Colleen Lindsay:

Thank you for making it clear, through your response to my query, that you are unquipped (sic) to represent fiction writers who are working at the very highest level today.

Best of luck with your list of minor writers, third-rate writers, irrelevant writers, non-writers.

You lose, silly woman.

Patrick Roscoe

I pointed, I laughed, I moved on with my life. Imagine my surprise when today, in my spam filter, I find a comment from someone coming to defend Mr. Roscoe’s honor from such ill deserved mocking engage in an attempt at their own mockery at the expense of myself. Turns out, someone put my Roscoe post up on Reddit and it started a tiny little flame war with Mr. Roscoe’s champion. I’m sort of flattered.

“With your ability, certainly you have learned praises before but I just want to involve to the many who have thanked you for what you’ve attained. Your work are one of a kind and show great insight. Thanks for your contributions!”

I almost approved it, since I rarely get spam on new posts. Then I look a little closer and note the slightly broken English. Then I note that while the comment might reflect the post I made on Book Chick City, it didn’t actually mention the post, or writing, or anything else concrete. It could be about anything. Then I look at the URL the poster used: a link trolling site.

Akismet Y U No catch this spam?

Ok, I know that’s not exactly what he was trying to say.  Mr. Wonk here was just arguing that the founding document of this country is open to some measure of judicial interpretation.  Though, it almost appears here that he’s dismissing the use of any legal framework that’s open to such interpretation.  How can any system function with such ambiguity?

I think he’s actually chafing against the constraints of any legal framework at all.  The following quote I think gives a truly frightening view into the mind of Mr. Wonky Wonk Wonk (h/t):

The problem with the Nazis was that they were genocidal white supremacists with an appetite for continental hegemony. To invoke them in order to tar, by association, privatization, or “appeasement,” or socialist policies, or other policies that were not related to their murderous crimes is a noxious debate tactic that should be widely and rapidly condemned

Yeah, that was a clarification he added to a post praising the economic miracle of Nazi Keynesianism, as if their economic policy could be decoupled from their totalitarianism.  If you think that, I have this neat little book for you, and it’s a quick read.  In Mr. Wonkster’s little Fascist brain, if the Nazis just eased up on the death camps and the foreign invasions, they would have been a perfectly fine regime.   It’s like he learned his political philosophy from bad Star Trek episodes.

Needless to say, if if that’s the only thing you find objectionable about the Nazis, you may just have some problem getting the concept of a constitutionally limited government with strictly enumerated powers.

Yes Monica, I have been doing this for 3 decades, having been an editor at The Voice, Housitonic Home and Connecticut Woman Magazine. I do know about copyright laws. It was “my bad” indeed, and, as the magazine is put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things. But honestly Monica, the web is considered “public domain” and you should be happy we just didn’t “lift” your whole article and put someone else’s name on it!

Editor fail.  Copyright fail.  Ethics fail.  And, public relations fail.  (Just note the comments on their Facebook page.)  You see, when you decide to be an asshat to a blogger, especially in such an interestingly twisted and completely asinine fashion, they tend to blog about it.  And, when your statements have reached such an epic level of complete  cluelessness about the nature of the medium itself, it becomes entertaining for other people to blog about it.  So the relatively unknown person you’ve stolen from blogs about it and gets a linkback from the relatively known Nick Mamatas.  The latter, being relatively known, inspires even more relatively known bloggers to mock the stupid whose name is  Judith Griggs.  Scalzi takes a swing with the cluebat and makes a palpable hit in front of his 30K of daily eyeballs.  (What’s the circulation of that magazine again?  Just wondering.)  And the Smart Bitches of equally vast viewage take multiple swipes and offers a present of Google.  Then, at last, the meme goes nuclear when it crosses the radar of Instpundit.

So, Judith Griggs, you are now an internet meme.  I wonder if permanently associating yourself with this kind of asshattery in the minds of a few hundred thousand people was worth the few hundred bucks you saved by not actually buying the rights to your articles.

A paperback book was hurled towards President Obama seconds after he completed a Democratic rally in Philadelphia on Sunday, but aides say the incident in no way affected the event.
[...]
The US Secret Service found and interviewed the man who threw the book onstage. He was deemed to be an “overexhuberant” supporter who wanted the President to have a copy of a book he had written, according the Special Agent Edwin Donovan of the Secret Service in Washington. “He was deemed not to be a threat and was not arrested,” Donovan told ABC News.

