On Friday night, TRex put up a post at the high-traffic blog Firedoglake exhorting his readers: "Please feel free to post your comments on this post under the name 'Ann Althouse'. I've done it before. It's totally fun." Some time thereafter, he took the post down, but I have the text of it because I've set up a Google alert to keep track of the use and abuse of my name, so I received the text in my email.
I've known for a long time that unscrupulous webwriters appropriate my name, and I have a longstanding dispute with the blog Sadly, No for refusing to take down comments that appropriate my name. I have emailed them politely and seriously making the request, but they have refused repeatedly.
Now, I have TRex's confession that he is one of my impersonators. I don't know that he is an impersonator on Sadly, No, but the post he took down mentioned Sadly, No.
How shameful and embarrassing! At least he had the wits to think better of it and try to hide it. Or maybe he's just afraid of getting into trouble for impersonating me.
What an unscrupulous, pusillanimous little twerp!
IN THE COMMENT: Someone from Sadly, No shows up and makes some incredibly lame excuses for that blog's descent into outright sexist hate speech. I do what I can to shame them. How do men who imagine themselves to be liberal get the idea that they can treat a woman like this and not shoot their reputation to hell?
November 10, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
49 comments:
I really don't understand these people. You're a rather cool gal.
You know I absolute love you but I think it is silly that you get entrenched in this stupidity.
Can't you just ignore them?
Enjoy the day. Do something nice for yourself today. Buy a cute blouse.
One of my favorite things I like to do is spoon with my rare clumbers (seriously nothing sexual my fellow republicans). I can feel the love when we are holding each other.
I wish I saw you today and I would give you a big hug.
You are special! I know I just sounded like Stewart Smalley, sorry.
What a pathetic little man.
He needs to move beyond junior high school, no matter how traumatizing it was for him.
eh. He's lazy and knows he doesn't have the intellect or wit to engage on a thread where he can't delete anyone challenging his idiocy. So he recruits mercenaries to do it for him. Real impressive.
He sounds like a typical teen aged boy. Obviously, he is a bit older, but clearly isn't acting it.
Mortimer - that is all you need to understand with them, that they are acting like teenagers. Likely similar motivations even if they are a bit older. Just think back to when you were that age, and try to remember why you did anything. Most likely you will come up blank.
Ann, they have sucked you into this. Reminds me of one of the guys in our neighborhood who knew how to get to my mother. He would rev up his engine, drop it in gear, and try to hit 50 in the couple hundred fee he had to our house, laying as much rubber as he could in his parent's station wagon. My mother would come out shaking her fist, and he knew he had accomplished his mission. He would then slow down for the curves coming up and then drive relatively safely to school.
Despite dire predictions, he actually turned out ok, as he is now a tenured prof at a top ten engineering school.
Oh, and that guy who used to terrorize my mother? He now has three teen aged daughters, whose boy friends and their friends are likely ever bit as bad as he ever was. So, there is at least some justice in the world.
Lame. Very lame. (And a female impersonator, too!)
clumbers...
Every time I read that I laugh.
I've even laughed about Titus and his clumbers with other people.
Fight the fools when you feel like fighting. Ignore them when you have other things on your mind. Just be yourself in each and every moment. That's what I come here to read and enjoy.
Not just clumbers, Althouse. Rare clumbers.
I still love that TRex looks exactly like a cut-rate Michael Douglas in "Falling Down". Hopefully TRex isn't as violent as that character, though he's already shown the same lack of impulse control.
Learn something new every day, oftentimes in here -- I'd never heard of clumbers before.
What a little pissant.
Stipulated that TRex looks like Michael Douglas in "Falling Down."
But that's also the Dilbert look.
If TRex is Dilbert, who then is Catbert, Dogbert, Alice, et al?
I agree with Titus 1000%. The perfect way to cheer yourself up is to buy yourself a cute blouse. A beautiful Tahashi cocktail dress would probably make you break out in song like Patti Lupone at her best. And I know a great place for just that experience, open seven days a week. We even had people from Madison shopping there. It's in with the in crowd baby. Just sayn'. (Open Sundays 12-9pm)(Special discounts for prominent bloggers and commenters).
