Nota Bene
From Tacitus, in comments:
Duncan Black: I knew ticky-tacky’s name long before he went public with it. I don’t remember who told me.
I doubt this, as I doubt you’re the type who would have held back had you known my name — which would have easily led to my professional position. Were proof possible, I’d ask for it. As it’s not, I’ll simply ask: why the baby talk from a grown man?
Again, Duncan Black: I’ll admit to screwing up the personal/private line in a major way once….
And that would be with whom, Duncan?
Hold tight for a shocking disclosure here, but bloggers in the daily fray of point/counterpoint tend to come across all sorts of private information about political figures, pundits, and each other that they hold back from posting. Sometimes it’s merely rumors, such as — to give one example — tales of Karl Rove’s apparently brazen habits with regard to young men in the DC metro area. Whether those are true or not, only certain people can say with total confidence; but the set of active, daily-posting bloggers on both the left and the right who’ve never heard about such matters is, one would guess, roughly null.
To give a more troublesome example, sometimes it’s things like Karl Rove’s home phone number, which was spammed out to a lot of people’s email addresses and comments awhile ago. The recent Malkin affair is another one. In passing, there was an incorrect version of Malkin’s home address spammed out all over the place, and also a correct one. Finding out which was which would’ve been an extremely trivial exercise to anyone who really wanted to know.
Now, not only am I dead certain that Atrios had Josh Treviño’s name back when he was still anonymous as Tacitus, but I’d go a step further and say that there’s never been any such thing as a high-profile anonymous right-blogger. People, in short, talk like crazy. People talk, talk, and then talk some more. Especially right-bloggers, who talk bigger than left-bloggers, and indeed are impossible to shut up once you get them going.
Tangent: I was lucky enough to know some ex-CIA guys once — whom you’d think would be pretty tight with all that secret stuff they’re supposed to be down with — and learned the valuable, although astonishing, lesson that people in intelligence are the biggest yappers ever in the history of the world. They’d be like, “Well, don’t tell anyone I told you this, but…” and the floodgates would open spilling 900 billion gallons of pure Holy-Crap-You-Didn’t-Just-Actually-Say-That. (These were contractor-type guys, not employees. When you go up the chain a bit, it seems, things are different.) The secret, and the similarity to right-bloggos: They love above all else to prove that they’re in the loop, that they have information and power that ordinary people don’t have.
In part because of that, the issue of blogger ethics (if that term doesn’t cause glaucoma on contact by now) is different on the left than on the right. If Treviño is still hanging around here, maybe he can post a nice, rollicking Bwaa-ha-haa in comments to illustrate, because the right has their whole Bwaa-ha-haaing thing, where they unmask people in dramatic fashion or send legions of henchlings to jump up and down on people’s birthday cakes and azaleas — often with the characteristic Bwaha move of being all like, “Thus you have by your own actions forced me to take this extreme and otherwise-regrettable measure.” It’s probably good they’re all signing a pledge to cut that shit out. There’ll be some interesting fireworks when they start ‘being forced’ to break it.
On the Left, the problem is quite a bit more nuanced. As the eternal gossip typhoon eternally typhoons around, sweeping up Post-Its and cocktail napkin jottings and ephemeral notes-to-self, et alia, the problem is not slipping up by revealing information that ought to be private. Check out what just happened above. Atrios says he slipped up before, and Treviño is being all like, “Whose information did you reveal, bwaha,” trying to make him slip up again. In fact, Treviño knows who it is, and linked to this very incident not long ago. It was a sucky thing for Atrios to do, but also a much less serious offense than ‘outing’ someone who prefers to be anonymous, or publishing personal information that could be harmful. It was a cranky, didn’t-have-one’s-coffee-yet kind of deal — a lapse.
And this is the sort of line that the major left-bloggers have to walk: Probably the biggest anonymous blogger on the left is Digby. The fact that Digby’s gender is unspecified makes the use of pronouns when referring to Digby an exercise of some delicacy. I actually don’t know for super-certain what gender Digby is, although I imagine I could find out pretty easily if it were in any way important or relevant (one could, for instance, ask Digby). It isn’t relevant. But some people do know, and it’s something of a syntactical marvel that hundreds of posts have been written referencing Digby with no pronoun in them. That’s not easy. Mistakes can, and have, undoubtedly happened. (And speaking of syntax, I’m never sure how to do a sentence like that, where the tense changes from one clause to the next.)
But to finish hammering this particular nail, Treviño apologized for a couple of past incidents, and that’s…well, there ought to be an olive branch extended for that — a laurel and hearty handshake, at least. One often finds that right-bloggos are ‘nice guys in real life,’ and it wouldn’t be surprising if Treviño were a perfectly pleasant guy to have a beer with. But we generally don’t interact in real life, with this whole blogowhatsis conversation in which we’re all engaged; and you know, I really forget what else, honestly, but Retardo’s post before was extremely mild compared to the concussion bomb it could have been, using only fair sources. You guys on the right complain we’re playing rough, but you have no idea. We just don’t have the same taste for Bwaha. It’s an acquired one, maybe.