The fact that she likes Tolkien and C.S. Lewis.  Really.  This is cause for her to question someone’s mental stability and connection to reality, the fact that O’Donnell decides to praise one of the major writers of the 20th century for his treatment of women.

“Look at the significance that he gives to Eowyn, the Lady of Rohan,” O’Donnell said on C-Span in 2003. “She was a warrior spirit and, to me, that’s who I love. I mean, I aspire to be soft and gentle like Arwen, but realistically, I’m a fighter, like Eowyn.”

O’Donnell said she liked Tolkien’s outlook on gender: “On the one hand, there’s the attitude that’s normally on the conservative side — as a conservative woman, I feel I can say this — that stifles women. There’s almost the stereotypical attitude of, to be a true woman, you have to stay at home. And I’ve actually had people say to me, ‘Why do you choose a career over marriage?’ Honestly, I’ve had only a few significant relationships, and they’ve broken up with me. And one of the things I’ve been told is, ‘If you weren’t so strong, you’d be married by now.’ ”

That passage is apparently worthy of Dowd’s mockery, more so than O’Donnell’s views on masturbation.  (Which my wife has had a field day with.  And which, in the video I saw, had a lot in common with a Playboy interview with a certain infamous ex-president, including use of similar language.  Of course, given the results of that guy’s election, it probably is a disqualification on its face.)  Apparently, if you are a fantasy geek of any stripe, you need not apply to the hollowed halls of seriousness that admitted this guy.

Worse, she decides to bring up C. S. Lewis:

“We’re rowdy, we’re passionate,” she told the enraptured crowd. “It reminds me of the C. S. Lewis Narnia books, where the little girl asks someone about Aslan the lion, who represents God, and she says with a little concern over such a fearsome lion, ‘Is he safe?’ And her friend says, ‘Safe? Who said anything about safe? Of course he isn’t safe. But he’s good.’ ”

Yep, that disqualifies her right there.

You know, in policy terms I probably have as as little in common with Christine O’Donnell as I do with Charlie Rangel. And I agree with all of the critiques of her on tactical grounds, as the woman has had a colorful history, and a lot of it has been in front of the TV cameras. I agree on a lot of the critiques of her on policy grounds.  (As opposed to the knee jerk critiques of her because of her scary religious background. Please remember the guy who first popularized the term “lust in my heart” during a political campaign.)  But just because you’ve decided to professionally despise the woman does not mean that dissing both Tolkien and C.S.Lewis does not make you a prime asshat.

And by the way, the above thesis was so frighteningly thin that Ms. Dowd had to downshift midway into the article and and start talking about how Obama is the first African-American President and those Tea-Party people are all mostly white. Thanks for the stunning original insight, I have been waiting with baited breath for someone to come up with that analysis.

Lastly, you don’t get to use the phrase, “We the People in the Ruling Class Elites do think O’Donnell comes across as alarmingly loopy,” in an ironic fashion unless there are actually people out there that think you are part of the “Ruling Class Elite,” and after viewing the drainage from this intellectual abscess,  I think everyone is only looking on with sad bemusement.

Again with the asshats I say.  And we have some wonderful hats of assness this time in the person(s) of a company known as Righthaven.  What is Righthaven, you ask?  It is a posse of out-of-control lawyers who Google on behalf of their clients’ IP rights, and if they catch someone doing something nefarious— such as quoting a paragraph with proper credit and linking back to the full article— then they sue your ass. I don’t mean they send you a nasty note, or a cease and desist, I mean they file paperwork at the court demanding $75K and you don’t find out until you get a subpoena.

How to fight this? Well, if you get sued, take their ass to court and don’t settle. Sure, it’s a pain in the ass, and expensive, but if everyone does this their whole scheme will collapse. Second, never ever ever link back to the assholes that hire these people. they don’t deserve the traffic, and a trackback may get you sued.

I’ve written enough about authors that have shown very public displays of ill judgment that it seemed to be almost mandatory that I talk about Mr. Patrick Roscoe (his name is not a link because you absolutely must hear the story before landing on his site.)  This is especially true because my list of authorial asshats seems to be overwhelmingly female, and we do need some gender balance.

So what did Mr. Roscoe do?  Well, he sent the following to literary agent Colleen Lindsay,  to whom he queried for representation. (Unsuccessfully, natch.)

Colleen Lindsay:

Thank you for making it clear, through your response to my query, that you are unquipped (sic) to represent fiction writers who are working at the very highest level today.

