up this blogging thing now, man. This is, like, "Red means go, green means stop" territory.
"self-pwned." Hilarious. I'm keeping that.
Unfortunatly, this idiotic post is now swirling through the rightwing internet faster that tough-actic'-Tinactin.
And as we've seen in the past lies become truth in the Republicofascist world.
A full apology is needed. Immediately.
Did you suffer a brain fart?
You wrote:
"Below is what Greenwald claims is the full text of the email."
That is quite simply a lie.
And to cover your stupidity you can only think to tell yet more lies.
Just like Boylan.
So Republican!
Man, you are stupid.
Bluto, read this aloud at your earliest convenience:
"I am sofa king we todd did."
Just keep saying that to yourself over and over. Trust me on this.
this orignal is way different
How? How do the bolded portions in any way address Glenn's points about the email?
the post does not suggest that it differs substantially
Again, how? Exactly how is it "decepetive," whatever that means? Even having moved the goalposts ("True he did provide the source..."), your objections literally make no sense.
Bluto is a fred thompson supporter. Need we say more? Hahahahahahaha! 'Tard!
Dread Pundit,
You need to offer an apology and retraction.
Have we learned NOTHING in the past six+ years?
"Conservatives" and other dead-end 29 percenters never apologize, and never retract.
They just press on with the lies, smears, and propping up of their fella, George Bush.
Bluto is a fred thompson supporter. Need we say more? Hahahahahahaha! 'Tard!
damn, really? that IS pretty fuckin' funny!
Fifty bucks sez this gets linked thru the right blogosphere as CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT GLENN GREENWALD IS A LIAR!!!one!!!eleven!!!six.
Zomg, it appears I was too late, according to Greenwald himself. Roffle.
Who's Glenn Greenwald?
it can't be said often enough: boy, are you stupid.
99% of the traffic you're getting from this stupidity performance art are people who've never read your blog. They won't be back, thanks to you, so you might as well stop blogging.
i wood come back to this blorg but i cannot work teh monsterlinks to show the sekrit mesages.
why gleenwald hide a treasur map. is it coaz of librulisms!
Who's Glenn Greenwald?
he is a leeto hacker who can hide secret military documents in so-called 'terrorlinks' which demonaically prevent reading without FURTHER CLICKING!
i would not fuck with him, he is called by other leeto hackers "teh masta of informets" because they are scared of his mad skills and he willl root your box worse than larry craig.
99% of the traffic you're getting from this stupidity performance art are people who've never read your blog. They won't be back, thanks to you, so you might as well stop blogging.
Blue Texan | Homepage | 10.29.07 - 5:22 pm | #
Actually, the Salon link is number four in referral volume, little green footballs, Michelle Malkin and The Jawa Report have Glenn beat.
I'm hoping for 2 or 3 intellectually honest lefties to stick around. Awful lot of chaffe, but, that's life.
so are real conservatives who like to bash retarded neocon nazis who don't know how to work the intertubes welcome as well as lefties?
we're all reel intelligent!
I see you subscribe to the "pretend it didn't happen" school of approaching embarrassing gaffes. Didn't work too well for Larry Craig.
LOL at the intellectually challenged moonbats trolling this thread. Their combined ego factor is in direct proportion to their IQ or as it can be explained simply, they are stupid but proud of it.
You're an idiot. That's pretty astounding.
I'm hoping for 2 or 3 intellectually honest lefties to stick around. Awful lot of chaffe, but, that's life.
What does "intellectually honest" consist of? If you were intellectually honest, you'd admit that your characterization of Greenwald's post as a "mischaracterization" was, itself, a mischaracterization. Also:
[Boylan's email] in fact dismisses... [Greenwald's] paranoid ravings about the military working with rightwing bloggers in the Beauchamp affair... out-of-hand, and quite properly.
Really? Quite properly? Why? What reason do you offer for this? You can't just assert that dismissing the rather serious charge of partisanship at the top ranks of the legally bound to non-partisanship] military with a "quite properly." If you disagree with Greenwald's (and TNR's) point about this, you have to offer a bit more than that. So how is this "quite properly" dismissed?
Here's my one and only hit to your wankerish blog. What a douche.
And to the person who coined "self-pwned"...I hope I can buy you a beer one day...that was excellent!
Ok, Dread, go back to the cheetos and your Fred Thompson porn...just make sure you don't forget to wipe.
Look at the condescending tone of Socky McSockpuppet's emails to the Colonel.
Honestly, what a little dick Greenwald is.
He couldn't hold Colonel Boylan's jockstrap, yet he feels he can talk to a military man putting his ass on the line in a war zone whatever way he feels. He needs to show some respect and STFU.
He published the entire email. You got it wrong, you're backtracking, you're parsing.
I don't get the hyperventilating on the left over this. Glenn linked to the full email, of which he later admits he didn't verify authenticity. He published on his front page portions of the document which were selectively edited in a way that changed meaning of the allegedly original document, the origin of which are unverified..
It's all quite strange. Greenwald is making a helluva big deal over an email which may turn out to be a hoax.
Greenwald is making a helluva big deal over an email which may turn out to be a hoax.
Let me get this straight.
The scenario you are presenting is that someone was able to hoax an army.mil account, and do so just for the purpose of sending a bitchy little email to a particular blogger.
And this is not a "helluva big deal?"
The scenario you are presenting is that someone was able to hoax an army.mil account, and do so just for the purpose of sending a bitchy little email to a particular blogger
Greenwald publicly went apeshit over an email without verifying its authenticity. And predictably, idiotic leftists, full of their usual self righteous phoniness, swarm the conservative blogs accusing the right of "lying" about it all. Too pathetic for words
ahahahaha! what a fucking moron!! hahaha!
Greenwald publicly went apeshit over an email without verifying its authenticity.
Generally, you can trust the "from" field, if that was not so, email communications would not work at all.
If it does turn out that the Col. has been pwned, that is a serious matter for our military security.
I'm sure we couldn't find any instance of you citing any email ever without doing proper IP analysis first, right?
Mook sez:
I don't get the hyperventilating on the left over this.
Really? I do. It's yet the latest in a long line of "scandals" manufactured by right-wing blogs on the basis of not just weak but completely erroneous evidence (Graeme Frost's "welfare queen" status, the non-existence of Jamil Hussein, etc.).