Update:
I See Gandhi Peering Through Overton’s Window. And Weeping.
by tristero
I’d like to add some more thoughts to what Digby discusses here. First of all, while it may seem from a casual reading that Digby is endorsing Trevino’s concept of strategizing which he (Trevino) calls Overton’s Window, in fact he is not.
Well, that settles that particular grammatical question.
Can we have just one piddling gallon of Holy-Crap-You-Didn’t-Just-Actually-Say-That?
Go on.
Go on go on go on.
Aww.
Mistakes can, and have, undoubtedly happen.
I would say it needs to stick with the first clause.
I have been wrong before though. There was that time in 1993.
How about just, “Mistakes can happen, and undoubtedly they have.”
I still have a hard time accepting that people are still willing to devote this much time to a blowhard.
To BradRocket:
Re: 7-3
EAT IT COBAGZZ!!1!!
It seems to me you only see this sort of cryassing when a denizen of Right Blogistan takes umbrage in order to draw attention away from the debates going on around them in which they are losing the arguments. Its a tactic the Right has used to great effect over the years. Whenever an ideological opponent makes great points you can’t refute, always attack their “tone” or their “civility”.
It was all fun and games until I glimpsed, just before last Christmas, the “war” on which brought me out my trench, the whole chain of unethical behaviour that permitted rightists to gain control of all levers of power, from the government, to the media to public discourse and which has now led to the abuse and deaths of thousands of innocent people.
This it’s what this is about. Not fat-cats skimming public funds, although that’s bad enough.
yeah, Gavin, I’d switch that around to the way Mitch has it, but your version seems more intuitive than Yosef’s.
I think the rule is that the particple agrees with the auxiliary to which it is closest (i.e, mistakes can happen, and undoubtedly have, or mistakes can, and undoubtedly have happened.‘
I agree with Chris. (but not about the score of the Skanks game) You guys are spending too much time fluffing this wanker Trevino. All he’s ever done is besmirch the good name of Tacitus.
There’s something inelectually male about Digby’s writing, so no matter how much he tires to hide it, he’s male.
This whole “bwaah you’re being mean to us” schtick is just a distraction from the very real damage the right is doing to America and the world. Do not fall for it.
Martin,
I’ve seen several bloggers who actually know Digby refer to Digby as “she”
I submitted a comment earlier and I got the message “pending approval” or something.
Was that a glitch?
“Mistakes can happen, and undoubtedly have.” With or without the comma–your choice. Technically you don’t want it there, because the second part has no subject, so it’s not an independent clause, but in the go-go world of blog writing, I don’t think it’s a big deal.
This construction allows you to get away with implying the second verb. Otherwise, Mitch’s version is the most correct.
Simply put, no one at all will take Josh’s apology seriously until he actually types the word ‘Atrios’.
I don’t think he can do it… do you?
Is that why all the wingnut blogs refer to him by his real name? Like they celebrate his “unmasking” every time they type the words “Duncan Black”?
If so, then they are, one and all, in an even more agonizing loser hell than I had previously imagined.
One often finds that right-bloggos are ‘nice guys in real life,’ and it wouldn’t be surprising if Treviño were a perfectly pleasant guy to have a beer with.
Quite frankly, after having his ilk call folks like me traitors repeatedly and speculate on how best to execute us, I’d prefer that he instead fall into an open quarry from a great height. Like, say, 30,000 feet.
Yeah, I love the affected “Duncan, Duncan, Duncan, how can you be so incredibly Duncany” from JT- does Atrios ever refer to himself as that? No, but it just rolls so easily of Joshy’s pseudo-honeyed tongue. Like I said, Joel Cairo from the Maltese Falcon.
I tried to puzzle out the what’s-between-Digby’s-legs question a few days ago. The only evidence I found either way that was the slightest bit conclusive is one of the pronoun slipups that Gavin refers to, and I think it’s fair to point out since it’s on Digby’s own blog:
– tristero’s first post on Hullabaloo
If you’re referring to this when you say Trevino apologized, that’s an apology like “Sorry your face was there when I was swinging my fist. Watch where you put it next time.” He deserves 0 credit for it.
“Mistakes can, and have, undoubtedly happened.”
Mistakes can happen and undoubtedly have happened.
I dream of the day I’m high profile enough to be unmasked. I should bring more intensity to my wingnut mocking, I guess.
Coming from the hacker world, y’all bloggers don’t know SHIT about remaining anonymous and/or “outing” other people. This is playtime, relatively.
Now if you were dumping people’s blog passwords, that’d be a LITTLE something.