Best of luck with your list of minor writers, third-rate writers, irrelevant writers, non-writers.

You lose, silly woman.

Patrick Roscoe

Wow. I am sort of in awe of this letter. Here we combine, in only three sentences, a pure distillate of unprofessionalism, arrogance, misogyny, and complete absence of self-awareness.  I mean, you got to love the fact that he ranks himself among “fiction writers who are working at the very highest level today,” and yet has to look for representation from someone specializing in representing a “list of minor writers, third-rate writers, irrelevant writers, non-writers.” You just got to love that. And you really got to love the typo in the sentence establishing his literary street cred.

Ok, you’re probably thinking as I did, upon reading the post on Colleen Lindsay’s blog, that we’re just looking at newbie writer syndrome.  After all, you don’t expect this kind of behavior from writers who’ve actually published something.  This is only logical, since this kind of behavior is quite possibly the best way to prevent being published, short of not writing anything.

But, oh dear, Teresa at Making Light lets us all know that this guy, in fact, has been writing quite a while.

And, yes, he has a website whose ironic pretentiousness you are now primed to appreciate.  (And I will draw your attention to his expression on the borderline NSFW author pic.  If not for the absence of a bobbing head I would have pegged the shot as having been taken mid-fellation, but I guess he’s only stroking his ego.)

Case in point: We have a report (found here) of an unnamed vice principal at Millennial Tech Magnet Middle School saw a student’s science project and, because there were wires in it, called the bomb squad and had the school on lockdown for two hours while the pros determined that, yes, this was actually a science project.  Bear in mind that this is a school that is supposed to teach technology skills.  “The student will not be prosecuted, but authorities were recommending that he and his parents get counseling.”  Seems to me it is the school administration that neds some counseling.

Also from here we find out that you can have a flight diverted for being too Jewish. (At least they weren’t profiling.)

And we also find out that the TSA are a bunch of merry pranksters.  When they aren’t pulling eight-year-olds aside for special attention.  (At least they aren’t profiling.)  But they do have their eyes on the ball, right?

Hi all,

If you have the time or the inclination…might I prevail upon you for a small favor?
Would you please click on the link that I’ve inserted…go over to Amazon.com and just click YES under… the helpful reviews left by amazon reviewers, Harriet Klausner, C. Roberts and Tammie King (these are wonderful ladies who first gave me a chance when I started writing about thirteen years ago and I cannot thank them enough). [What is with this woman and ellipses? I thought I had an ellipsis problem, but three random ellipses in the same paragraph? And since when do reviewers "give you a chance?" That's the sort of acknowledgment one usually gives the people who buy your book.]

These lovely reviewers left very kind remarks but were undercut by two individuals who are known as hit-and-run reviewers (reviewers calling themselves BBB and LB Taylor). [So not only do negative reviews reflect badly on the book, they are undercutting poor Harriet Klausner. Coming soon, Amazon reviewer cage matches.] These two people repeatedly give very poor rankings on books; they’ve done this many, many times. [A guy in the comment thread actually did an analysis of LB Taylor and the rankings of those reviews fall on a pretty nice (and flat) bell curve.]

If the authors take issue with their reviews, they insult the authors in a public forum and get on the internet and troll for anyone who’ll support their bad review of that book….. [Yay! Bonus ellipses.] AND their bad opinion of the author. [You know, my opinion of the author has nothing to do with the review, or the reviewer.] Now…they have the right to hate any book they want, but then they try to shut the defending authors up [Except the people goading you on for the entertainment value. After you did shut up, there was a vague feeling of disappointment in the air.] when they question the reviewer about the comments. If you read the comments they’ve left, they admit to having done this. [Meaning a few people told her she was making herself look to be an idiot.]

In my case, this is what happened: [Now we repeat ourselves for emphasis, like all caps but more wordy and author-like.]

Rather than stay on the comment section of their reviews and talk to me like adults about the poor reviews they left [So someone telling you that they really for true thought your book sucked ass would have made this all go so much better?], BBB and LB Taylor went on a blog where they got commiserating infants to get on the book’s sales page (on amazon) and insult me. [You know, when an author goes batshit on Amazon, word does get around.] Both reviewers then disappeared entirely and let their blogging friends (people who’d never read my book at all) come after me, like the cowards they are. [i.e. The reviewers had some class and didn't want to be involved in an author implosion.] One of their blogosphere friends even called me ‘insane’ [Gee, I can't think why.] and left that comment on my book’s sales page. (under LB Taylor’s review comment section) All because I disagreed with a review. [You know, I'd like to think most authors don't believe their work sucks, so it stands to reason that the vast majority of them don't "agree" with one-star reviews. But the only author I've ever known to engage a negative review and not have it end up a train-wreck is John Ringo.]