I don't get the hyperventilating on the right over this. I mean, have you people no discrimination in those to whom you choose to hitch your wagon? Is there no level of stupidity that will convince you to not charge to the defense of an ideological fellow traveler? From the beginning of the second paragraph, Bluto's not just on thin ice, he's crashed through the ice and settled firmly on the frozen bottom of the lake: "The parts that Greenwald chose not to publish tend to contradict his characterization of the email as 'bizarre' and 'unsolicited'." Which parts are those that he chose not to publish? Because he published the entire email. In what way would this contradict the fact that the email was unsolicited? It was unsolicited, as is made clear in the very first paragraph of the email.
But Bluto so helpfully filling us in on the parts that were "withheld" doesn't, to me, "contradict" Greenwald's "characterization":
You do have one fact in your post... All else after that... is just your wishful thinking to support your flawed theory... The claims about Steve Schmidt... are just flat wrong... how long have you fantasized that he has been here? ... If you believe they are right-wing, then again, it is nice to live in a fantasy world.
I might take issue with "bizarre" myself, but I certainly would be OK with terms like "condescending," "sarcastic," "rude," and "insulting." You may feel that those attributes are OK. I tend to prefer my professional military spokespeople to be, y'know, more professional, but that's me.
And predictably, idiotic leftists, full of their usual self righteous phoniness
Oh, speaking of phony self-righteous idiots, I'm no leftist, far from it. Never yet voted for a Democrat or a Green. DPB is clearly making an ass out of himself and deserves the ridicule that helps the rest of us get our daily minimum requirement of lulz.
If you don't see how incredibly, mind-blowingly, dumb-assingly stupid this whole thing is, you are not qualified to operate a computer.
Bad news, assnuggets:
Glenn Greenwald lied about his unedited posting. He edited it, you liberal idiots! The "Unedited posting" was edited.
I double checked the full letter as posted by Bluto, using my credentials at a local newspaper to find out more information. The letter that Bluto has and the letter that Greenwald received were different.
Damn, I'd like to see the liberals on here take a gun, put the barrel in their mouths, and fire. Do a Bobby Kennedy, morons.
I don't get it. Even if he hadn't published the entire letter, which he did, what was "mischaracterized"? Your highlighted portions are exactly in the same spirit as the rest of it. They're just kind of redundant, that's all.
You have to be scraping the wood off the bottom of the barrel for all you're worth to come up with a "scandal" like this.
It just occurred to me that maybe the reason Bluto thinks the "missing" portions of the original email "contradict[s Greenwald's] characterization of the email as... 'unsolicited'" is because maybe he doesn't know what "unsolicited" means:
un·so·lic·it·ed (ŭn'sə-lĭs'ĭ-tĭd) Pronunciation Key
adj. Not looked for or requested; unsought: an unsolicited manuscript; unsolicited opinions.
So... if you could please explain how the "redacted" portions of the email contradict the characterization of the email as "unsolicited," that'd be great. Thanks.
Learn to read you moron.... you totally missed Glenn's post and jumped to conclusions. Or did you intentionally mischaracterize?
If it does turn out that the Col. has been pwned, that is a serious matter for our military security
Except that the Col. wasn't the one pwnd you halfwit.
I'm thinking Greenwald should bring in Dan Rather to investigate the authenticity of the email. It could turn out to be fake but accurate.
Wait, wha...?
The letter that Bluto has and the letter that Greenwald received were different.
Bluto says he received the letter from Greenwald. So, it seems whatever you received with your "credentials at a local newspaper" (which I don't doubt are impressive) is different than what we're discussing here.
I'd be interested if you could share with us the contents of your document, showing specifically how Glenn "edited it."
We're all, of course, interested in how you verified the authenticity of your document.
Heh. A wingnut own-goal. Looks like Malkin is getting in on the action too - "Speaking Truth to the Nutroots" indeed.
Dear Dread Pundit Bluto,
Unfortunately, you appear to have been 'left behind.' Please learn how to read; it will save you future embarrassments. Not only has your behaviour been careless and daft, but also stubbornly mendacious.
Ethics and intellectual maturity are wonderful things to experience, stop resisting them.
Yours sincerely,
v.
Read Greenwald's latest update. He's whining like a jilted little bitch, demanding that Col. Boylan investigate the source of the hoax email which suckered him and his hivemind leftists into a frenzied state.
"Colonel, I demand that you launch an investigation to find the person responsible for making me look like such a stupid jackass again"
Ben Lenet sez:
Glenn Greenwald lied about his unedited posting. He edited it, you liberal idiots! The "Unedited posting" was edited.
I double checked the full letter as posted by Bluto, using my credentials at a local newspaper to find out more information. The letter that Bluto has and the letter that Greenwald received were different.
Umm... no? Please compare Glenn's posted version and the the version that Bluto posted. They're identical.
And what the hell? Your "credentials at a local newspaper? WTF is that supposed to mean? The Asscrack, MS, Butttrumpet has more information on an email sent to Glenn Greenwald than Glenn Greenwald has? If you have some information, how about sharing it instead of making mysterious-sounding assertions that we're simply supposed to accept at face value? Because given this:
Damn, I'd like to see the liberals on here take a gun, put the barrel in their mouths, and fire.
I'm gonna have to assume that you're not without some predisposition as to how you might judge some evidence.
Do a Bobby Kennedy, morons.
Bobby Kennedy was shot by an assassion, jackass, not his own hand. Fucking retard.
Mook sez:
Except that the Col. wasn't the one pwnd you halfwit....
Greenwald's... demanding that Col. Boylan investigate the source of the hoax email which suckered him and his hivemind leftists into a frenzied state.
From Greenwald:
Gen. Petreaus' top spokesman either dishonestly denied sending blatantly inappropriate emails or had his computer compromised by someone who did so in his name... Finding out from Col. Boylan whether he has launched an "investigation" to find out who the the real culprit was would do the same. For multiple reasons, it seems highly worthwhile to find out.
That doesn't really sound like whining. If a high-ranking officer in a war zone has someone able to spoof his computer and send out emails in his name, that's an extremely serious breach of security. And if it is the case, then indeed the Colonel was the one who was pwned, in the most literal haxx0r-eze meaning of the word. And if not, then the Colonel is a bald-faced liar.
whining like a jilted little bitch, demanding that Col. Boylan investigate the source of the hoax email
Mook, can I safely assume by this little diatribe that you are unconcerned by the possibility that someone could successfully hoax the email of a senior U.S. Army officer during wartime?
Wow, your bout sharp as a marble my friend....
Um, did you read the first two sentences of Greenwalds post? All it takes is basic reading skills...
Lets see if you can break this down & understand this, in the second sentence Greenwald wrote;
"The subject line of the email--which I am publishing in FULL, UNEDITED FORM HERE--is "The growing link between the U.S. military and right-wing media and blogs"....