Well, where is your store? Do you let people take photos?
My real name is Ann Alt-Del-House.
Hey, at least your name is getting a little action, right?
Of course you can take photos. It's at 368 Court St on the corner of President. Come by and photo till your hearts content. Just no photo's of anyone peeing please.
"Just no photo's of anyone peeing please."
Especially clumbers. Rare or otherwise.
Fellow repubulicans I say rare clumbers because all clumbers are rare, not just mine, although mine are especially unique.
The reason clumbers are rare is because there are only 270 some registered in the US. It is one of the lowest number of registered breeds in the US.
In case your interested their temperament is also quite unique. They are very reserved, won't come up to anyone, not snotty mind you, just very suspicious of others. They tend to be very docile unless they are actually in the field hunting birds. Mine don't hunt birds but I have taken them to a park where they have flushed out partridge, pheasant and quail.
They are all white with a little yellow around their ears. They tend to be "doughy" and hang low to the ground. Both of mine weigh a little over 100 pounds. They are considered the "gentlemen's spaniel". They aren't a froufrou dog or a butch dog-I have never seen anothe gay with one-that was incredibly important. Oh and most important the application process and cost is quite intimidating. I had to wait two years for mine. I purchased mine in RI. My application was accepted so in some small way I felt special.
Apropos Sadly, No! and this topic, we just had to delete some over-the-line comments posted by an unfamiliar person.
Our general rule is that comments with fake names have an obviously fake URL. Ex:
Jonah Goldberg --> http://DoughBobLoadPants.com
Beyond this (as I explained some time ago) we have a zero-tolerance rule for threatening comments or ones with a third party's personal information.
If someone posts anything like this on our site, please let us know.
"we just had to delete some over-the-line comments posted by an unfamiliar person"
I'm not sure what that means or how it relates to me, but I think you know that I am being harassed by your website. It's not legitimate satire. It's ugly and often sexist trash. I've asked you nicely to stop people from impersonating me, which is an unethical practice, but your site has persisted and allowed commenters to encourage it.
From the Clumber.org site:
Dogs weigh between 70 and 85 pounds and bitches weigh between 55 and 70 pounds
Titus, it appears your dogs aren't thin and fabulous. Those are pretty big spaniels, regardless. Is the "b" silent?
It's a bit ironic that Rightwingsnarkle, an obvious take-off of the lovely and talented Rightwingsparkle, would comment on this post.
Would it bother you less if they corrupted your name, so it obviously isn't you? We non-celebrities have a hard time empathizing, 'til it happens to us.
Yes, if the name were different, it wouldn't turn up in a Google search. You know, people do quick searches and click on things. They don't settle in and get the feeling for a place. They don't know it's obviously not me. I can't understand why a blog that people work hard on and want respected would allow it to be used by asinine commenters who are being malicious and destructive toward a particular individual.
It looks like they've noticed tonight what hateful commenters they've been hosting. Maybe they'll raise their game now that they see what a problem it is.
I think you know that I am being harassed by your website. It's not legitimate satire. It's ugly and often sexist trash. I've asked you nicely to stop people from impersonating me, which is an unethical practice, but your site has persisted and allowed commenters to encourage it.
I think it's clear that we disagree that anyone is being 'harassed' by the legitimate satire on our site -- 'legitimacy' being a historical term of contention for those who are satirized.
Please review the relevant case law, specifically the pivotal decisions in Shoe v The Other Foot and Dish It Out v Take It.
I think, for that matter, that we also disagree as to whether you ever asked us anything nicely, since the only communications we've seen from you have been angry demands and suggestions of retaliation.
Our communications in return were much more collegial, yet ended up posted on your blog with commentary implying that we're intimidated by you.
Our theory has been that you spend a large amount of time stirring up controversy in various ways, in order to rail against the unwelcome controversy inflicted on you by unscrupulous others.
Which is fine, but let's keep a little perspective here for heaven's sake.
Look, you are allowing people to appropriate my name and impersonate me in a way that is confusing to the public and harmful to me. That is different from other criticisms or satire which I have never asked you to take down, even though it is frequently sexist hate speech that you should be ashamed of.