Well …I’ll let ‘you’ be the judge of whether I’m nuts or not. [Why the ellipsis? Why the scare quotes on a pronoun? Your grammar scares me.]

If you have the time and would, please just go to the kinder reviewers comment section….under their reviews click on the ‘YES” button for those reviews having been helpful. [Because when authors ask their fans to game the system on Amazon, it never goes badly.] This will bump the nicer reviews ahead of the bad reviews and maybe the nastiness will stop. [Because this is why that comment thread is closing on 40 pages long, the good reviews aren't ranked highly enough. Right.] I’ll ask you not to involve yourself in the comments section of LB TAYLOR’s review unless you want to get sniped as well. These aren’t tolerant people; they’ll attack anyone who takes issue [By "taking issue," we mean going on a vindictive sociopathic whine fest over dozens of comments while insulting everyone in the room.] with those two poor reviews…in their minds, it seems this isn’t America…they can have an opinion, no one else better have one that’s contrary [Saying your postings are shit Twinkies around a creamy center of fail is not infringing on your freedom of speech. The first amendment does not give you a right not to be perceived as a complete loon.]. To end this little request, I want you to know that I’ve received poor reviews before…this isn’t what this was really about.[ORLY?] I just wanted to know why LB Taylor and BBB, whoever they are, left such vitriolic reviews about my book.[They probably, just guessing, thought the book sucked. People are allowed to, you know. That freedom of opinion thing you said folks are allowed to have.] JEEZ LOUIS folks…it’s just a darn romance novel[That's taking pride in your work there.]….and to make this clear…these same two people have done this same thing to authors Christine Feehan, Linda Lael Miller and others who are much more famous than I. I just commented on why they’d want to leave such a bad review when it might have been written more tactfully….they fled the site and let their amazon blog minions come after me.[Why can't I hold a private one-on-one conversation on a public forum on the internet without all these unrelated assholes coming by?]

Once again, if you can take a moment, just go click on the kinder commenters reviews…[Yeah, didn't get that the first time.]saying that those reviews were more helpful. Just click the word “YES” under the nicer reviews that were given.[Gee, this is complicated.] Again, this puts the poorer reviews on another page where they aren’t seen right off by any perspective buyers. [Because the flame war was being fed solely by people on Amazon randomly browsing her book, and has nothing to do with postings on Twitter, Facebook, and various blogs.] Readers can still read the bad reviews, it’s just that they won’t be the first ones under the book’s sales buttons. I will do the same thing for any author who is ‘hit’ by reviewers LB Taylor and someone anonymously calling him/herself BBB. [I'm glad to see that this is purely altruistic gaming of Amazon.]

See…it’s so easy to get on the ‘net and say whatever you want to about someone. [Yeah, and it gets me free blog content, whee.] Not so easy when that someone catches up with you.[Especially when that someone is yourself.] LB Taylor and BBB got scared when I commented on their reviews…[I'm scared by your ellipses]they ran but not before they got some infantile children[This is a writer folks. But, maybe repetition is a motif. Perhaps that explains the ellipses.] to haunt my book’s sales page with a vengeance, stalking me all over the internet. [So your book's sales page is all over the internet? I want your publicist.] Perhaps, if they see that others don’t like their behavior, they’ll go into hiding again…until they find the next unfortunate author [i.e. next batshit crazy author with a thin skin and a persecution complex.]. This happens all the time, folks. You know these cowardly types…this is how they operate. They want to say anything about anyone they please…if you call them out on their behavior…their worlds fall apart[Project much?]; they can’t take the challenge to their opinion. I’m no psychologist but I happen to think that these are some sick, sick people.[I've said it before; Pot. Kettle.] I wonder if they’d pick up a stick or some weapon and come after someone who challenges their opinion or authority if the challenge ever came in person. [This is full of more unjustified hyperbole and fear-mongering than Nancy Pelosi at a NRA fundraiser.]

Many kind thanks and hopefully there are others out there who’re not so scroogish this season ….
Candace S.

Candace Sams, author of Electra Galaxy’s Mr. Interstellar Feller (mass-market paperback, Dorchester/Love Spell), has exploded all over a comment thread on Amazon. She’s posting as Niteflyr One, but the comment thread has her ID’d as the author as of comment #8.

