UPDATE: Over on the discussion board, someone named Louis Sifer writes "Honestly, I think Lou Minatti is Ann Althouse. Honest. It's my honest opinion. I detect the same writing style." What do you think are the chances that I would want to hide my writing under a pseudonym, and then what do you think are the chances that I'd come up with the name "Lou Minatti"? Now, I'm just giggling over the keyboard, which you might picture me doing a lot, but, in fact, I hardly ever do. But this Lou Minatti character seems pretty smart. The thread is limited to constructive criticism for Pajamas, and he's got:
Anyway, they need to turn it off. Now. Just shut it off.Ooh, I think Althouse adopted an unlikely pseudonym so she could make it look like someone else agreed with her and then link to "him" back on her blog. And she's probably also that Louis Sifer character too, using "him" to make the whole thing about her. She's an attention whore. Yeah, Louis Sifer, Lou Minatti -- I detect the same pseudonym-inventing style! Lou... Louis... her dad's name is probably Lou. Get the fedora'd detectives on this, quick!
Then sit down and ask what it is they're trying to do. Why not ask us, the readers? I can't recall anyone (Charles, Roger, Glenn) asking us for our ideas. It's their money of course, but it's like they just assumed that they would know what we wanted to look at.
Is PJM a blog aggregator? A competitor to Huffington? What is it? To this day I still do not know what PJM is, and I still haven't bookmarked it because it's guilty of the worst sin of all - there's nothing interesting to read there!
They need to get a clear idea of what they are. Until then, they are wasting time and money.
Althouse-o-phobia seeps in the collective mind of the Pajama Entity, where the horrifying words echo:
They need to turn it off. Now. Just shut it off.
Posts
16 comments:
Ann, you might want to look down thread at "Sarah's" comments, where "she" is pulling the same maqneuver with me and Jakemanjack.
And you're suggesting in the last paragraph that they should just give up and shut off PJM?
I'm sure glad we've got you to keep the blogosphere free and independent; we'd hate to have other views and apporaches shut down, or dissent suppressed.
Charlie: "Lou" is trying to make a constructive suggestion to them to close down, solve their problems, and then relaunch.
And you've been accused of being Jackmanjack over here too, as you know. Maybe you're Lou Sifer, trying to make it look like I'm doing what you've been accused of doing!
Thanks, AJ.
Charlie - Darkening the door here a bit soon aren't you? Less than three or four hours ago you were specifically agreeing to this comment about Professor Althouse at Protein Wisdom:
It doesn’t make sense any longer. She is clearly off her rocker in a vicious way, and until she addresses her issues, she should be ignored.
(For the record, you quoted that paragraph and appended the statement, Yeah, what you said.)
What changed your mind, Charlie?
Ann: Apologies if this is considered off-topic, but I've had enough of this type of two-faced "participant" whose only goal is to silence honest discussion, harrass well-intentioned people and frighten off those of us who are not political extremists.
Although I have enjoyed Althouse for a very long time, I have contributed very little to the comments. At first, that was because of your first experience with comments (and other such debacles I had witnessed). Later, I was content to sit back and let others do the commenting.
Now, it seems to me that people like Charlie are coming here only to destroy. Time to stand up and be counted, I guess.
jakemanjack: How nice of you to drop in! I was thinking of you today and your problem convincing us that you aren't Charlie. My idea is that when the good professor isn't so busy elsewhere, she might be able to verify that fact by checking through her site statistics for that time the other day when both you and Charlie posted within minutes of each other. It ought to be pretty easy to find out how many people from Colorado were logged in at that time. In fact, I think she could even pinpoint your physical location in Boulder.
As I am sure you are aware, the amount of detail available to the site administrator is simply amazing.
BTW, I think most of us visiting here are equally mystified why you are so single-mindedly obsessed with what Professor Althouse writes about PJMedia that you are compelled to return again and again only to say what amounts to the same thing over and over and over again.
Jakemanjack: Seriously, do you think those two guys are me? I'm tempted to keep the mystery alive just for fun.
I was surprised by the hostility my comment received. I'm just a small-timer blogging my brainfarts for the enjoyment of it.
