LGF links to this post from Baldilocks who explains to Paul McLeary at Columbia Journalism Review that "milbloggers" are military bloggers. From McLeary at CJR:
This is great. The conservative blogosphere and it's kissin' cousin, the milblog community--who always criticize the left for not supporting the troops--is engaging in some troop hating of its own. Their target, of course, is Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, of TNR fame, and he's taking a beating by critics who apparently have nothing better to do than furiously Google his name all night long and troll his MySpace page.I highlighted the comment above that blew me away, in case anyone couldn't figure it out. He has got to be joking, right? Baldilocks gives Mr. McLeary a little bit of information he appears to be lacking:
...
How dare a college grad and engaged citizen volunteer to join the Army to fight for his country! (Which is something that most of the brave souls who inhabit the milblog community prefers to leave to others.) While there are some very legitimate questions about what Beauchamp wrote, nothing, it's worthy of note, has been proved false yet. But that hasn't stopped the sharp knives of a slew of bloggers from coming out.
Is McLeary saying that most of the milbloggers haven't been to college or that they haven't joined the military? :-)The American Pundit say CJR needs a blogosphere dictionary. What the heck did McLeary think the "mil" stood for?Apparently McLeary's Ivy-honed intellect didn't help him to deduce that milbloggers=military bloggers. Nor did that "superior intellect" lead him to discover that all military officers have an undergraduate degree, at minimum, and that half of enlisted men/women have obtained the same.
(I know the "duh" in the title of this post sounds stupid, but using profanity in post titles causes problems so that was my way of shortening "dumbass." )
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Military
Comments (12)
All I can say is that retar... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Lledowynn | July 29, 2007 2:39 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
All I can say is that retardation knows no bounds.
1. Posted by Lledowynn | July 29, 2007 2:39 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on July 29, 2007 02:39
2. Posted by kim | July 29, 2007 2:49 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
CJR still stands by its article claiming the Rather forgeries were real.
=========================================
2. Posted by kim | July 29, 2007 2:49 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on July 29, 2007 02:49
3. Posted by marc | July 29, 2007 3:50 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Mil = Me Is a Loser? (in his world)
3. Posted by marc | July 29, 2007 3:50 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on July 29, 2007 03:50
4. Posted by Linoge | July 29, 2007 7:09 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
No one has ever accused reporters, great or small, of a preponderance of intelligence...
4. Posted by Linoge | July 29, 2007 7:09 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on July 29, 2007 07:09
5. Posted by WildWillie | July 29, 2007 8:17 AM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Again, another example of the lefts hatred for the military. First they do the fact checking from this soldiers story AFTER they printed it, and now they are not even aware the serving military has blogs. They of course think the military is too stupid to put a sentence together. ww
5. Posted by WildWillie | July 29, 2007 8:17 AM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on July 29, 2007 08:17
6. Posted by Mark L | July 29, 2007 8:57 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Maybe he needs to get a copy of Austin Bay's pamphlet on Milspeak, "Embrace the Suck."
(You can get it at pamphleteer press -- http://pamphleteerpress.com/)
6. Posted by Mark L | July 29, 2007 8:57 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 29, 2007 08:57
7. Posted by HughS | July 29, 2007 9:25 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Mark L
The link doesn't work. Is it this?
http://pamphleteerpress.com/
7. Posted by HughS | July 29, 2007 9:25 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 29, 2007 09:25
8. Posted by spurwing plover | July 29, 2007 10:20 AM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
For a bunch of jerks who are always chanting MAKE LOVE NOT WAR MAKE FREINDS NOT ENEMIES they sure dont ever practice it especialy the mindless zombies in U.C. SANTA CRUZ,U.C. BERKELEY and SAN FRANCISCO
8. Posted by spurwing plover | July 29, 2007 10:20 AM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on July 29, 2007 10:20
9. Posted by Robin Goodfellow | July 29, 2007 3:20 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
So every statement on the interwebs is assumed true until proven beyond doubt to be false? Well, that would certainly put an unusual twist on the world yet? I suppose it's a damned good thing the Weekly World News is out of business then, else we would be forced to believe in the existence of bat-boy until proven otherwise!
9. Posted by Robin Goodfellow | July 29, 2007 3:20 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on July 29, 2007 15:20
10. Posted by C-C-G![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| July 29, 2007 5:53 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Goodfellow, what are you blathering on about? Do you even know?
10. Posted by C-C-G![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| July 29, 2007 5:53 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on July 29, 2007 17:53
11. Posted by Robin Goodfellow | July 29, 2007 7:41 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
C-C-G, I'm saying that the standard of evidence that Beauchamp's defenders have put forward is laughably ridiculous. The idea that we are to believe claims first until proven otherwise flies in the face of logic, reason, and scientific methodology. Even well meaning eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, the unverified statements of potentially biased individuals are almost always taken with a grain of salt by anyone with a shred of intellect. This is what the press is supposed to be for. Ensuring that do diligence has been done in vetting and verifying stories so that we can believe what we read in the paper or see on the evening news. We know all too well how poorly the do even that, but lowering the already weakening standard of verification down to the base level of mere uninspected rumor is a brand new low. It is, indeed, the same level as that of the tabloid rags which festoon the grocery checkout lane with their tales of alien abductions, sasquatch sightings, illuminati conspiracies, and other inanities.
In short, this sort of defense of Beauchamp's allegations is the weakest possible. That anyone would cling to such a flimsy thread speaks volumes towards their moral and intellectual rigor, and towards their desperate need to believe the "truthiness" of these allegations regardless of the facts.
11. Posted by Robin Goodfellow | July 29, 2007 7:41 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on July 29, 2007 19:41
12. Posted by C-C-G![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| July 29, 2007 9:30 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Thanks for the clarification, Goodfellow. It appeared for a moment that you were attacking the blogs that have been all over this story.
12. Posted by C-C-G![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| July 29, 2007 9:30 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on July 29, 2007 21:30