I know its tough, but, if you try, you'll figure it out....
yeah right.. lol...
Only a 21st century American conservative could be this fucking stupid.
labradog said it all, but replace "conservative" with "ultra-partisan Republican." end thread.
Clearly, we are dealing with one of the stupidest people on the face of the planet. How's it feel to get your ass smacked around by Greenwald?
Glad Greenwald cock-punched you so thoroughly, you liar.
Can liberals write a simple declarative sentence without swearing or calling names?
Glenn Greenwald tried to decieve. Was caught. Small wonder you get pillored by anonymous liberals.
Cheers,
Don
Epic fail. What's great is watching this guy reply every 20 or so posts trying to just pretend that he didn't make a mistake.
Anyone with any integrity would apologize. Anyone with any common sense would at *least* acknowledge the mistake.
Absolutely amazing...
Hey Don Surber,
Caught? Caught at what? He printed the whole stinking email and this moron claims he didn't?. What sort of backwards world do you live in, Jethro?
As for us swearing too much, too fucking bad you moron. When you and the rest of the 25%ers do the honorable thing and kill yourselves, I will stop swearing.
OK, you dumb fuck?
Oh, and Surber:
You're ugly, too.
Sorry, let me take that last remark back.
Calling you ugly is an insult to ugly people.
Hey, Dread.....
You are definitely the dumbest person ever to walk the face of the Earth.
Thanks Bluto!
What's great is seeing GG get his ass handed to him by Steve - but we don't want to talk about that, do we?
You libs are atrocious - reading through this comment section is like listening to twelve year olds trying to impress each other with four letter words - grow up!
GG is a proven liar - that's enough for me. Whatever he says, and by extension his hysterical gang of prepubescent thugs, is entirely predictable.
Put down the crack pipe...
Step away from the computer...
Get to a counselor!
That doesn't really sound like whining. If a high-ranking officer in a war zone has someone able to spoof his computer and send out emails in his name, that's an extremely serious breach of security
Ah yes, a deceptive email address spoof, the sort of which most people I'd guess receive 10+ per day is suddenly now an "extremely serious breach of security" according to you leftist morons. Isn't that such a profound deep thinking observation. Summon the authorities!
This is how rightwing internobodies attract traffic to their site? Well, I guess I fell for it.
Still, it was worth the chuckle.
As for us swearing too much, too fucking bad you moron. When you and the rest of the 25%ers do the honorable thing and kill yourselves, I will stop swearing.
OK, you dumb fuck?
Cole Sear
We're sort of of the same mindset, except that I'd say most of you deranged leftist freaks posting here are haunted and obsessed by voices in your head and other bizarre tendencies. So if you're unhappy, just do the world a favor.. drink the bottle of Jack Daniels from your liquor cabinet.. take as much as you can swallow, then put the gunbarrel in your mouth(s), and gently squeeze the trigger. All the voices in your head and the pain will go away. You'll be in a better place, and the world be a better place without you
Hey Evrviglnt,
Next time, wipe the Cheetohs dust off your hands before you masturbate. You got it all over the keyboard again.
Sorry, Mook, but I suggested euthanasia first. Come up with your own idea, you ugly, unoriginal fuck.
Besides, it's only toothless redstate turds like you who get drunk and try to "clean" your handguns. When you have an IQ over 100, you know better than that.
Oh, and only fucking rubes and 13 year olds drink Jack Daniels. Which means you, Don Surber, this blogger, and Glenn Reynolds.
Oh, and only fucking rubes and 13 year olds drink Jack Daniels
Is that what you've been told to think? You should know that many of your far-left hiveminded fellow travelers depend on Jack Daniels to get through their days. It's a respite from the otherwise haunting voices in their head.
Boylan is now denying having sent the email. He denied all knowledge of it to me, then 47 seconds later sent an email to Greenwald denying having written the email.
Quite how he could have discovered a fake email in that time...
It's obvious -- both the colonel and The Dread Pundit Bluto hate America.
Add to that the (apparent) fact that the colonel writes like a fifth grader (and a slow one at that) and we have the makings of WWIII (or IV if you happen to be as delusional as Norman Podhoretz).
Anyway, set your phasers to kill, fasten your seat belts, and hang on -- the Rapture is on the way.
Um, wait, we're taking a guy who calls himself "The Dread Pirate Bluto" and "Mook" seriously?
Mook! LMAO!
These guys are a parody of themselves!
Dread pundit can't be serious - no one could be this stupid. It has to be a joke.
Don't give up your day job Bluto.
Wow. I was going to point out your many egregious shortcomings regarding this rant "rebutting" GG, but it seems I've been beaten to the punch.
Nevertheless, it seems you've gotten a mighty whaling, Matey.
Mook keeps talking about the voices in his head--very revealing.
Seriously, though, just how fucking stupid is this blogger and anyone who defends him? How fucking stupid is Don "Goober" Surber to come over here, defend him, and then run away?
In all seriousness, these people and everyone like them should just fucking kill themselves and save us the trouble of having to institutionalize and care for them. It's the least they could do.
Oh, and dig your graves first and be sure to fall dead right into the grave when you blow your fucking brains out. Don't worry about the mess; we will asphalt over you.
Its interesting to note the difference between this comment thread and the one on LGF.
This thread has plenty of rebuttals of the inaccurate factual statement comming from both left and right.
On LGF and other heavily moderated or otherwise restricted wingnut blogs there are no rebuttals. The discussion has thus gone off on a wild goose chase.
Picking your targets is essential if you are going to be effective. Unfortunately the wingnutsphere has made the same mistake CNN did after the OJ Simpson case, having 'found' their formula they attempt to repeat it endlessly. Only they have found that after a while the ratings start to slip.
The irony in Rathergate is that Rather could easily have refuted his critics if he was dishonest by simply pulling out a 1970s era IBM Selectric with the same font. The forensic 'evidence' was bogus from the start as were the 'experts'. The problem with the memo was the source.
So now there is this continuous attempt to find the next inconsistency in a journalist's claims.
The entire email from the colonel was posted in the very same article. Only after printing the email in its entirety did Greenwald proceed to use excerpts in his arguments. Did you even read the article he wrote in Salon before you went hysterical with your "discovery"? What the hell is wrong with you? By the way, what about the fact that the colonel has disavowed any association with said email - what does that tell you?
Did I miss this prick's apology for being completely and totally 100% WRONG?
Oh, and only fucking rubes and 13 year olds drink Jack Daniels. Which means you, Don Surber, this blogger, and Glenn Reynolds.