I am saddened by this whole affair because I've been reading Roger and Charles and many others (like Ann) for years now. I liked the participation and the feeling that it was Us against Them, whoever Them may be. Now I feel like many of the people I've enjoyed reading have become Them.
Roger, if you are reading this I am truly sorry that I don't get it.
And you've been accused of being Jackmanjack over here too, as you know. Maybe you're Lou Sifer, trying to make it look like I'm doing what you've been accused of doing!
Ann, let me congratulate you on convincingly restating my first sentence without evidencing particular understanding of it.
Internet ronin: So I'm weak.
However, your assertion that I'm attempting to silence Ann is, how shall we say, ill-informed and poorly thought out. You might want, first, to see how many times and how long I've been commenting on this blog. You might, secondly, want to look at what I've written and see where I've suggested in any way that Annought not be permitted to continue as she has.
Having done so, I'd expect your apology, but I'm not frankly holding my breath.
I've been a friendly and interested commenter for at least a year; I got on the enemies list when I suggested, simply, that the notion that the principals of PJM didn't really understand blogging was a little jarring. Since then, I've been misquoted, falsly paraphrased, and been the subject of some fairly hilarious straw men, and that's just Ann --- some of the other commenters have been completely out of bounds. (Oh, and by the way, Ann, before you ask, I did respond to your insistant demand that I show where I was misquoted etc. It's considerably down thread now, but it's got quotes and links. Since you get all comments by email, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding it.)
I still have no particular animus toward Ann. The closest I'd come is a sort of cynical wonderment at watching someone I whose writing I've generally actually liked so utterly losing her composure over something that, frankly, doesn't seem to impact her that much. She doesn't like PJM's business model, she didn't sign up, and I'm reasonably confident that she didn't invest in it. So why elect herself Nemesis now? I honestly don't understand it, and I doubly don't understand the degree to which it seems to enrage her. At least Jeff Jarvis is a principal in a competing startup; I just don't get what so has Ann --- this is like a Gila monster gnawing on a dog's leg.
I've heard the story of the phone call with Roger Simon from both of them; they differ. I had business dealings with Roger of what appear to be about the same sort, and at the same time, as Dennis the Peasant; neither of us are in PJM, but Dennis feels misused and I don't.
I did once say that I supposed it would be sexist if I were to suggest hormone replacement therapy. Sadly, the use of the hypothetical subjunctive doesn't appear to be taught in schools any longer; I suppose it's my error to think that literate readers would understand that the question, phrased as it was, presupposes that it's not a valid argument but is instead raised rhetorically.
I'm increasingly of the opinion, and frankly a little concerned, that Ann seems to be performing the literary equivalent of self-mutilation, including doing a lot more to lower the level of discourse than Jeff --- or I --- have. But pointing that out isn't an attmempt to silence her, and it's rather out of line to suggest that I am. Accordingly ---
... I've had enough of this type of two-faced "participant" whose only goal is to silence honest discussion, harrass well-intentioned people and frighten off those of us who are not political extremists.
--- I think you should, if you are serious, retract this scurrilous characterization; or if not, that Ann, in her attempt to restore the level of discourse she demands, should delete the comment entirely.
Ronin: let me help. Both Jakemanjack and I are in Colorado (in fact, we live roughly within 10 miles of each other, in Superior and Boulder respectively), we both get our internet service from comcast, and we both appear to post during the same 24 hour period. I get my IP address by DHCP, but my current IP is 24.8.247.143. nslookup will tell you this is c-24-8-247-143.hsd1.co.comcast.net
I am pretty certain that you would find that jakemanjack's address falls into the same block of Comcast-managed addresses --- which would prove exactly nothing, since there are probably a half-million cable customers within this Comcast area. (I think 'hsd1' is "home service domain 1", which is the Denver metro area.)
I reside, physically, within a mile of the Sun Microsystems office in Broomfield. You will, I trust, understand that I don't rush to put my exact address into a posting.
