Ilyka Damen had some rather harsh comments about 2 of my posts.
Please stop it. It’s making me sick. And it’s proving that the left has no monopoly on tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.
And this sorry excuse . . . ?
Oh God, oh Lord, would this man please fuck OFF.
At the time I thought it was a rough way to word it but I thought the criticism might be fair. Some people genuinely find it distasteful to speculate about the dead. Besides, Ilyka did use me as the example but the post was titled “Dear Every Damn Blogger…” If Ilyka got a little passionate, I (of all people) would not complain about that. I ignored it.
Later, Ilyka updated the post:
It is the sensationalist tone and treatment of the subject which enrages me, and the blame for that can be heaped mainly at the feet of one guy: Paul at Wizbang. Thus, the title of this post probably should not have read, “Dear Every Damn Blogger . . . .”
So, I was public enemy number one when it came to speculating about the death of Nick Berg. Still, I chose to ignore it.
But you can imagine my surprise when I found this comment Ilyka made on Kate’s blog about the Nick Berg video:
]]>< 
If it wasn’t for double standards, some people would have no standards at all.
Be honored, Paul — I COULDA put that in my “Aphorisms” post, but I saved it just for you.
J.
I think you’re reaching, Paul. It’s one thing to speculate, with damned near zero evidence, that a murder victim had ties to the terrorist organization that murdered him. It’s quite another to discuss the likelihood as to whether or not the admittedly innocent victim was murdered on the video tape (as I believe he was) or before it (as Kate believes).
Help me out… Which one exactly is NOT speculating about the dead?
Paul,
I’ve been a long time lurker at Wizbang and I have enjoyed your work quite a bit. You do have a unique style.
When I read your message about Nick Berg’s password I was impressed that you got the information but I was also dismayed that you took it one step too far.
I was greatly heartened that after sleeping on it, you made that second post. We all get excited but you did the right thing.
But none of that is why I gave up my lurker status.
I can honestly say that in all my years reading things on the internet and on BBS’s before them I have never seen such a complete and thorough take down as that one. Laser accurate in its precision and elegant in its execution. Kudos.
I’ll give you the advice my father gave me many times as a child, “Never let the fools bother you.”
John
I would just like to point out two things:
1. YOU are not a journalist. So posting things and calling them “Wizbang Exclusives” is really just laughable.
2. You do not get paid for your traffic. Sure, the blogads generate a little bit of revenue, but COME ON. Get some frigging perspective here.
You. Write. A. Blog. End of story.
The one that doesn’t concern Berg’s character. Duh. Speculate all you want about what his evil murderers did, but don’t piss on the dead unless you’ve got solid proof to back up your so-called “exclusive.”
Perhaps you need to read the post again.
The subject was:
“Dear Every Damn Blogger Speculating About Nick Berg”
Do you really believe that Ilyka speculating about which arteries were cut in which order is somehow exempt from that?
If so, you have an odd value system.
Oh, horseshit, Paul. Yes, technically, she did say “don’t speculate about the dead,” and not “don’t speculate about the character of the individual who was murdered.” Non-technically, I think it is clear what she meant. If you can’t tell the difference between speculating about a murder victim’s character vs. speculating over the specifics as to how he was murdered, then you are the one with an odd value system, assuming you have values at all.
I can see the distinction you are drawing. And from your passion I expect your argument is genuine. (for the record I treat genuine criticism far differently than hypocrisy and dumb shit.)
Perhaps we simply disagree. I’ll leave you with this…
Ilyka already addressed this topic in the update: “I have the clarification itch… It is the sensationalist tone and treatment of the subject which enrages me, … I am aware of at least two other bloggers who gave the subject the dignity it deserves and exercised appropriate restraint:…” then links the video dissection.
You must think that parsing the video frame by frame, questioning the amount of blood that spews out and looking up to see what order the arteries are cut in is an example of “dignity and appropriate restraint.”
I don’t.
The US intelligence folks have plenty of people with far more expertise to examine that video frame by frame. I don’t see a bunch of amateurs doing it on the internet to be an example of dignity and certainly not of restraint.
That strikes me a hypocrisy pure and simple. You are welcome to draw a different conclusion.
Look, I’m not disputing that some could find both types of speculation objectionable. I just think they are different enough that reasonable people can object to one, while not objecting to the other. Obviously, Ilka draws that same distinction, even if she didn’t state that so clearly in her original message. Otherwise, in the comment that sparked this thread, she would have simply criticized Kate for speculating, rather than responding with her own take on the matter.
(sigh, I thought I was done)
“Obviously, Ilka draws that same distinction”
OR She’s a hypocrite. The latter seems a whole lot more plausible to me especially considering the update.
And certainly Xrlq, even if that razor thin distinction is what she wants to cling to, than her post for more over the top than mine. Telling me to “Fuck OFF” for doing what is arguably less than her is rather disingenuous.
THEN her post…
No, Paul. Ilyka is not a hypocrite. You called this murdered man “dirty”, point blank. That is what pissed Ilyka (and she’s not alone, either – not by a long shot) off. You traded coincidence for causality and determined that Nick Berg was tied to the terrorists. You did it with conjecture and intimation but you did do it. That is WAY different than examining physical evidence.
Let’s talk hypocrisy, Paul. You lambast me in the comments to your “mea culpa sorta” post, then close the comments so I can’t respond.
Way to go, Scoop. We’re more and more impressed with your professionalism every day.
What a hell of a job we’re doing teaching reading comprehension these days . . . .
Paul, I believe you’re aware that my comment at Kate’s was written in support of an explanation Jim Peacock made at his site, in response to Kate’s (not mine, not Jim’s, and, hell, I can’t even blame you for this one, drat the luck) question asking why there was not more blood.
It is also evident from this sentence:
Meryl, comments were closed to stop the nutjobs hijacking any Nick Berg post. They were getting overrun.
SPEAKING of reading comprehension…
point out to you that you are not a journalist
You and others keep pointing this out. Can you tell me exactly when I claimed I was?
You’re full of shit. I pointed it out. Get over it.