Also Gavin I think I would have gone for “Mistakes can happen; mistakes undoubtedly have happened.” but I dunno if it’s better.
If you’re referring to this… He deserves 0 credit for it.
I agree with Matt. When you insult the person you’re apologizing to in the course of an apology, it doesn’t come across as particularly contrite.
it doesn’t come across as particularly contrite.
Or sincere.
Well, the ‘laurel and hearty handshake’ is from Blazing Saddles…
Those “apologies” are nearly as bad as when someone says they’re sorry if you felt offended by something they’ve said. They’re damn sure not sorry for saying it, just for getting caught and called on it. It’s a pretty common problem, however, on both sides of the aisle. I never did like ol’ Bill Clinton’s apologies, but you knew deep down he wasn’t really sorry for getting a hummer in the oval, he was sorry that it made things so rough on the rest of his administration, but nobody on the right would have accepted that sort of apology, either, so out came the weasel words.
If you mean it, say it. I don’t know why it’s so sorry to say “I apologize, I did something terrible, it was a lapse of judgement, and I am sincerely sorry for having done it.”
It’s all about that Personal Accountability that the right used to harp on before W took over.
erm, “why it’s so sorry to say” should be “why it’s so hard to say”
I sincerely apologize for failing to proofread my own work before hitting the Post button.
the ‘laurel and hearty handshake’ is from Blazing Saddles…
D’oh!
pinko punko-
Will you quit smearing the wonderful and talented Peter Lorre? Ticky Tac is like a 12-year-old trying to imitate Peter Lorre.
In the same vein as Tacitus’ “apologies” to Billmon and spartikus, I’m sorry Mr. Trevino is such an ass. Sincerely sorry. From the heart, bitchez.
Sometimes reading S,N is like coming across an ancient scroll. You can read the words, but so much of what they refer to is a mystery. I find myself asking over and over again: “What am I missing here”? I mean, I guess I’m pretty slow and all, but why exactly do we care who any of these people are in real life? I mean, they make their writings available under a name, you can read the writings and get to know that person. The fact that I now know atrios’ name is Duncan Black really has zero impact on how I read his blog. I’d love to have a beer with Bradrocket, but until that happens I don’t need to know who he really is. And for GAWDS sake, don’t tell me anything about the divine s.z.
mikey
“If you’re referring to this when you say Trevino apologized, that’s an apology like “Sorry your face was there when I was swinging my fist. Watch where you put it next time.” He deserves 0 credit for it.”
100% right about that non-apology apology. The seriousness with which Trevino takes the issue is clearly indicated by the extent to which he’s still rationalizaing his past behavior (as if violations of privacy are less problematic if you don’t have to hire a private investigator, or if you once emailed a 3rd party.) I think this also makes it clear that wingnuts will read the “you can out people if they’re disruptive” very broadly…
Jesus, quit writing about this yayhoo. You know he’ll just show up to be a shitass again. It’s like saying “Candyman” three times in a mirror or solving that damn puzzle from Hellraiser: you’re only asking for the irritation.
And personally, I’d go with “mistakes can – and have – happened”, but that’s cause I’m fond of dashes and hyphens as a general rule.
Matt T., only if mistakes can happened.
And for GAWDS sake, don’t tell me anything about the divine s.z.
Actually, S.Z. just made her real name public awhile ago.
Can we have just one piddling gallon of Holy-Crap-You-Didn’t-Just-Actually-Say-That?
See, one of the really interesting things with that stuff is that of course there’s no way you can check and find out if it’s really true.
And that’s what gives them the freedom to have like two beers and be all like, “Whoah, I’m tipsy. Don’t tell anyone I said this, but…”
“Mistakes sometimes just quite possibly might be able to happen and there’s most likely a strong probability that certain mistakes already have happened.”
Also, Digby is a car, kinda like Herbie the Lovebug or KITT, the Night Rider Trans-Am.
Ticky-tacky wrote;
“…why the baby talk from a grown man?”
If the pedal casing is dimensionally conducive, senilis.
Oh, Charlotte nailed it int he other thread. Tacitus will be voiced by the Doctor from Lost in Space. Apologies to Peter Lorre.
Tristero, in fact, calls Digby “he” today..misdirection?
Didn’t Tristero say a while back that even he doesn’t know who Digby is? Or am I hopped up on goofballs?
Well, one could ask Tristero, but if Digby wanted to be definitively assigned a gender, he would certainly have said something by now.
One thing I find interesting is the apparent fact that commenters in the blogosphere for the most part don’t go around pretending to be who they are not. Maybe I’m being naïve here, but you don’t see people attempting to infiltrate “enemy” blogs. I doubt that the wingers could pull it off (we know their bonehead ideas about us too well), but I think just about any of us could become a “trusted” commenter on any right-wing blog quite easily.
