« "An earth-shattering kaboom" | Main | Blair Didn't Say "Honey" After All »

And Now the Desperation Set In

You can tell when people on the last legs of a dying argument. They start asking really meaningless open questions hoping they'll mean something. Ace is at that point with his Greenwald fixation.

He asks Kevin an open question. Now normally, I wouldn't jump in middle but this one just deserves an answer.

An Open Question For Kevin From Wizbang!:

... So in a fairly vicious post about him, one which I know he read, both the posts and the comments, because he remarks about a particular comment by Cassandra on Cassandra's thread-- why did no one calling himself "Glenn Greenwald" respond?

No response from "Glenn Greenwald." However, a response from "Ellison," making exactly the same points one would expect Glenn Greenwald himself to make.

Coincidence?

Let's say "Ellison" is his overprotective boyfriend, going behind his back to defend him with Greenwald's knowlege. Ellison defends him in the thread. But Greenwald doesn't know that, right? Where's Greenwald himself, under his own name, responding?

Strange... it's almost as if Greenwald knew that the requisite defense of Greenwald had already been adequately made there, huh?

Now, if Greenwald DID know his boyfriend was doing this, under multiple names, well then, he's complicit in the deception. Yes, someone else is defending him, but under assumed names to suggest greater popular support, and furthermore concealing his relationship with Greenwald. And Greenwald knows he's doing this. Even if this were true -- how, exactly, does this absolve Greenwald? He's still guilty of sock-puppetry, using his boyfriend to actually type the words. Perhaps sock-marionet-ry is more accurate.

So, Kevin-- why is it that when Ellison defended Greenwald after a post which attacked Greenwald, and which Greenwald is known, conclusively, to have read, Greenwald himself saw no reason to comment?

Um... Maybe he was busy at the time?

If Ace is reduced to "The English is too good be a Brazilian" and "He didn't reply and that means he's guilty" you can tell the rest of the case is now going down one of those internet tubes.

If you need more evidence the party is over, Patterico who was all exclamation points yesterday, is now pointing to Ace and saying, "It's was all his idea." Being a prosecutor, he knows a weak case when he sees it.

All that's left now is waiting for Don Meredith to start singing.

Update WOW. If you need proof the desperation is setting in, just take a gander at Ace's comments below. Unhinged.

He makes accusations of Greenwald then he DEMANDS that I prove his accusations are false. Lost on Ace is the fact he needs to prove they are true. He has no proof, all he has is conjecture and now a temper tantrum. Nice.


Comments (38)

Any proof of that, Paul?</p... (Below threshold)
ace:

Any proof of that, Paul?

You seem to "know" a lot of things. Like you "knew" you had a smoking gun email or something.

Your case seems to be nothing but "it could be..."

Well, it could be. A lot of things could be, Paul.

It could be, for example, that you're an imbecile.

Still waiting for ANY evidence whatsoever to back up Glenn's, or your, claims as to the "facts" of the matter.

Any... proof the Magic Boyfriend was home that morning?

Any evidence he was checking rightwing blogs that morning?

Any evidence he's ever commented on a political blog at all?

Any evidence he's as obsessive about defending Glenn Greenwald as Glenn Greenwald is?

Any evidence he does in fact write English like a native? I know I have no evidence he doesn't; do you have any evidence he DOES? A single post by him, perhaps? No?

Just... uhhh... sorta guessin' he might, huh?

Do you have anything, Paul, except your faith in Glenn Greenwald to get you through?

What a douche.

I for one, certainly hope t... (Below threshold)
d_Brit:

I for one, certainly hope this is the "last legs of a dying argument" Let. it. die. already.

Move on.

No 'org.' intended ;-)

Incidentally, asshole, nice... (Below threshold)
ace:

Incidentally, asshole, nice dishonesty in suggesting that Patterico is distancing himself from this.

He's not distancing himself. He's just not on it like I am.

Or do you have information you'd like to share, asshole?

Last time I checked, he was still on board. You know differently?

Or are you just making another assumption, just assuming another fact in your favor?

What I got:Greenwa... (Below threshold)
ace:

What I got:

Greenwald was home that morning;

was trolling right wing blogs;

was commenting on right wing blogs;

read the thread in question;

uncharacteristically, did not respoond (in his own name, anyway) to the thread that so provoked him;

writes english like a native speaker;

and is obsessive about responding to attacks on Glenn Greenwald.