Head’s up, newbie writers, it is a bad idea to comment on reviews of your work.  It’s a really bad idea to start a flame war over your work.  The following is on page #2 of 26(!) pages of comments:

NOTE TO READERS: authors leave themselves open for attack by having their work posted for sale…they hope that if there’s anything engaging about the books, someone might say so. They hope that if others don’t like the books, they will find a more tactful, professional and mature way to express themselves. They (the authors) hope that so-called reviewers (often shameful people who abuse the power Amazon provides) will not directly try to keep the author from making a living.

That is only a short little segment of a tirade where our author decides to rant and insult her audience.  Always a smooth move.  You know, if you are this insecure and thin skinned, maybe you should find another line of work.  But, as I said, page #2. Hasn’t slowed down a bit by #4:

Because, that’s the way the business works in some New York venues. Only the highest paid authors won’t have their manuscripts ripped apart by some editors. As to my bad author behavior…I’m getting a lot of email telling me to stand my ground…from people who ARE buying my books.

Lady, an editor “ripping apart” your manuscript is a sign you have a sucktastic editor.  And, if your fans told you to jump off a bridge. . .

And this is yet another tactic of those who won’t let the author have an opinion.

You’re allowed to have opinions, and guess what? No one has to like them.

Maybe posters – like you – who don’t like negative feedback from authors should consider your words?

I decline the obvious cheap shot and just say, Ms. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Skip to Page #6:

And I’ll repeat this whether any of you like hearing it or not….authors have a right to defend themselves. I’m not sure why any of you think I’d care what you thought at this or any point. Anyone who’d crawl over here, getting into a conversation that ‘should’ have stayed between me and the original author of the review is just trolling for publicity.

Um, everyone has a right to defend themselves. Everyone has the right to make a fool of themselves. And everyone has a right to mock the foolish. And I am sure everyone is trolling Amazon comment threads of midlist romance titles just looking for that elusive internet buzz that will make them a name for themselves. (Cripes, what universe does that even make sense in?)

Again….I cannot make this clear enough…surely someone on this list speaks English and can translate for the rest of you…I don’t care if you buy one of my titles. Some of you are authors looking for some free publicity, that’s why you’re over here – shooting with whatever side you feel is the one that’s winning. This is an old, old marketing ploy. I’m not hearing anything negative from any of ‘my’ readers….just those trolling for some attention.

Note, this person is crying about attention whores when she herself has posted almost half the comments so far. Also, she’s the only author getting publicity out of this, by this point in the thread, people have mentioned links coming from Dear Author, e-mail lists, and other industry websites. It is a very popular trainwreck. A veritable meme.

Skip ahead to page #10, and she still hasn’t got it.

Again…I’m supposed to be the crazy one? Look how many are haunting this site just to tell me how sincerely insane I am. What about me threatens you all that you have to move in en masse?

I don’t care if this is a train wreck, car wreck or a full-out gutting. I stand by my right to say what I please. That you would shut up isn’t my problem. I’m not you and that’s the entire point. People don’t have to respond the way you think they should; the way you think is appropriate.

Kind of sad by now.

Page #11

I don’t want your kind of business. There are millions and millions of readers out there who couldn’t give a fig’s difference about this entire conversation. There are probably only fifty people on this post site who canNOT believe I’d do something so incredulous as simply stand up for my right to question a reviewer. How flaming dare I? Who am I after all? What gives me the absolute, unmitigated gall to confront a reviewer?

We don’t need no steenking logic. Of course people are trolling for publicity on a comment thread no one cares about. And to hazard an answer to the rhetorical question: A deep-seated insecurity, a lack of self-awareness, denial deep and wide enough to flood all of Egypt, a pathological need to get the last word, and an inability to admit you might have made a mistake. Am I close?

And, as you can CLEARLY see….others ARE linking the posters over here. And where a carcass has been presented…maggots will be found.

Obviously she’s working overtime to compensate for the damage of a one-star Amazon review.

As to my editor…only the office staff under him is answering the phone. He hasn’t been heard from in many, many months

Like I said, craptastic editor.

Page #12

there’s one more illiterate person I won’t have to send a hooked-on-phonics primer.

By Page #15 we have the threat of law-enforcement action.