Please do not generalize. Some of us rubes are celibate.
I don't understand this. I say all kinds of stupid shit on my blog all the time and I never get any hits.
do you defend your stupidity to the bitter end?
Hahaha! Troll traffic! Lookit the libbie's heads explode!
I just received an e-mail from Bluto abjectly apologizing for his hack-up on GG, and for failing to apologize sooner, and for the stupidity thing, which really isn't his fault after all, and for leading his small unhygienic band to ever greater heights of rhetorical and philosophical foolishness. I'm almost certain the e-mail was from him. I am so glad.
ice
ice9, very well done.. kudos
Quoth Lord SCATula:
"I don't understand this. I say all kinds of stupid shit on my blog all the time and I never get any hits."
Here's the thing. You have to post lying, stupid shit, then have someone on another blog call attention to the lying, stupid shit. That's what generates the hits. DPB seems to have that technique nailed.
Or, in Jim B's case, falsely allege lying in defense of someone who lies for a living and hope the smoke covers everything up.
If you have trouble following that, Jim B, I'm calling you a liar, and a particularly stupid one at that.
Touched a nerve, did I, DPB? The lies are already documented in this comments thread. Nuff said.
"Touched a nerve, did I, DPB? The lies are already documented in this comments thread. Nuff said.
Jim B | 10.31.07 - 2:51 pm | # "
Absolutely you touched a nerve because I detest people who lie willfully or stupidly. People such as yourself (you get to pick the willful or stupid part, unlike GG, I make no claims to telepathy).
So it would be easy for you to cut and paste your "documentation", wouldn't it?
Wow, I've seen some stupidity among right-wing blogs before, but this one takes the cake. I'd call the "dread pundit" stupid except I think it would be a disservice to stupid people. The DP appears to me to be blatantly dishonest. Nice work. You make us liberals look really good by comparison.
Wow, Obi wan, unsupported ad hominems - never, ever seen that before, other than the 99% of Greenwaldians who've commented here. That's so original that it just has to qualify as major league pwnage.
Having read Greenwald's article and re-reading it after your post, I've concluded that there are only four possibilities for your post.
1- You didn't read Greenwald's article
2- You did read it and lied about it's contents
3- Your reading comprehension is at a first grade level
4- You can't handle the truth and don't want to be confused with the facts.
We're all waiting for an apology to Glenn Greenwald. Are you man enough to admit when you are wrong? Didn't think so.
And I, Obi wan, am waiting for you to grunt and puff and actually force your brain to do something it doesn't want to do: form a logical argument.
Dread Pundit Blotto: "So it would be easy for you to cut and paste your "documentation", wouldn't it?
If you insist. A small sample:
[1] GG posted the whole e-mail, linked to it, and called attention to the link. He responded to all of Boylan's "claims," including the ones you bolded. Did you even read GG's post?
Will Roberts | Homepage | 10.29.07 - 1:51 pm |
[2] Yes, except Greenwald printed the whole thing, just like you did here.
What a fucking dick.
Is your IQ 40?
Cole Sear | 10.29.07 - 1:59 pm |
[3] YEah, those "redacted" passages are sure exculpatory. What dumba$$. I love it! LOL!
waka waka | 10.29.07 - 2:20 pm |
[4] "Below is what Greenwald claims is the full text of the email."
Except that, you know, he didn't claim anything of the sort. He explicitly said just the opposite.
God, you're dumb.
over there | 10.29.07 - 2:22 pm |
[5] Gravatar Apparently, DP doesn't know the meaning of the words, "The subject line of the email -- which I am publishing in full, unedited form here ..."
What a moron.
Blue Texan | Homepage | 10.29.07 - 2:25 pm | #
You claimed that GG only published his favorite parts of Boylan's email. He didn't; the entire text was available at the mere click of a link. That was the crux of your argument, and it is a lie.
QED.
As peachkfc posted: Shot in the foot with your own smoking gun. Or even more succinctly put by sherifffruitfly: self-pwn.
Have a nice day.
[1] Wrong. GG posted the full email to his personal blog, but not the Salon article, both to discourage people from reading the parts he chose not to address and to create another link to the Salon article to maximize its exposure on blog aggregators. The idea that GG responded to "all of Boylan's claims," including the ones he didn't address, is ludicrous on its face, not to mention that the Colonel denies authoring the email.
[2] Wrong, GG didn't "print" anything. He caused an electronic facsimile of printing to appear on your computer screen. Turnabout is fairplay, so I took this opportunity to take advantage of your idiotic repetitiveness and direct some Greenwald-style pettiness back in your face. Enjoy.
[3] What kind of idiot responds (we're discussing you here, Jim B,) to a request to supply arguments other than juvenile ad hominems by posting juvenile ad hominems? Do you not understand the expression "ad hominem?" Can you read?
[4] No, he did claim it to me when he forwarded the email. If you can't read for comprehension, Jim B, it doesn't help your case to quote people who also have difficulty with comprehension.
[5] Another ad hominem, which is addressed in [1], above. Jesus, Jim B., you're one stupid motherfucker (this an example of an ad hominem attack, Jim B., do you understand now?).
(Unnumbered, apparently Jim B. ran out of fingers on his left hand) You claimed that GG only published his favorite parts of Boylan's email. He didn't; the entire text was available at the mere click of a link. That was the crux of your argument, and it is a lie.
No, Jim B., the crux of my argument is that GG "fisked" (why don't you Google that one) the alleged Boylan email in a dishonest way, deliberately creating a strawman to tear down. In terms hopefully simple enough for a moron like you to comprehend, GG cherry-picked those parts of the email that he was most comfortable refuting and having exposed to the scrutiny of his readership, most of whom would not bother to click the links to the full email. He chose to highlight, by including in his Salon post, those parts that would put the author in the most unfavorable light, while excluding those, in particular the question about certain MSM pubs being "rightwing" sources, that hurt his own case.
And now, you are dismissed.
DPB, I have to hand it to you, you certainly are a glutton for punishment.
Like many others, I've enjoyed reading this post and comment thread, watching the hapless Bluto have his mistake rubbed in his face endlessly, and him incoherently aping a futile defense. It's been a good chuckle. And it's also so gratifying to see truth prevail in such a clear way. The lies and delusion that holds together the modern 29%er mindset, makes up a worldview that is extremely brittle, and watching it shatter like this is quite spectacular.