What you got:

The Magic Boyfriend MIGHT HAVE been home that morning;

The Magic Boyfriend MIGHT HAVE beentrolling right wing blogs;

The Magic Boyfriend MIGHT HAVE been commenting on right wing blogs;

The Magic Boyfriend MIGHT HAVE been the thread in question;

Greenwald MIGHT HAVE, uncharacteristically, chosen not respoond (in his own name, anyway) to the thread that so provoked him;

The Magic Boyfriend MIGHT write english like a native speaker;

The Magic Boyfriend MIGHT BE as obsessive about responding to attacks on Glenn Greenwald.

Yeah, Paul. You've got a whole stack of evidence there.

Obviously, my theory is absurd and yours is accurate.

After all-- Glenn Greenwald says so.

Do you have, um, anything?<... (Below threshold)
ace:

Do you have, um, anything?

For someone talking such smack, with such jackass self-assuredness, you seem to offer nothing more than "maybe" and "might be."

Sorry, I suspect bad motives. I don't know if you're all pissy that you weren't in on this and you're trying to denigrate it, or because you're a buddy of Greenwald's, or whatever, but there is something simply absurd about a jackass taking a series of spun-from-thin-air "may be's" and "might be's" and then saying "Case Closed."

I also got sock-puppet "Rya... (Below threshold)
ace:

I also got sock-puppet "Ryan" and Glenn Greenwald posting within 20 minutes of each other. See timeline at end of this post:

http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/07/21/greenwalds-defense-musical-chairs/

So... let me get this straight, Paul. It's less likely that Greenwald was on the computer, responding to attacks as sock-puppets, than it is that the Magic Boyfriend was on another computer at the time (or briefly took over Glenn's) to respond as "Ryan" on a blog, right?

So... they just sit there, both of them typing away on two different computers, BOTH obsessively patrolling for anti-Greenwald comments, huh?

This is what the Magic Boyfriend does all day?

Sort of a tag-team effort? While Glenn is posting as Glenn on one blog, the Magic Boyfriend -- not content to let Glenn fight his own battles -- is SIMULTANEOUSLY defending Glenn on other blogs?

That's your theory, huh?

You got someone like that, Paul? A significant other who's out there posting in your defense even while you're blogging yourself?

Paul's idea of "likely."

I think it's "likely" that Paul is a contrarian asshole who likes to pretend he knows far, far more than he does.

It doesn't seem like a weak... (Below threshold)
jdavenport:

It doesn't seem like a weak case to me. It seems like a circumstancial case.

But its not a murder trial. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that Greenwald was behind it or operating in cooperation with like minded individuals.

And I think Paul, while making valid points, has elevated those points above their natural standing.

However, Paul is probobly right that this whole thing is not worth pursuing.

Hey Ace, thanks for stoppin... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Hey Ace, thanks for stopping by.

5 posts in under 30 minutes. I said you were desperate. If my readers weren't convinced before, you just removed all doubt.

Nice work dude.

I'm sorry Paul, but you see... (Below threshold)
ace:

I'm sorry Paul, but you seem to have mispelled a few words. The words you were trying to spell were "Yes, I concede that I have absolutely no evidence at all for my claims, while you can demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that Glenn himself was posting from that IP at the time, was reading rightwing blogs at that time, was responding to attacks on rightwing blogs at that time, and I really have no idea where the Magic Boyfriend is, if he's politically inclined at all, or even how fluent his English is."

Please note the proper spellings for the future.

By the way-- you're about to be smoked.

It just so happens that another confirmed sock-puppet writes like Glenn Greenwald and ably argues all of Glenn Greenwald's points for him.

It's amazing that the Magic Boyfriend not only has such a dedication to Glenn Greenwald, but such a command of Glenn Greenwald's arguments, and an ability to mimic his writing style as well!

Wow, what a "goddamn whiny ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Wow, what a "goddamn whiny bitch" Ace is.

fwiw, in the post where Gle... (Below threshold)
BumperStickerist:

fwiw, in the post where Glenn 'answer his critics' and mentions the pre-Bar law gig at Wachtell, the partner, and all that.

Glenn says that he went out on his own and was in a solo law practice.

I began my own firm as a sole practitioner at the beginning of 1996 and practiced law for the next ten years in Manhattan at my own firm

That probably came as a surprise to the two other guys, Cristoph and Holland.

Now, Glenn might have set up his own firm for, maybe a week, while getting the partnership agreements together with Christoph and Holland.

I do know that Christoph is younger than Greenwald but that Holland is about 15-20 years older. I don't have the cite handy, but Holland was listed as, iirc, the managing and/or senior partner for the firm. Sure, Glenn was a partner, but who knows if it was his firm in any meaningful way.