I really wonder what sort of liberals you are: you are men -- apparently middle class white men -- who are condoning the sexist taunting of a woman. But that is your problem. As to that, I am only pointing it out and shaming you. Your site is a magnet for sexist hate speech and you don't think it counts because you see me as on the other side politically. That is despicable.
I am only requesting deletions of the impersonation.
How's that for perspective?
"Our theory has been that you spend a large amount of time stirring up controversy in various ways, in order to rail against the unwelcome controversy inflicted on you by unscrupulous others."
She was asking for it.
Familiar logic.
And now that I've taken a look over at Sadly, No again, I see what despicable filth is going on. So you finally had to draw the line — or was it only that you worried someone was trying to frame you for something, whatever that means. You people are involved in the lowest sort of sexist hatred, but somehow you must think that because of your politics, you're okay. You're not. You are evil and sexist, and your trivialization of my concern about it is a manifestation of sexism (as you would know if you had a clue about feminism). Shame on you.
You know, Gavin, when you say things like "Althouse is having another of her hissies about people using her name" -- over at that Sadly, No link -- that is sexist, trivializing language. I am angry with you for good reason. You'd better clean up your act. At least have enough intelligence and shame to hide that you are a male chauvinist pig.
You know, this experience reinforces something that I've known since 1970 (and many others have observed): that liberal politics and feminism only happen to coincide some of the time. Liberal men are just as likely to be sexists underneath as anyone else.
And Gavin, I don't "misunderstand" your point about the appropriation of my name, as you say over there, I am troubled by the way it is picked up by search engines and confusing to people who don't read long enough to grasp what people at your blog are doing. You seem determined to misunderstand that. Why don't you at least tell your readers that I understand what you are saying and that that is my point, but that you've decided to do nothing about it for whatever damned reason you think is so important. Instead, you hope to present me as overemotional, stupid, and unbalanced -- which is the way that sexist men have tried to put women in their place for as long as I can remember. I'm calling you on that, and I will continue to call you on that until you rectify the situation. Shame on you.
As to the contention that I never asked nicely, here is the text of my original email, which I have copied out in commenters on my blog before:
"You have someone commenting at this post as an imposter using my name. [http://sadlyno.com/archives/4742.html] I have commented there asking you to take those comments down.
"Please let me know that you have removed those comments and that you denounce that practice or that you are refusing to do so. This is completely unethical and unrelated to your opinion of me generally."
As I wrote before, I received the following response from one "Seb":
"The comment you objected to, as you should know, read:
"'Please, please! We must not let this discussion of pharmaceuticals descend into partisanship!'
"Even you, I think, would not be so ridiculous as to post such tripe. If anyone did have any doubts, a look at the link posted to that comment would have made clear that the comment, like your stance of non-partisanship, is a joke. I will let history judge whether it's funny or not.
"Frankly, since you insist on a one-sided (and inaccurate, it wasn't, when you complained, comments, but rather one comment) and link- and content-free presentation (would quoting the offending comment really have so difficult?), I'm not much impressed by the faux outrage over S,N!'s "unethical" behavior..."
I emailed back:
"I understand but am not satisfied by your explanation. You are allowing someone to impersonate me, to use my name to my detriment.
"I was nice enough to write to you and tell you that I object, and I think any decent, ethical blogger would delete the posts that misappropriate my name. I realize it's supposed to be a joke, but it's not even obviously a joke and it's certainly not clear that I'm not telling it."
So you see I've explained my point all along. I haven't failed to understand their point, they are falsely stating that I don't understand, because it serves their interests, and they never acknowledge the basis for my objection which I have made clear from the start.
Seb wrote back:
"How is this to your detriment? The first post is so silly, and the link to a silly blog so obvious, it's really hard to take seriously the claim of injury. You may well choose to argue that I am indecent and unethical, but that dog won't hunt (call me not satisfied by your argument.) Injuring you?!? How have you been injured? Please be specific -- and at least offer your readers the chance to read the offending comment. I can assure you whatever "reward" might come from a couple thousand visits on the part of people who will hate S,N! won't provide much "reward.""