However, I wonder whether or not this indicates any sort of future resolution. Personally, I doubt it. All people do not value the truth equally. Even once the neocon mindset is publicly exposed as the corupt, bankrupt thing that it is, the 25%ers will continue to dig in their heels. Just from today's performance by Bluto, Mook, and Don Suber, it's clear that even the most glaringly obvious truth cannot compel someone to see it, if they're resolutely so opposed. But once their words are only met with ridicule outside their tiny circles of fellow travelers, what then?
They'll resort to violence, of course. What the hell else?
That's when this story gets really ugly.
akogun delves into e-mail headers...and so can you!
Received: from rich.salon.com (rich.salon.com [206.80.4.124]) by mailer.salon.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l9SBFgrP024411 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2007 04:15:43 -0700
Received: from 02exbhizn02.iraq.centcom.mil (02exbhizn02.iraq.centcom.mil [214.13.200.111]) by rich.salon.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l9SBFSff004148 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2007 04:15:36 -0700
Here we see many things happening, three of which are of interest to us:
Salon’s email server (whose name is rich.salon.com) has an IP address of 206.80.4.124
Salon’s email server received a piece of email for ggreenwald@salon.com FROM a mail server (whose name is 02exbhizn02.iraq.centcom.mil) that has the IP address of 214.12.200.111.
Salon email server delivered the received email to ggreenwald’s mailbox.
Let’s keep moving....
Received: from INTZEXEBHIZN01.iraq.centcom.mil ([10.70.20.11]) by 02exbhizn02.iraq.centcom.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:15:05 +0300
Received: from INTZEXEVSIZN02.iraq.centcom.mil ([10.70.20.16]) by INTZEXEBHIZN01.iraq.centcom.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:15:05 +0300
Content-class: urn:content-classes:messageMIME-Version: 1.0Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"Subject: The growing link between the U.S. military and right-wing media and blogsX-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:15:05 +0300
From the lines above, we see some interesting facts. Let’s translate this from bottoms up:
On Sunday October 28, 2007 at 14:15:05, an email message was created on a computer located in a GMT + 3 Time Zone. Iraq is in this timezone.
The title of the email message was The growing link between the U.S. military and right-wing media and blogs
The email was then sent to an INTERNAL email server named INTZEXEVSIZN02.iraq.centcom.mil. This email server has a non-routable IP address (10.70.20.16), so it cannot deliver the message directly on its own. This email server runs Microsoft Exchange Server 2003(aka Microsoft Exchange V6.5).
This email server then sends this email to another INTERNAL mail server named INTZEXEBHIZN01.iraq.centcom.mil, and which has another non-routable IP of 10.70.20.11. INTZEXEBHIZN01.iraq.centcom.mil runs Microsoft Exchange Server 2000 (aka Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959)
NOTE: By the way, transferring mails between internal servers is NORMAL. In large organization spread over multiple geographic location, there are multiple non-internet-connected email servers that take emails directly from internal clients and hand them off to other internal servers. The reason for doing this is multi-faceted and we won’t get into it here because it has no bearing on our discussion.
Lastly INTZEXEBHIZN01.iraq.centcom.mil handed off the email (ostensibly after running it through various an
Sorry, but I can't resist jumping into DPB's further debasement. Let's start with his original post:
The parts that Greenwald chose not to publish [clarification:
This after-the-original-mistake clarification is disengenous in the extreme. You're defining "publish" as meaning that it must appear on the same page. Where the hell did you get that? If you've got a book open to the first page, do you assume that they haven't published the ending? Or are you able to grasp the fact that any information you encounter in the media has been "published"? And that by that same definition, Glenn published the entire letter, just on another page. Just like a different page in a book.
So, your original assertion is either a lie, or a grievous error.
tend to contradict his characterization of the email as "bizarre" and "unsolicited".
No, they don't contradict this characterization at all. The Col's email is bizarre particularly in how he spends all that time refuting Glenn's claim that Schmidt was in Iraq, when Glenn never once claimed he was in Iraq. That's bizarre, no? As for "unsolicited," the Col's email makes it clear right in the opening that it is not in response to any request made by Glenn. The definition of "unsolicited" is pasted up the page. Check it out.
Colonel Boylan has not confirmed the authenticity of the letter, and the possibility remains that Greenwald, who has been alleged to use sock puppets in the past, might have faked it.
Let's explore that possibility a minute. You're suggesting that Glenn, a lawyer, faked an email from a known military official in a time of war, in the war theater itself, and published it on his well-read blog, in which that public official is held up to ridicule and slander. And then, as Glenn continues to heat this up into a controversy, he demands an investigation be done, knowing full well that the investigation will conclude that the email was a hoax, and may well lead right to his own incarceration, possibly even for treason. Is that kinda what you're thinking? C'mon, you can tell us.
Or had you not really thought about it, except that it kinda sounded good to say that he might have faked it?
Sweet dreams, Bluto.
Boylan sent Greenwald the email denying aving sent the message 47 seconds after I received an email from him denying any knowledge of the Greenwald email.
There is simply no other conclusion I can draw other than that Boylan lied to me when he later denied ever sending the original message.
The fact that Boylan lied about having sending the original email is now the most significant issue. Whether Greenwald misrepresented him becomes irrelevant. Clearly Boylan would not have lied if there was an innocent interpretation of the message.
And this is the man who has been smearing and threatening Beauchamp.
Boylan's credibility is totally shot at this point. It is pretty clear who the anonymous source for Malkin's report is and equally clear that Boylan is a dishonorable liar.
And the award for the best unintentional irony post so far:
"...it's clear that even the most glaringly obvious truth cannot compel someone to see it..."
Great job, Paul, especially with all the competition here.
Oh wait, this is too sweet to pass up, from Paul's desperate rant above: "You're suggesting that Glenn, a lawyer..."
Why would a competent lawyer leave that noble profession to become a propaganda blogger at an online magazine?
Bluto, unfortunately, your sad insults and irrelevant questions do not detract from the fact that you are utterly unable to defend your original post. Face it: today and yesterday, your own blog was used as a tool to vividly demonstrate how hopeless you are as a blogger. I assume you're paying monthly fees for this privilege. It just gets funnier.
Paul, the left's technique of simply repeating opinion and outright lies as if they were established facts, even after they have been demonstrated to be wrong, is becoming tiresome.
You're going to have to try much harder if you're to become one of the 3 or 4 intellectually honest lefties I'm hoping to get from GG's hysterical hissy fit.
Paul, the left's technique of simply repeating opinion and outright lies as if they were established facts, even after they have been demonstrated to be wrong, is becoming tiresome.