So - would you agree with the *impression* Glenn gives which is that he, alone, set up a shop as a sole proprieter and grew it to six attorneys?

Or do yo think maybe, just maybe you can take Glenn at his word - but only if you consider all possible interpretations of his words and get him to specifically exclude all the seemingly semi-ridiculous ones?

Sure, based on what Glenn wrote, reasonable people might think that Glenn struck out from Wachtell on his own and built his solo practice into a six man shop with national reach over the course of 10 years.

I think those people would be surprised to learn otherwise. I'd be stunned if they took Greenwald at his word the next time he wrote something.

Ace is the Man. Do... (Below threshold)
Filthy Adolph Amish:

Ace is the Man.

Dont fuck with him Paul - cause when he moves HE SLICES LIKE A FUCKIN' HAMMER!


p.s. I hope you like vikings.


I am assuming the two of yo... (Below threshold)
tarheelcon:

I am assuming the two of you are carrying on like this for entertainment purposes otherwise we need a serious liberal controversey and I mean stat.

jdavenport you're moving th... (Below threshold)
Paul:

jdavenport you're moving the goal posts...

----
There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that Greenwald was behind it or operating in cooperation with like minded individuals.
----

That's a FAR CRY from "It's all the same guy, period."

If they were making the case that GG and the lover were working together then I'd probably never have said a word.

When they claim they PROVED it was a single person based soley on an IP adress they overstepped the facts. Dramatically.

>By the way-- you're about ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>By the way-- you're about to be smoked.

What you fail to grasp Ace is that I don't care how many names he may or may not have posted under. I also don't care how many gay lovers may or may not be working together to defend him.

I hope it is all him Ace, for your blood pressure if for nothing else.

I don't cake about you or GG or your petty pissing contest... My beef is piss poor logic and reasoning. (yours)

Even if GG comes out tomorrow and says it was all him that doesn't mean you proved anything. It means you, like a stopped clock, got lucky.

Even if he "admits" it all, you still made wild statements with no facts. Sorry.

Ace, all you really needed ... (Below threshold)
Sock Puppet:

Ace, all you really needed to type was

"Yes, I concede that I have absolutely no evidence at all for my claims"

That would have covered it.

Damn that's a lot of stuff ... (Below threshold)

Damn that's a lot of stuff to pile through.

The simple fact is that with IP address alone there is no possible way to disprove Glenn's admission that someone else in the house was commenting on posts. We all know that the "someone" was most likely the boyfriend.

There is no other "proof" other than the fact that the comments came from the same IP address. Everything else Ace, et. all is slinging is conjecture. So based on that sole fact you can either accept the given explanation or press forward to prove that it is a lie. The problem is you will never be able to prove (conclusively) that it's not true, because as we've shown over and over it's possible for two (or more people) to be active and commenting from the same IP address when they have a cable modem/router setup (or other similar setups).

For example, let's say Glenn further clarifies his previous explanation and says the boyfriend was posting under several different names and inventing e-mail conversations to further anonymize himself. That would match be a full mea culpa and match the facts of the case, i.e., that the comments all came from the same IP address - their home.

Would that close the case? I guessing that for Ace the answer would be no...

You should really step out ... (Below threshold)

You should really step out of this one wizbang crew. As I've said before, I don't know who Glenn Greenwald is, and will stubbornly refuse to learn his message, though I assume it's anti-bush.

Even his supporters must agree by now that he or his roomates are supporting him. Even if it's just his roomates, it's sleazy. How many friends have you had in your life who would rabidly support you, and then not tell you they did so? (Answer:0) He either wrote the supportive messages himself, or knew his bunk-buddies were doing it. I said buddies, not buddy. Multiple fake names suggests that he was making up multiple characters, or he had a multitude of supporters at his home.

I don't buy that it was one(s) of his friends, but evein if true, it's sleazy.

You should really step o... (Below threshold)
mantis:

You should really step out of this one wizbang crew.

Yeah, you're ruining a perfectly good blog witch-hunt gangbang.

Paul: "That's a FAR CRY fro... (Below threshold)
jdavenport:

Paul: "That's a FAR CRY from "It's all the same guy, period...
When they claim they PROVED it was a single person based soley on an IP adress they overstepped the facts. Dramatically."

Again, I agree with you factually. To me, however, the point was not that they proved it was a single person, it was that they showed that it was most likely that Greenwald was hoser.

How was Greenwald to defend himself? "No, it wasn't me, nah nah nah. It was my friends."

Who cares? It looks like it was orchestrated by him.
I suppose you could stand up for Greenwald in the interest of netiquette.