Obviously, Seb is only worred that I might sue him and shows no ray of human decency. Similar to their current worrying about getting "framed."
Then "Gavin M," emailed me:
"Ann, our comments are like the National Lampoon letters column. Nobody, for instance, believes that it's really Henry Kissinger when a comment appears under Henry Kissinger's name. The same obtains for figures such as Attila The Hun, Shakespeare, and Ann Althouse. Comments by notable figures are assumed to be parodic unless demonstrated otherwise. This is generally signaled even further by the link. If a comment, for example, appears under the name, 'Jonah Goldberg,' the link will point to an entity such as http://doughy.pantload.com, which is clearly a parodic web address. That said, we also have a longstanding and well-known policy of keeping comments entirely free and unmoderated, such that we don't alter, delete, or edit anything in that section except in very exceptional cases, such as last year when an unknown person tried to post Michelle Malkin's home phone number in our comments. We take such cases very seriously, deleting the comment and banning the poster. Other cases which would meet that threshold would include 'outing' an anonymous right-blogger, threatening or enabling any sort of physical harm on another person, or posting personal information (of any sort) in order to intimidate someone."
Yes, yes, the same old explanation that he thinks I don't understand and not a word about my point.
I can see wanting to keep comments free and unmoderated, but I think appropriation of a name and impersonation that causes confusion to outsiders who google their way in is a special problem that should be acknowledged. The idea that these outsiders will click on the link and see an odd URL and know it's not me shows no understanding of how ordinary people read the web.
In any case, I sent them a polite, private alert and request, and they've been abysmal in their response. They are unethical, and they've created a place that's become a hotbed of sexism. To say I never asked nicely enough is utter trash. These guys, concerned only with covering their own ass, will grasp at anything.
Ann, do you have any idea how many Google entries on 'Ann Althouse' (and on what topics, with what level of controversy and opprobrium) one has to scroll past in order to find a comment on our site?
Re: sexist language and 'hate speech,' please see the relevant case law, incl. Althouse v AutoAdmit, Althouse v Valenti, and Know You Are v What Am I.
That said, short of deleting comments, which is strongly against our longstanding policy, what would you suggest that we do in order to address any parts of your complaint that we might agree to consider as valid?
I believe you're leaving some things out of this narrative.
For instance, you made frivolous and unsustainable legal threats (not reproduced in your abstract above), misrepresented the situation to us (not addressed in your abstract above), behaved unethically toward your readers in complaining at length about these comments while refusing to link to any examples or indeed to any part of the site in question (not addressed in your abstract above), and deleted comments which we attempted to post here in reply (same).
This is not a productive way to ask for something.
Neither is your tone, which is consistently hostile in a passive-aggressive way characteristic of a certain type of academic who attempts to chase success through claiming constant false injury.
If you would like us to do something, please ask nicely.
Sadly, No! Research Labs said.. "Ann, do you have any idea how many Google entries on 'Ann Althouse' (and on what topics, with what level of controversy and opprobrium) one has to scroll past in order to find a comment on our site?"
No.
"Re: sexist language and 'hate speech,' please see the relevant case law, incl. Althouse v AutoAdmit..."
I only objected to the lawsuit. I denounced the hate speech and none of it appeared on my blog where I could delete it, but I regularly delete comments that are about private individuals (as opposed to public figures).
"Althouse v Valenti,"
I've explained that too many times to justify going over again, but my objection there is to feminists getting cozy with Bill Clinton and to a feminist blog being festooned with pictures of breasts. I have always avoided mentioning the woman's name too, by the way, so it couldn't be Googled, but her friends insisted on making a display of it, and I couldn't control that. I don't like it. My point was about Clinton and I stand by it.
"and Know You Are v What Am I."
Don't know if that refers to anything.
"That said, short of deleting comments, which is strongly against our longstanding policy, what would you suggest that we do in order to address any parts of your complaint that we might agree to consider as valid?"
You need to delete the comments that involve people appropriating my name. I also think anything that involves graphically sexual or violent things aimed at me should be deleted. And generally, I think you should care if your comments become a cesspool. You know, your commenters aren't very funny and they drag each other down if you don't weed. But that's your problem. You don't have to follow my advice about how to make a better blog generally.