Bluto, I hate to break this to you, but you can't lie about the contents of a page that everyone is reading, without looking like more of an imbecile. In this case, your mention of "outright lies" "demonstrated to be wrong" are really lies on your part, aren't they? I've demonstrated how your original post was complete bunk, to where your only response is to make insults that would make an 8-year-old embarrassed for himself. Your profound inability to redeem yourself or your points, by making even a futile attempt to address my argument, speaks volumes both about you and your worldview. I come back to engage you at this point simply because it's funny.
So, be my guest, let's see the next insult in your "Third Graders' Guide to Getting the Last Word."
Paul, I hate to break this to you, but you haven't "demonstrated" anything other than your ability to selectively define English. I am continually amazed at the inability of GG's supporters to distinguish their own opinion from objective reality.
Case in point, Paul accuses me gratuitous insults while ignoring hundreds of comments from his fellow Greenwaldians, including his own, that consist of nothing more than childish ad hominem attacks.
Case in point, from one of Paul's posts, and symptomatic of his inability to distinguish fact from fantasy: "Even once the neocon mindset is publicly exposed as the corupt, bankrupt thing that it is, the 25%ers will continue to dig in their heels."
Paul and his friends, far from being "reality-based" are indulging in magical thinking, a strange and twisted belief that their feelings about an issue somehow affect the facts.
Why would GG leave a law career to become a blogger?
Yeah, how much money can you really make with a No. 1 book on a pissant website like amazon.com, anyway?
Bluto, there seem to be two sweeping assertions at the core of your argument here. Obviously, you are welcome to your opinion, however you arrive at it, but you seem to be claiming that you have conclusively proved something when all you have done is assert it, which I think we can both agree is not the same thing.
Specifically, you claim that "[t]he parts that Greenwald chose not to publish... tend to contradict his characterization of the email as "bizarre" and "unsolicited".
"Bizarre" is a value judgment - obviously, your assessment of what constitutes a "bizarre" behaviour on the part of a Public Affairs Officer differs from Greenwald's, and from mine for that matter. I don't know how you can claim to have "contradicted" such as assessment, but I'd be interested to hear any thoughts you have on that score. Contrariwise, "unsolicited" seems to be a fairly objective assessment, and it's unclear what in the "redacted" portions of the email you feel "contradict" that. The Colonel seems to have decided on his own to contact Greenwald, and if "unsolicited" is an invalid way to refer to such communication, I'd be interested in your explanation of why that is.
You also assert that "...while Greenwald claims that the email doesn't dispute his paranoid ravings about the military working with rightwing bloggers in the Beauchamp affair, it in fact dismisses them out-of-hand..."
Would you say a "dismissal" is the same as a "dispute?" The portion of the email that Greenwald did not include has no more information than what he did include: Boylan says, 'hey, the information wasn't secret, it was just private.' I suppose we will also have to agree to disagree that that represents a convincing response to Greenwald's allegation.
If I am missing something, or misinterpreting your argument, I invite you to correct me. Again, reasonable people can differ on the interpretation of things, but I can't say I can see why you feel your argument is so strong and self-evidently airtight to justify your claim of having "contradicted" Greenwald's statements.
Bluto, now what did I say about how foolish it makes you look to lie about the contents of a page that everyone can read? Example:
Paul, I hate to break this to you, but you haven't "demonstrated" anything
Here's the link to where I trashed every single point you've made. The fact that you cannot even acknowledge any aspect of my post clearly indicates your own limits in defending your point of view.
Failing that, your method of pure ad-hominem and zero issue makes you look childish. Meanwhile, your own blog is serving as a valuable tool in refuting your own points. That's humiliating, I understand. But Bluto, if you want to end this humiliation (and I gather this isn't the first time you've had your hat handed to you on your blog), you'd do much better by calmly addressing the points made against your own, and attempting to refute them. Not that I expect you to do that. You've demonstrated that you can't. I'm just sayin'.
Again, reasonable people can differ on the interpretation of things, but I can't say I can see why you feel your argument is so strong and self-evidently airtight to justify your claim of having "contradicted" Greenwald's statements.
Paul Daniel Ash, surely this isn't the first time you've debated against a 29%er, is it? You should know that, by definition, 29%ers are not reasonable people, and their viewpoints are almost never able to stand up to any sort of scrutiny whatsoever. You can't see why Bluto is so confident of his arguments, when all clearly observable facts contradict them? It's because Bluto's worldview is based on pure faith that, no matter what, 29%ers are good and we 71%ers are bad. This faith is unshakable, and no pesky facts are going to disrupt it.
Know your audience.
Paul Daniel Ash: You seem to have somewhat more on the ball than your partial namesake (who can't seem to keep his imaginary percentages straight), so I'll tell you my reasoning about GG's "bizarre and unsolicited" characterization.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that I know what I'm talking about when I say that most readers don't click on external links, especially when a post is liberally sprinkled with them, and the author assures you that all the information you need is right here in his post. In turn, I will assume for the sake of argument, that Colonel Boylan is indeed the author of the email, a fact which I do not believe is established yet.
The very first part of the Colonel's email that GG left on the external link explains why GG is receiving the commununication. Boylan wanted to respond to an article but comments were now closed. It also very explictly states that Boylan is NOT representing anyone other than himself, GG does not, if memory serves, deal with this issue in his Salon post.
I agree with you that bizarre is somewhat of a value judgement, but it is my opinion that GG omitted the parts of the email that he did in order to buttress his characterization. Greenwald seems to be quite excitable, even a tad paranoid. I daresay his perception of intimidation and bizarreness are at a much lower threshold than that of the averag American. The email exchanges he had with me, for instance, give me the distinct impression of a timid man who has been accused of engaging in questionable online behavior in the past, and doesn't trust anyone inquiring about his doings now.
Beyond that, it is my opinion that GG's legal background encourages him to follow the letter of generally accepted online conventions, while paying no attention whatsoever to their spirit.
"Would you say a "dismissal" is the same as a "dispute?" - A dismissal implies that the charge is so without merit that any reasonable person doesn't need to bother with disputing it. Wouldn't you say you're kind of splitting hairs, here? I would.
I have to say that the tone of your comment has been a refreshing change from the stupidity, venom, and banality that has characterized the vast majority of GG's supporters.
At times I've felt like Ransom listening to the Devil call his name over and over, only to be greeted with "nothing" whenever he responds.
Paul (not Paul Daniel Ash): the last sentence in the comment above is NOT directed specifically at you, though it certainly applies to you. Perhaps you can busy yourself for a bit trying to track down the literary reference.