A post was sent that involved a threat.
When I was made aware the facts and what happened and how the law reads, I told Amazon.com about the matter – I was on the phone with them very early this morning. They’ve been sent an email bearing a copy of the message in question. An investigative agency in charge of cyber stalking was also contacted…not by Amazon but by me! They also have a copy of the message. I’m told that a felony ‘might’ have been committed. If that was the case I WILL file charges against the person who made that threat, as a witness to it.

By page #17

Okay guys…I’ve just downloaded all the comments made on this site as per the FBI’s instructions…I don’t care if you believe it or not. The threat wasn’t made on this site…please read what I wrote…it was sent elsewhere. And I don’t care if you believe that, either.

Followed up by a desperate Hail Mary play to make the bleeding stop:

If you’re posting,your names are on a Federal report leading up to a threat that was made against me. The Feds wanted to know who everyone was…IC3 stands for Internet Crime. And I don’t care, once again, if you believe a single word I say…no skin off my back…that’s just how crazy I really am.

At which point she’s jumped a shark of cosmic proportions when Neil Gaiman (yes, that Neil Gaiman) twitters about her assclownish performance.  Followed by Patrick Nielsen Hayden (yes that Patrick Nielsen Hayden) leaving comments on her thread of epic fail.

At this point, it seems to have sunk in.  Her last documented appearance:

Oh…since I’m a cop…I doubt it…but whatever helps you get through the day.

Complete and utter meltdown.

Internet trolls are fascinating creatures. They live in the nooks and crannies of the internet, eager to pounce on any unwary passer-by. I find the psychology fascinating, as trolls almost always advocate a political point of view, and do it exceedingly badly. So badly that one is often left wondering if they secretly pull for the opposing side of the argument. Though, it’s really the argument that they are all about.

I had a brush with one of these cuddly internet denizens on twitter today.  It was enlightening.  The troll’s handle is “meatbrain” so you might guess he’s not a rocket scientist.  I should know, since I have argued with rocket scientists.  No, this brain of meat is not particularly eloquent.  In fact his main rhetorical gambit is to repeatedly shout “LIAR” like a crack-addled Joe Wilson at an HCAN meeting.  So what bridge did this chuck-roast cerebellum decide to burrow out from?  It was my tweet:

Sure they destroyed records, ignored FOIA requests and suppressed other scientists, but the DATA was ok, right? http://bit.ly/4snKhg

Guess what hamburger-mind took issue with?

RT @SAndrewSwann “Sure they destroyed records” You’re lying. No data destroyed. http://bit.ly/8bidF7

Interesting point, though Media Matters fails to point out that the original claim that data went missing came from CRU itself, as an excuse to dodge FOIA requests.  I figure this is probably a debatable point, but debate is not a strong point of our beefsteak cranium.  What follows is a demonstration of a level of respect and intellect that makes Perez Hilton look like James Lipton:

ME: @meatbrain Lying? http://bit.ly/6Qe1jI : “the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data”  [i.e. The statement from the CRU dumped this stuff in the 1980's]

MEAT: @SAndrewSwann Yes, dimwit, you’re lying. No data was destroyed. Read, jackass: http://bit.ly/8bidF7 [Yes, he's repeating the exact same Media Matters post here.]

ME:@meatbrain my you must be insecure to cram three insults and the same link in 140 characters: http://bit.ly/1HUCUR [I was slow on the uptake, didn't realize I was being trolled.]

ME: @meatbrain so the IRS can nuke its DB of tax returns and say it's ok because all the taxpayers have copies of their 1040s [Here's a tip, trolls are impervious to subtle points of logic.]

MEAT: @SAndrewSwann Data still exists. Nothing destroyed. You persist in lying – as expected. [Additional content, nil.  By now I realize this is a troll, and a particularly uncreative one.]

ME: @meatbrain CRU “had thrown out much of the raw temperature data on which some of its global warming research was based” http://bit.ly/6pZJix [Now I'm just screwing with him.]

MEAT: @SAndrewSwann You’re still ignoring the facts, and still pimping a lie. We know what you are now. You can stop advertising your dishonesty. [His facts: a single Media Matters post where the main "fact" is a statement by a CRU scientist that the earlier statement from the CRU that data was destroyed did not in fact mean that data was destroyed.  Oh, and got to love the royal "we." ]

ME: @meatbrain “If they ever hear there is a [FOIA] now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone” http://bit.ly/4DFCsG [Fun fact, I'm quoting the same guy who gave the above "facts" to Media Matters.  And he may be looking for work soon.]