Beyond that, I don't care if you bring in the FBI, CIA, NSA, NRO, Captain Midnight and Bulldog Drummond, you won't find out that Jackmanjack and I are the same, because, simply enough, we're not. Think of some other silly ad hominem to pursue; this one isn't going to pay off.
Oh, by the way, Geobytes IP locator says 24.8.247.143 is at 398940N 105.0440W. That's actually a couple miles from here --- I suspect that's the local Comcast POP.
Charlie: "I've been a friendly and interested commenter for at least a year."
Well, that's demonstrably false. The comments were only turned on last April. (There was also a brief period in the spring of 2004 when I had comments.)
I have no position on the Charlie/Jakeman controversy. I was just kidding around about it. I don't like people posting under two pseudonyms, but I've only ever caught one person doing it, and that was because she was using two different personas and slipped up and put one under the wrong name.
But, jeez, Charlie, you're awfully self-important. The fact is, I don't even remember much about what things you've happened to say in these various conversations! If you think I go around worrying about you specifically, you are hilariously mistaken. I recognize your name, but I don't connect it to a line of commentary.
Oh, I see. You're the "hormone replacement therapy" guy. Thanks for reminding me. You're also the guy who writes ridiculously long self-justifying comments. Am I to clutter my mind remembering such junk? You know, I'm not fond of the expression "get over yourself," but Charlie, you need to get over yourself.
Lou: Thanks for coming by!
Robert: Pithy!
Good morning Charlie: Gee, I am sorry that you took such great offense at my admittedly tired little joke about you and jakemanjack being the same person. Just goes to show that there's no lightening the mood for some people, I guess.
As for retracting anything else written about you, I am content to let the written record stand. After all, you were the one agreeing that Professor Althouse is clearly off her rocker in a vicious way, yet you return here pretending you have concern for her. At the same time you opine that you fear that she may be engaged in some weird act of "self-mutilation." Not a pretty picture, Charlie. I see no need to apologize to you for an accurate characterization of your comments as two-faced.
BTW, I've been reading Althouse a lot longer than you have.
Well, that's demonstrably false. The comments were only turned on last April. (There was also a brief period in the spring of 2004 when I had comments.)
How time flies when you're having fun. I'm sorry, Ann, it seemed like a year. As to the rest of what you say, well, I wonder if "disingenue" is a word?
Ronin: why would it be two-faced to be concerned about someone who is "clearly off her rocker in a vicious way"?
Charlie,
You just can't help yourself. If she's "off her rocker in a vicious way", why would you come over here just be be viciously off-rockered? Yes it is ok to try and help someone who is disturbed, but you are assuming the minor premise here.
Exactly on what are you basing this assumption? The fact that she doesn't like PJM as presently in existence? The fact that she breaks the first rule of fight club? In the legal world, we might say you are assuming facts not in evidence.
I think Ann is fully entitled to comment on the affair. In the blogosphere, OSM is a Big Deal. $3.5 mil of VC is a Big Deal. Screwing up $3.5 mil of VC is a Big Deal to people who hope to make some money with their own blogging thing.
I have some experience with bringing a web-based enterprise to launch (ahh, the '90s...), and I agree fully with Lou. With so many other options, you only get a limited number of shots to make a meaningful impression. OSM/PJM/NotYourMothersMSM has fired a blank on their first shot, and need to reload and try again. It happens. It's also comment worthy.
Further, it's nonsensical to use energy going after Prof. A, as 1) that energy and time could be put to better use fixing the manifest problems with their own operation and 2) they just assure that the good prof. will keeping talking about you, ESPECIALLY if she is as unhinged as you claim.
I was going to post a Comment as "Lou Zerr", but I see I'm already logged in as somebody from a Springsteen song. I guess I've been spending more time researching obscure psychedelic music than political squabbling and intra-blogger snits and hissy fits just lately. But, I almost always find something interesting to read or look at here (at least on days when law talking stuff and TV shows I never watch are commanding less than 75% of Professor Ann's consciousness)... And, it must be said, I see nothing at PJM that would tempt me to bookmark it at this point, my admiration for people able to raise $3.5M of other people's money to squander notwithstanding.
Hazy Dave: Haven't seen you around in a while.
Post a Comment