The very first part of the Colonel's email that GG left on the external link explains why GG is receiving the commununication.
Correct. And in parsing that explanation, it is clear that the email is in fact unsolicited. There's no wiggle room on that one. Therefore, your claim that the omitted parts of the email contradict Glenn's characterization of that email as "unsolicited" does not hold water.
I agree with you that bizarre is somewhat of a value judgement, but it is my opinion that GG omitted the parts of the email that he did in order to buttress his characterization.
First, what constitutes "bizarre." To me, it is fairly bizarre to spend time mounting an argument that doesn't need to be made. The good colonel spends a paragraph breathlessly refuting Glenn's claim that Schmidt was in Iraq, although Glenn didn't make any such claim. That, to me (and Glenn) is bizarre. Not "Eraserhead" bizarre, but bizarre nonetheless. Perhaps you don't find this bizarre in the least. But you should at least be able to grasp why others do.
(Example: I have a high tolerance for spicy food. However, I'm able to grasp the fact that others don't. This doesn't make one of us wrong.)
Next, one of the parts that Glenn omitted was the colonel's diatribe about Schmidt. This omission actually supports the "bizarre" claim, rather than contradicting it.
So, from what I've read, the omitted parts of the email do nothing to contradict Glenn's characterization, and actually go a fair way in supporting it. If you have a different explanation for this (maybe even ad hominem free), I'd be very interested to read it.
The email exchanges he had with me, for instance, give me the distinct impression of a timid man who has been accused of engaging in questionable online behavior in the past, and doesn't trust anyone inquiring about his doings now.
In your case, Glenn was right to be untrusting, as you ended up taking his email and composing a post based on lies about it. For a high-profile blogger like Glenn, I would expect this happens a lot, that right-wing bloggers who interact with him have a less-than-good-faith relationship with the truth, as you have, and are more interested in slandering him personally than refuting his points, as you have done.
Therefore, what you perceive as "timid" others would recognize as "cautious" and "prudent." Again, these are subjective concepts, but you should at least be able to grasp why such behavior might seem necessary to someone in Glenn's position, despite the fact that you're not in that position yourself.
[sigh] I took Glenn's emails and ended up composing posts based on...Glenn's emails; in fact, virtually the entirety of the posts was...emails, with interstitial comments.
But to get to the root of your problem: Paul, are you really that dense, I mean, really? Did you not understand that my response was directed at Paul Daniel Ash, not you? It's depressing how many of Glenn's admirers are simply stupid. It makes me fear for the future of the country. How the hell does someone who can't distinguish between "Paul" and "Paul Daniel Ash" remember to keep taking in oxygen? Do you ever find yourself unconscious on the floor for no apparent reason?
Well, I'm so far to the left of (probably) everyone here that I can't get all that worked up by the excited partisanship centre-left versus centre-right...
Boylan actually explicitly said he was writing as "a straight military Public Affairs Officer," which in my mind is very different than "NOT representing anyone other than himself." A PAO - when he is speaking as a PAO - represents the United States Army, not an individual. Put another way, there is nothing "bizarre" about Steven A. Boylan, citizen, writing a personal email heavily laden with disdain and sarcasm to someone with whom he personally disagrees. For a military PAO to write such a letter, - explicitly stating he is doing so as a PAO - and signing it with his rank and position, is, in my humble opinion, bizarre.
I defined "unsolicited" in this context as meaning "not requested," in that it was not in response to any direct communication Greenwald had made to Boylan. Of course Boylan was writing in response to something -- I didn't think that was particularly at issue. Do you think Col. Boylan has a Salon Letters account, and if so, do you really believe that is the method he would really have used to respond to the post? If not... how does the fact that comments were closed bear on the issue?
Wouldn't you say you're kind of splitting hairs, here? I wouldn't, which will probably not come as any great surprise to you. A dismissal is I would encourage you to read the sentence that follows the one that you quoted: "The portion of the email that Greenwald did not include has no more information than what he did include." A dismissal is entirely different than a dispute: it is a refusal to engage. Boylan may honestly believe the charge is without merit, but without presenting his case, he can hardly claim to have disproved it. This is exactly the point that Greenwald made. Again, people can disagree about facts not in evidence, and people may choose to believe or not believe that the Colonel really knows nothing about the Beauchamp leak. However, given the Colonel's personal distaste for Greenwald, which presumably extends to Beauchamp, is it really "paranoid ravings" to imagine he might have had something to do with the leak?
Anyway, I find all the hyperventilating on either side of this to be as interesting - or even more so than the letter itself. The scenario of Boylan just getting all hacked off on a Sunday and dashing off his little screed to Greenwald (and then denying it in the harsh light of Monday) just seems more likely to me than any explanation I've read so far, but I don't find that to be proof of anything other than people taking their beliefs a mite too seriously at times, something Greenwald is often equally guilty of.
I kind of hamburgered the penultimate paragraph above, which should have read:
Wouldn't you say you're kind of splitting hairs, here? I wouldn't, which will probably not come as any great surprise to you. A dismissal is entirely different than a dispute: it is a refusal to engage. Boylan may honestly believe the charge is without merit, but without presenting his case, he can hardly claim to have disproved it. This is exactly the point that Greenwald made. Again, people can disagree about facts not in evidence, and people may choose to believe or not believe that the Colonel really knows nothing about the Beauchamp leak. However, given the Colonel's personal distaste for Greenwald, which presumably extends to Beauchamp, is it really "paranoid ravings" to imagine he might have had something to do with the leak?
i should use "Preview" more...
Did you not understand that my response was directed at Paul Daniel Ash, not you?
Yes, that was clear. However, let's face it, bullshit is bullshit regardless who it's addressed to. If you want to have a private conversation with Paul Daniel Ash, seeing as he bestows on you far more respect than you're due, then I would suggest email as the best approach. However, if you do it on your blog, where there are open comments (something your fellow 29%ers generally do not choose to do, for obvious reasons), then you can expect other people to respond. That's how blogs and comments sections work. And so ends today's session of Internet For Dummys.
Now Bluto, I don't want you to be fooled. Your own attempt at obfuscation -- focusing on the incredibly flimsy point "I wasn't talking to you!" -- in no way refutes any of the claims I made in that post or any other, none of which you're able to address in any coherent manner. If you want to limit the ridicule you're receiving, I would suggest you focus on substantive issues rather than on pettiness. Unless pettiness is all you've got, in which case, go ahead and let rip!