MEAT: @SAndrewSwann Which data was actually and permanently “destroyed”, liar? Cherry-picking quotes prove nothing save your own dishonesty. [So actually quoting people makes one a liar.  I'm surprised he didn't claim I was taking it out of context.  Great accusation to use on Twitter, though, given the 140 character limit.]

ME: @meatbrain If no data has been destroyed, then the CRU was lying to dodge an FOI request. Which is it? http://bit.ly/1NC1oQ [Note his immediate and unambiguous answer to the question.]

MEAT: @SAndrewSwann You’re afraid to answer this: Which data was actually and permanently “destroyed”? Run away again, coward. [Guess he didn't like that question did he?]

MEAT: @SAndrewSwann Your hero Patrick Michaels misrepresented himself as a “state climatologist” for years. http://bit.ly/8Swvb4 [Attack the guy I linked to, that's the ticket.  That's making your case.  Now if someone could only figure out what your case is.]

MEAT: @SAndrewSwann Patrick Michaels is a proven liar http://bit.ly/5H8OMg – no wonder you love to cite his spewage [Lies, oh the LIES!  He provided an arguable interpretation of an Al Gore quote.  Oh the humanity.]

ME: @meatbrain “Michaels was originally appointed state climatologist by Gov. John Dalton in 1980″ if there’s a problem, it’s in the Gov Office [Fun fact, I quote from the meaty one's own link.]

ME: @meatbrain Rather low bar for “proven liardom.” Does Phil Jones meet them? Did CRU tell the truth about deleting its data or not? [Now I know this question pisses him off.]

MEAT: @SAndrewSwann And again, you ignore the inconvenient facts. Mendacity is THE core value for you. [See, he's pissed off.]

ME: @meatbrain Well I guess I was wrong, they didn’t delete data: http://bit.ly/6Hylkw It seems they were just lying about that to avoid FOIA. [So I answer it for him.]

MEAT: @SAndrewSwann Michaels made false statement. You don’t think that makes him a liar? Oh wait, you’ve done the same. [He's not even paying attention now.]

MEAT: @SAndrewSwann You can’t find any data that’s actually gone forever – but you’re going to go right on spreading that lie. Smug, lying turd. [He's not even making sense by the rules of his own little universe.]

ME: Seems @meatbrain can’t win an argument gracefully. I agreed the CRU lied about trashing its data. My fault for taking them at their word. [I claim my pound of flesh (meat) and bid my little troll adieu.  This is, after all, the logical conclusion of his argument, such as it is.]

MEAT: @SAndrewSwann Not interested in “winning” anything. Just here to throw the fact that you’re a liar back in your face. [Of course, he must have the last word. And does so in a statement that pretty much admits he's a troll and that he lost the argument.]

I’ll let you ponder the following thesis:

HarperCollins does not really believe Sarah Palin has written a valuable book—or even that it is really a book, not in the way that HarperCollins has historically understood books, or in the way that people have counted on HarperCollins to have understood a book. But, these are desperate times and real books are an increasingly equivocal proposition anyway, so almost all publishers are willing to engage in the strategic mix-up between real books and fake books.

As an aside, I’ll give you one guess on who the other NY-Times bestselling “author” on whom Wolf applied his derision. . .

Let’s start with the idea of a “fake” book. That nasty conceit infects the entire article, and apparently Mr. Wolf’s whole worldview. In Wolf’s eyes, there are certain tell-tale markers that a particular printed, bound, book-like object is infected with “fakeness.” Apparently, the number one vector that can “fakeify” a book is this fact:

And they’re fake. A lie. So many are just simply not written by the people the publisher tells you they are written by. Somebody should sue.

Ok, so ghostwritten books are “fake.” Wow. It’s almost as if he just discovered that people really do this, and started crying because there ain’t no Santa. (Should someone tell him that sometimes people write under names other than their own?) But also note here that he says “so many,” which is not “all.” So the whole “they didn’t really write that all by themselves” complaint is not the sole criterion. These evil, lying, fake books have other identifiers that are, apparently, just as important as the credit.

Mr. Wolf, tell me more:

Books are a sales tool. They’re propaganda.

OMG!!!!! CAPITALISM! POLITICS! THE HORROR!

It’s a sleight of hand. A bait and switch. It’s not that there is anything wrong, or at least out of the ordinary, with salesmanship or promotional copy, or with even saying you wrote what your ghostwriter wrote. This is the stuff of speeches, advertising, and testimonials. What’s insidious here is that these forms, which are understood to be insincere and a confection, are now in the guise of a book, which is understood to be genuine and substantial.