But why?

It seems to me that if the ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

It seems to me that if the point of this ridiculous imbroglio were to discredit Greenwald, why does it continue? Ace, Pat, Dan, and Bob have all reached the conclusion they prefer, that Greenwald is a sock-puppet. Therefore he can be dismissed in good conscience as being a less than credible or honest blogger, and they can safely ignore him, right? But they do not do that, do they? Rather they continue to write post after post after post in their creepy Greenwald obsession. 18 of Ace's past 25 posts have been on Greenwald. And that is just in the past two days. 18 posts in two days, all about Greenwald. Unhinged indeed.

Why would it be necessary t... (Below threshold)
Amish is a Jim Henson Production:

Why would it be necessary to make up multiple fake names if the culprit isnt Greenwald?

Can anybody think of a reason?

No. Of course not. There isnt one.

Greenwald is clearly a sockpuppeteer and for some strange reason you guys are coming to his defense.


"Even if GG comes out tomorrow and says it was all him that doesn't mean you proved anything."

The fact that you say that even if Greenwald completely admits that he was behind all this, you wouldnt change your opinion just proves how petty and stubborn you can be sometimes Paul.

Those TexANG documents were real! Just because you cant find a typwriter from 1972 that could have typed them doesnt mean anything. If you didnt see someone forging them - then they must not have been forged.

O.J. may be innocent - after all Paul wasnt there himself to witness the crime. You cant prove anything!

"you're ruining a perfectly good blog witch-hunt gangbang."

Amish is a one man Gang Bang baby - Just ask your mother.

>I suppose you could stand ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>I suppose you could stand up for Greenwald in the interest of netiquette.

I'm not standing up for Greenwald. I already said he was a lying piece of dung. (Did you read my first post? If not, scroll down... It will offer more perspective.)

Kevin and I are simply saying the conclusions are ahead of the facts on this one.

If you're ok with that, more power to you. Personally I prefer that facts drive my beliefs. Not vice versa.

Amish your reasoning skills... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Amish your reasoning skills are so poor I reserve the right to ignore you.

Is there any greater indica... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Is there any greater indication of stupidity, or insanity, or trying clumsily to create trouble, or all the above (aka liberalism) than demanding PROOF of anything of a personal nature online? How is it POSSIBLE to prove to an online audience who was at home, what their emotional state is or any of that other nonsense?

Here are some hilarious ways to tell if someone's a liberal (no, it's NOT on MY blog):

http://takeastandagainstliberals.blogspot.com/2006/07/you-know-youre-liberal-if.html

I dunno guys. Ace is kinda ... (Below threshold)

I dunno guys. Ace is kinda funny about this. Your attempt to buy into implausible - not impossible, but increasingly silly and decreasingly plausible - defenses for Greenwald seems serious.

You write about Ace like he writes for the Washington Post. Ever Read Ace of Spades HQ? It's funny. And a lefty using sock puppets to increase his fan-base? That's funny. It's a natch for Ace.

What's your dead-serious angle on this all about? It doesn't seem to be funny. It doesn't seem to be true (except in the sense of the afformentioned teeny-weeny chance of possibility). Seriously, I get Ace's obsessive posting. It's FUNNY. I do not get your take at all.

You can make a serious statement of principle or evidentiary standards or not wanting to pile on or whatever and be done with it. You've gone into this whole "Let's invent a whole case even Greenwald isn't making himself" thing. Which is weird. Okay, maybe funny. But not in the way you'd probably like.

It appears pretty obvious t... (Below threshold)
Baggi:

It appears pretty obvious to me that the evidence points to this person named Greenwald posting comments defending himself through various different names on various different blogs.

I think Ace has done a poor job of defending his position, not through the use of logic, but merely by using foul language and name calling.

On the other hand I think that Paul has done a great job of remaining level headed but a poor job of applying logic. Paul's argument seems to be, "If you do not agree with me, you aren't using logic." Statements like, " Personally I prefer that facts drive my beliefs." are very childish and immature and are meant to lazily replace arguments.

What i'd like to see are the facts laid out.

For example, is it a fact that someone has been posting from the IP address that Glenn Greenwald uses?

Is it a fact that whoever is posting from Glenn Greenwalds IP addresses is using various psuedonyms on various different weblogs to defend Glenn Greenwalds ideas/positions?

If these two facts are established, I can't see what other evidence is needed to establish Mr. Greenwalds guilt. At that point it seems quite obvious.

If someone wishes to defend Mr. Greenwald, then they will have to provide sufficient excuses to show that Mr. Greenwald wasn't the obvious perpetrator.