Dread, you have to admit when you write 'Greenwald chose not to publish' that suggests that he did not publish certain parts of it and you use of chose suggests he was being selective. However he clearly did post it all, man up and admit you were wrong. He chose to publish ALL of it so he did not 'chose not to publish' and your statement is false.
RealityCheck, I'll provide a quick orientation of Bluto's mindset, as he certainly will not respond to your comment. According to Bluto, "publish" in this case means that the email needed to reside on the same page as Glenn's blog post. Following this logic, Bluto also must believe that when he's got a book open to a certain page, that the rest of the book is similarly unpublished. Or perhaps he doesn't see it that way, and only came up with this narrow definition of word "publish" as a meager defense for the funny mistake he made in this one case. Bluto, can you clarify this for us?
Paul Daniel Ash: this is not primarily a partisan issue for me. I will support politicians who I regard as supporting the best interests of our country concerning our current struggle with Islamofascism. That seems to be characteristic of the Dextrosphere. The Sinistrosphere gave us Joe Lieberman as an Independent senator.
And I will always give the benefit of the doubt to those serving in America's armed forces. That's why I have repeatedly attacked John Murtha for his irresponsible statements about the Haditha Marines, and didn't post anything about Scott Thomas Beauchamp until Drudge released his confession. And, since Beauchamp's commander says that he deserves a second chance, I'm happy to give it to him.
If Boylan wrote the email, it seems to me that he was establishing his authority (as in "argument from authority"), by describing his personal identity as a PAO, the same way cop might say, "I've been a cop for five years. This is how a stakeout works." The author explicitly states, "I am not sending this as anyone's spokesperson..."
I read the tone of this passage: "I also noticed that you fail to mention the amount of material that is leaked to those other publications that I dare you to call right-wing like the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc. I do not condone or wish them to happen, but it happens. If you believe they are right-wing, then again, it is nice to live in a fantasy world." as dismissive, therefore I called it a "dismissal." It's a contemptuous quick explanation to someone who has asserted something so stupid that no detailed argument is necessary.
I don't think it's a good use of our time to go further into personal interpretations and definitions. I've arrived at mine based on years of being paid to write and to edit other people's writing. You base yours on your own experience. We're not going to agree.
Realitycheck: read the clarification in the original post. It was specially composed to accommodate the lower intelligence of the readers from GG's blog.
Paul: the worst crime a person can commit is the theft of time from another, i.e., murder, or, in your case, endlessly repeating mindless charges that already have been dealt with. You are a time thief, and I confess that I have allowed you to steal some of mine. Shame on me.
If you really think that closed comments sections are a phenomenon of the Right, go to DailyKos and pose as a conservative commenter, then watch as your comments are disappeared by the "trusted users." Then head over to Firedoglake, where you will have "Troll" shrieked at you and your IP tracking information will be posted in the comments.
I am not the Federal government. I have no legal or moral obligation to provide you with a forum. So far, only one person has been banned during this Greenwald episode. You are the second. If you want to appeal your banning, you can contact me at the email address posted on my front page.
Wow, quite a get!
Good one, Bluto!
So basically you will not admit you are wrong for claiming that Greenwald choose not to publish the email when he clearly did and instead blame everyone else.
I have to say it makes anything you say from now very suspect. A 5 year old could see you are lying.
We're not going to agree
Well, a statement like that is certainly going to be self-fulfilling.
This controversy is completely, 100% about "personal interpretations." Without any objective, independently verifiable evidence, it is entirely "he said, he said." I am not sure why you are now saying it's not a "a good use of our time" to discuss our interpretations, as that is all that's been going on here since the very beginning.
In the absence of any information to the contrary, it would seem that all you're really interested in is giving vent to your own pre-conceived notions. That's certainly your right - and the internet has provided a wonderful forum for those so inclined - but it's rather banal and uninteresting.
Anyway, enjoy!
RealityCheck: basically I am saying that you, personally, are either stupid, being disingenuous, or lying, and that applies to your hero, as well.
Paul Daniel Ash: you are correct. The entire episode has become banal and uninteresting due to the lack of objective evidence. Perhaps you should ask Glenn Greenwald why he chose to bring it up.
The Dread Pundit Bluto = %0 Credibility.
Anyone who reads this no matter how partisan can see you were wrong, instead of manning up and making a correction you close your eyes and ears and yell nhahh nhahhh I cannot hear you.
You make TNR look like a quality publication. It is amost laughable how someone can be so wrong and claim it is everyone else. Next you will be seeing it depends how you define 'publish', a laughingstock it makes you.
Sock Puppet season is now closed. Further stealth entries will be deleted.
Edited By Siteowner
Yes, DPB's sock hand must have been getting tired.
This is the silliest post I have ever seen, clearly you are lying. Publish means publish and that is exactly what GG did, you must be very stupid if you do not see that.
most of you posters sound like alger hiss democrats so are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party or one of it's front groups?as a real american and veteran i say all you free riders should give cuba a try where you can interact with anti-american murders.
HOW TO EMBROIL AN INCOMPETENT LIKE BOYLAN
With general incompetents like Boylan in the league
Can it be any wonder that there is so much intrigue?
The military of today excessive partisan
Is like the kind of force you would expect in Pakistan--
Defending not the rule of law and civil policy
As set by Congress, now it chooses with whom to agree:
It was impartial long ago but now those days are gone,
Wherefore upon democracy one finds the setting sun.
With general incompetents like Boylan in the league
No wonder that the apparatus suffers from fatigue.
Hot-headedly so he will falsify (or so it seems)
In his abusive emails, truthful content by the reams,
Defending of Petraeus stooping no matter how low--
You see now how pervasively infection seems to go:
It is a virus, culture nurtured by the Neocons
To boast self-worth superior while shitting for the nonce.
With general incompetents like Boylan in the league
Can it be any wonder that there is so much intrigue?
Petraeus, as ambitious, like begins to forward sprint,
While calling from the sidelines there has been no minor hint
That he should run for president: I see it coming soon,
For people grow enamored of that military tune,
And so his flunkies (Boylan´s name immediately comes to mind)
Shore up the man for all his lapses to which playing blind.
With general incompetents like Boylan in the league
Where is the wonder that the structure suffers from fatigue?
Democracy depended on an exercise of reason,
Till those who exercised it suffered calumnies of treason,
From which day, so it seems, instead of subtle analyzing,
Hot-headedness, pomposity and gain are the comprising
Factors as motivate--severely in partisanship--
All sorts of "civil servants" trying hard to get a grip.
Then is it any wonder? No the wonder is perhaps
Skullduggery no sooner caused the structure to collapse.
.
.
Commenting by HaloScan