"I believe you're leaving some things out of this narrative. For instance, you made frivolous and unsustainable legal threats (not reproduced in your abstract above)"
I don't know what that refers to, so you'll have to quote something to me. I don't believe it, because that is something I avoid doing. You may have read things as legal threats because you know I'm a law professor, but that is your subjective perception. It's not something I would do. I think I quoted all the email in the older post. Maybe you're remembering your own fears, similar to that blogger who remembered me drinking a lot of wine in a vlog where I held a glass of wine and took one sip. He accused me of editing the video after I posted it. Pure delusion.
"...misrepresented the situation to us (not addressed in your abstract above),"
What? I don't know what you mean.
"...behaved unethically toward your readers in complaining at length about these comments while refusing to link to any examples or indeed to any part of the site in question (not addressed in your abstract above), and deleted comments which we attempted to post here in reply (same)."
People can find your blog. I don't have to link to you. There are a lot of sleazeballs out there saying things about me and I don't reward it with links. I don't have an ethical obligation to quote hateful things about me. I was objecting to the impersonation and confusion and that was absolutely accurate. You have some policy that's about whether people intend their comments to be confusing — a subjective standard. That's not enough.
"This is not a productive way to ask for something."
I used private email. You responded and were clear that you weren't going to do anything. When I wrote on the blog, it was later, and having given up on asking privately and assuming that you were decent people, I chose to publicly shame you as my best option.
"Neither is your tone, which is consistently hostile in a passive-aggressive way characteristic of a certain type of academic who attempts to chase success through claiming constant false injury."
It's not passive. I am hostile, and I'm not hiding it. I am openly denouncing you and trying to shame you and openly saying that's what I'm doing. What's passive about it?
"If you would like us to do something, please ask nicely."
You didn't respond when I did, so don't act like that's why you did nothing. Only by being aggressive have I gotten your attention. And telling me to be nice rubs me the wrong way now that I regard you as sexist. You've known all along what you need to do. I'm not going to suck up to you to get it.
Sadly, No! Research Labs said:
"Ann, do you have any idea how many Google entries on 'Ann Althouse' (and on what topics, with what level of controversy and opprobrium) one has to scroll past in order to find a comment on our site?"
No.
===
Maybe you ought to go look before publicly claiming injury.
Also, you left out the explanation as to why you deleted comments from this site when we attempted to reply to your charges.
A characteristic Althouse explanation would be that they were 'hateful' or 'sexist' in some way. But the correct explanation, as you well know, is that you were not interested at that time in seeking a solution, but in claiming to be attacked by unspecified 'unethical bloggers' via mysterious comments -- which you could describe as so inflammatory that you were not obligated to show any as evidence.
I signaled a willingness to investigate this complaint in good faith, but found you unwilling to negotiate.
Should you wish to discuss this further at any time, I shall require examples of the comments you find offensive, as well as the means by which readers not intending to visit our satire site might encounter them to your specific detriment.
Clang!Honk!Tweet! said...
"If TRex is Dilbert, who then is Catbert, Dogbert, Alice, et al?"
I have no idea, but I suppose the metaphor would make Kos the PHB. ;)
Sadly, No! Research Labs said...
"[S]hort of deleting comments, which is strongly against our longstanding policy, what would you suggest that we do in order to address any parts of [Ann's] complaint that we might agree to consider as valid?"
You could delete the coments. I don't think anyone outside of your litle bubble gives a fig what your "longstanding policy" is, a fortiori when it's so obviously venal and corrupt, a cowardly way to avoid admitting that you share the hostility of your commenters towards Althouse, as your catty remarks above make very clear.
I don't think anyone outside of your litle bubble gives a fig what your "longstanding policy" is, a fortiori when it's so obviously venal and corrupt, a cowardly way to avoid admitting that you share the hostility of your commenters towards Althouse, as your catty remarks above make very clear.
Insert cats, comme il faut.
Sadly, No: "Also, you left out the explanation as to why you deleted comments from this site when we attempted to reply to your charges."