Gotta love that passive voice, you can just here the condescension dripping from every word. You can almost choke on the snobbery. This is pretty much the very definition of bigotry; relying on a series of arbitrary external signifiers to indicate the worth of something. Saves you the trouble of actually reading.

It’s a preposterous image, someone actually sitting down and furrowing their brow over the Palin work.

But, it’s all good, we can slam it without soiling ourselves with those evil stupid words.

This really isn’t quibbling. We have created a giant system of national agitprop, in which books and the book business have become one of the most effective tools.

Literate people should boycott books.

ORLY? Has he thought this out, at all?  I mean that the entire article is written from the point of view of someone who has little idea of how the marketplace works, but even someone whose understanding of capitalism comes only from playing Monopoly twice when he was twelve should realize that this is a stupid idea as well as being logically inconsistent. If his suggestion was taken even halfway seriously, the obvious result would only be a decline in sales of the “real” books, after all, his definition of “literate people” are not going to be “furrowing their brow over the Palin work” anyway.

What we have here is the oft-repeated stupid argument that popular culture (translation: the stuff that actually sells) somehow contaminates, belittles or gives cooties to “real culture” (translation: stuff that I appreciate that makes me better than you, and doesn’t sell) mixed in with a heavy dose of “What? Conservative books are bestsellers? The system must be broken! Those hicks can’t read!“

Even when the bastard pleads guilty.

In the case of Roman Polanski, there’s no question of the facts. He drugged a 13 year old girl and anally raped her over her protests. When everyone says Polanski is fleeing a statutory rape charge, it its because that’s what he plead guilty to in very favorable plea bargain. Then, when it seemed that the Judge wouldn’t accept the plea bargain, he fled the country.

But, in the eyes of a lot of celebrities, Polanski deserves special treatment, and are actually appalled that he may now be extradited as if he was (gasp) some sort of fugitive rapist. That fact alone is stomach-churning.

But I have a special asshat right here for Whoopi Goldberg:

It wasn’t rape-rape.

The woman actually said that.

It wasn’t rape-rape.  Whoopi?  Rape-rape?  You talk about not having the facts, here are some facts for you.  The victim may have forgiven the guy (and can you blame her for wanting to get on with her life?) but she’s never recanted, and the facts of her testimony were never in dispute.  The assertion that this was not really rape is appalling, and exposes a moral ugliness in celebrity culture that, in this particular case, has crossed the line into evil.

Oh yeah, you’re right, other countries do see rape of 13-year-olds differently than us, if by “us” you mean the little celebutard bubble you live in.  These asshats are the public face of America folks, which is why electing Obama didn’t stop anyone from wanting to bomb the crap out of us.

UPDATE: OMG WTF? From the LA Times, these words actually left the mouth of an actual real person:

In an interview, Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He’s not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” Weinstein said. “We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe.”

Well slap me with JLo’s adopted baby and call me Bono, of course they can absolve Polanski, because they’re so much more compassionate than anyone else.  The sad thing is, the fucktards really believe that.

UPDATE: Some less questionable figures here. Don’t you wish the MSM could do basic math?

We had somewhere between seventy thousand and two million people march into Washington in what has got to be the cleanest and most peaceful angry mob of terrorists to ever march on a nation’s capitol.

(The asshat who wrote the terrorism quote deserves the Godwin award for inappropriate and offensive analogies: “Glenn Beck is an actual terrorist, and the people attending his rally in DC tomorrow are al-Qaeda in America.” Really, Mr. Pareene? Too bad the government isn’t offering cash for clues, or perspective bailouts.)

Also, that “two million” figure is kind of interesting. Most of the bloggers I’ve seen are skeptical of it, and the origin of the figure as far as I’ve been able to source it, comes from a memo out of the Democratic Congressional leadership.  The author of the post about it theorizes that it might have been a way to try and raise impossible expectations so the protest looked like a failure (HA HA you only got 20% of our inflated estimate)  If that’s the case, it was a serious misfire.  The number got picked up and passed through enough news sources that people quoting the figure had MSM backup, going to show how full of crap the MSM is.  Since most people aren’t forensic photo analysts, they’ll see a crowd picture and just think “that’s a hell of a lot of people.”  They’ll go with whatever number they’re told about the picture; ten thousand, hundred thousand, a million.  After a certain point our eyes just see “many.”

My guess is somewhere between 100K and 350K.