Just sayin.’
Mudge is right. I have no idea who Digby is. I could very well be mistaken regarding his gender.
In the end, why should anyone even care? It’s just pointless, is what it is.
My favorite thing about the blogosphere is that when I read something, I often have absolutely no idea who wrote it. I evaluate what I read based on the merits of the writing, not on how impressed I am with the credentials of the person writing it.
There are obviously some specialized fields where this doesn’t hold….PZ Myers has automatic cred for any post he makes in his field of biology, and ditto Brian Leiter and law. But when it comes down to the brass tacks of an argument, it’s either sound or it’s not – and that has nothing at all to do with who wrote it.
I’m probably overreacting in my annoyance, though. The whole topic is a sore spot for me – comes from having a father in the mob who used to like to impress people – including his kids – by talking about stuff that nobody in their right minds really wants to know.
You think it’d be cool to know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa, for instance. But it’s just not. Think about it for a minute, and you’ll probably see what I mean.
Jillian, you need some more dog-carrot abuse. It is getting heavy in here. Bow down to the power of the carrot!
I save all my bile for carrots anymore.
My hydrochloric stomach juices, too!
Catherine,
Well, maybe he had a time machine, and he’s describing possible future outcomes of past events changed by time travel…
Okay, nevermind.
I know Digby’s gender. Rest assured it’s utterly irrelevant to interpreting his or her writing.
A couple of minor points:
Retardo’s post before was extremely mild compared to the concussion bomb it could have been, using only fair sources.
It’s unreasonable to assume that the average bilious obsessive would hold back in any sense — especially, as in this case, with no past history of doing so. Why now?
You guys on the right complain we’re playing rough….
Not in this case: playing dumb. Entertaining — mostly for the opportunity to see Duncan Black stoop to snipe — but in the end: eh.
Some free advice, in all sincerity, which won’t be taken: the more you’re talking about me — and in this case, giving in to the longstanding obsessions of your co-blogger — the less you’re doing things to (by your lights) help America. Just sayin’.
There’s something inelectually male about Digby’s writing, so no matter how much he tires to hide it, he’s male.
Yeah, it’s like you can hear his penis brushing against the keyboard when he’s typing or something.
Joshua, isn’t that your Technorati klaxon going off? Dear God, someone’s made an offhand reference to you on a blog about knitting and darning! Quick, man, suit up in your mail and fling yourself into the breech!! For Christendom!
“Deus vult!”
“Breach.”
Someone’s bitter.
I agree that the average bilious obsessive wouldn’t hold back in a post criticizing his obsesssee.
JT demonstrates this point well—obsessively.
Tsk, tsk…every time you correct someone’s spelling or grammar, Joshua, Osama converts another Hispanic.
You should know better.
*yawn*
Hah, I was right, Josh just couldn’t bring himself to do it. I imagine he screwed up his face real hard trying though.
Ahahahaha!
Mistakes can happen and undoubtedly have happened.
Just ask Mr and Mrs Treviño.
Some free advice, in all sincerity, which won’t be taken: the more you’re talking about me — and in this case, giving in to the longstanding obsessions of your co-blogger — the less you’re doing things to (by your lights) help America. Just sayin’.
I, for one, agree with the shitbag.
the more you’re talking about me — and in this case, giving in to the longstanding obsessions of your co-blogger — the less you’re doing things to (by your lights) help America. Just sayin’.
Oh, no worries. Us incivil lefties can multitask.
I know Digby’s gender.
I don’t believe it. Or I would like to see some evidence. You are after all not the type who would hold back if you had such information.
By your own admission.
Jesus. See? SEE? It’s like someone lighting up the Jackass Symbol.
…the less you’re doing things to (by your lights) help America. Just sayin’.
I’m pretty sure everyone here understands just how much we’re helping America, although tacky little harpies probably don’t get it.
I loved Tristero’s post on the Vogon Portal, or whatever the hell that discursive stencil tacky’s flogging is called. Only someone totally insensate and amoral would find that appealing.
Some free advice, in all sincerity, which won’t be taken: the more you’re talking about me — and in this case, giving in to the longstanding obsessions of your co-blogger — the less you’re doing things to (by your lights) help America. Just sayin’.
Right on, man! The blog revolution will not be televised! Every word written about Trevino is one more child starved! Not everyone takes themselves as seriously as you and your idiot friends do, big guy. We Must Defend!
Some free advice, in all sincerity, which won’t be taken: the more you’re talking about me — and in this case, giving in to the longstanding obsessions of your co-blogger — the less you’re doing things to (by your lights) help America. Just sayin’.
Nah. People like you are the problem with America right now, Joshie. It is our duty as patriots to ridicule and belittle you.
Speaking of which:
http://incomprehensibledemoralization.blogspot.com/2006/05/lost-in-space.html