I don't know what that refers to. Enlighten me. I leave tons of critical and even abusive comments in place, as my readers will attest. It requires some serious abuse before I take it down. But I can search for it in my email if you tell me the name of the sender of the email. I certainly wouldn't take down something that was just you trying to respond to me. I never do things like that, and I can say that with confidence, because I know what I'm doing.
"Should you wish to discuss this further at any time, I shall require examples of the comments you find offensive, as well as the means by which readers not intending to visit our satire site might encounter them to your specific detriment."
You (groundlessly) accused me of writing in some sort of academy-speak, but good lord, what the hell is that? "Should you wish...." "I shall require..." "the means by which readers not intending to visit our satire site might encounter".... what bullshit. Spare me the "wish," "shall," and fey verbal tenses, you candyass phony.
Sadly, No! Research Labs said...
"Insert cats, comme il faut."
How wonderfully self-serving, since that would cast "Sadly No" as a "hapless victim" being "bull[ied]," "intimidate[d]" and even "brutal[ized]" by Big Dog Althouse. A broader gulf between self-image and reality is rarely observed.
In any event, if you're going to resort to the time-worn "flame warrior" insult, I would think that "profundus maximus" would be a more apt description to hurl at your latin-loving present interlocutor.
Geez, I should google alert Sadly, No! impostor so I know when you're talking about me, Ann. (I'm the brad you confuse with bradrocket, because commenting as "a different brad" is too complex for you to handle.)
Now then, should I make another fake facebook profile for you with a picture of you kissing a t-rex?
Accusations of sexism from the woman who ranted and raved about a woman whose breasts happened to be in close proximity to Bill Clinton.
Let us recall the immortal words of Ann Althouse:
One of the main things that draws me to writing about something is the desire to make fun of people who are taking themselves too seriously, like those bloggers who were so dorkily proud to be lunching with Clinton.
You (groundlessly) accused me of writing in some sort of academy-speak...
Um, I don't remember that we ever have, no.
"...but good lord, what the hell is that? "Should you wish...." "I shall require..." "the means by which readers not intending to visit our satire site might encounter".... what bullshit. Spare me the "wish," "shall," and fey verbal tenses, you candyass phony.
A) The subjunctive is not a 'tense,' but a 'mood.'
B) Fun awaits! Go here and enter 'annalthouse.blogspot.com'!
Sadly, No! Research Labs said..."'You (groundlessly) accused me of writing in some sort of academy-speak...' Um, I don't remember that we ever have, no."
You wrote: "your tone... characteristic of a certain type of academic...."
"A) The subjunctive is not a 'tense,' but a 'mood.'"
I'm in a tense mood.
"B) Fun awaits! Go here and enter 'annalthouse.blogspot.com'!"
That's so last week... or actually last year. You don't seem to understand much about writing if you think that means what's smart and what's not.
That's so last week... or actually last year. You don't seem to understand much about writing if you think that means what's smart and what's not.
I'm sorry. You are smart for pointing out contemporary trends, and I am dumb for contradicting brilliant Ann Althouse, who has clearly issued an objection to my use of tenses and moods that are NOT APPROPRIATE for the English language, pace Ann Althouse, and in contradiction to at least several years prior to Teh Althouse's arrival on the get-us-straight scene.
I await further updates as to how Western Civilization may reconfigure in order the better to validate certain people who believe that the sun rises and sets on themselves.
The fact that I'm smart makes me dumb. I do wail and rend garments, yet I do submit.
To Ann:
In the meantime, I guess we'll keep making fun of such a character as She, at any time we choose to.
Also: Ann, you are a hostile sexist, anti-woman racist hater who is hatefully disgusting in shockingly hating sexually hostile anti-sex woman races, who are thingy.
Also, your ass is made of candy.
Hey, Sadly, No blew a gasket. Get a good night's rest. That'll wear off. Whatever it was. What was it anyway? Booze? Or something else?
Sadly, No! Research Labs said...
"Fun awaits! Go here and enter 'annalthouse.blogspot.com'!"
Not that it matters either way, but since turnabout is fair play, how unfortunate for you that the test gives the same ranking to Ann's blog that it gives to Sadly No.
Post a Comment