To believe otherwise shows a rather large naivete.

Thus far, if those two facts stand as ive stated them, it appears clear that Mr. Greenwald has been his own defender. Which is pretty pathetic.

What are the other facts which could lead to doubt about that position?

OH FOR FUCK'S SAKES Y... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

OH FOR FUCK'S SAKES YOU GUYS!

Look, I like you all, but this is becoming a pointless argument on BOTH SIDES. Who the fuck cares about Glenn Whatits? He's not Kos, He's not Atrios, hell, he isn't even Oliver Willis in the scheme of things in the Left blogosphere.

Ace, I love ya, but enough...you too, Kevin.
Split a bottle of ValuRite vodka, and apologise to each other. Glenn AIN'T WORTH IT.

Don't you know we have (two) wars going on?


Sheesh!

For example, let's say G... (Below threshold)
BumperStickerist:

For example, let's say Glenn further clarifies his previous explanation and says the boyfriend was posting under several different names and inventing e-mail conversations to further anonymize himself. That would match be a full mea culpa and match the facts of the case, i.e., that the comments all came from the same IP address - their home.

mkay.

But why would you choose to believe Glenn?

This isn't a court of law, it's the court of public opinion.

Ace, I love ya, but enou... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Ace, I love ya, but enough...you too, Kevin.

er..Paul, er...whoever is in this pissing contest.

Christ, I'd rather listen to Lee go on about "the chimp"...

One more thing, Kevin makes... (Below threshold)
Baggi:

One more thing, Kevin makes a good point in another post below.

"If it turns out (as appears likely) that he was not in Brazil when every single "sock puppet" comment was made then the increasingly convoluted theories being advanced to explain the story fall apart, because (at this point) the claims still seem to be that ALL the comments were made by Glenn."

Likewise, if it turns out that he was in Brazil when every single "sock puppet" comment was made then the increasingly convoluted theories being advanced by Paul fall apart.

I can tell you the days he came and went from the country back and forth to Brazil. If someone wants to send me email, we can work together to figure this out.

Unless of course Paul and Kevin want to argue that it is merely an incredible coincidence that Mr. Greenwald's accomplice only defends Mr. Greenwald when he was in Brazil.

Baggi, so close and yet so ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Baggi, so close and yet so far....

First you say...

On the other hand I think that Paul has done a great job of remaining level headed but a poor job of applying logic. Paul's argument seems to be, "If you do not agree with me, you aren't using logic." Statements like, " Personally I prefer that facts drive my beliefs." are very childish and immature and are meant to lazily replace arguments.

Then in your very next line you say:

What i'd like to see are the facts laid out.

DUH! We'd all like the facts layed out. But we don't have them all.

If I say that I'm an idiot but if you say it you're some sort of Rhodes freaking Scholar.

I'm not the one who has trouble applying logic.


Paul, I have to chime in he... (Below threshold)
idgit:

Paul, I have to chime in here to say I think you are being more than a little defensive about your views.

I think it's clear that _something_ is going on with Glenn/Ellison/boyfriend1/boyfriend2/whomever regarding those fawningly supportive comments, but is it "sock puppetry"? I don't know, but it _does_ looks suspicious. Something it seems you would rather not even admit.

Just sayin'.

Baggi you really are logic ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Baggi you really are logic challenged huh...

--------------
Likewise, if it turns out that he was in Brazil when every single "sock puppet" comment was made then the increasingly convoluted theories being advanced by Paul fall apart.
--------------

Kevin and I are advancing the same theory you dim bulb.

DUH! We'd all like the f... (Below threshold)
mantis:

DUH! We'd all like the facts layed out. But we don't have them all.

They will not be forthcoming guys. People are going to have to believe what they believe. There will be no definitive proof of who made the comments. Time for everyone to make their call: it was Greenwald, it was someone else, or I don't know/care. The others may continue their obsession, but they will not get the answers they seek (not that they care, they've reached their conclusion).

Paul, I have to chime in he... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Paul, I have to chime in here to say I think you are being more than a little defensive about your views.


Can you define my views... Apparently not from the rest of your post.

Btw this is Ace's <a href="... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Btw this is Ace's most recent comment on the matter:

I haven't won when imbecilic pricks like Paul and Kevin from Wizbang! are denying this all just because they weren't invited to the party.

You guys are just jealous. ;)

There comes a time to call ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

There comes a time to call it quits. This is that time.

No amount of babbling will make any more evidence and without more evidence all we'll get is more babbling.

Good Night everyone.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy