Perfect
By Mitch Berg
Got to spend a rare evening at Keegans last night (even rarer – it was the second week in a row, something I haven’t managed in years). It was that rarest possible thing in Minnesota – a perfect evening; warm enough to sit on the patio, cool enough to be comfortable, warm enough for beer.
Not so rare – my team (Guy from Freedom Dogs, John from Policy Guy, and a fourth on whom I’m blocking right now) won. Oh, OK – it was a three way tie on one of the easiest trivia nights I can remember, but at the end of the day, I got the drink ticket, dagnabbit.
Got to meet Barb Davis White, who’s running for Congress in CD5, as well as Keith Downey, who is working on unseating RINO Ron Erhard.
Also got a long-overdue meeting with Master of None, from Jack of All Trades.
The usual crew was there, naturally – the Stroms, most of the Dogs, Night Writer and the Night Family, Ben from Hammerschwing, Barry from (garbled), and not a few others.
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:28 am
Brad Carlson, no? In any event it was a wonderful evening to spend out on the porch insulting the quizmaster.
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:37 am
A great night indeed. We can’t forget to mention Neal from Loyal Opposition, who had Barb Davis White in tears from laughing so hard. 😀
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:48 am
I’m glad you hear you had a pleasant evening, but noted you’d devoted some pixels to Jack of All Trades. I think there’s a basic blogging principle which you and I agree upon–and which Jack rejects:
Jack slammed me recently:
http://tinyurl.com/5738mb
And I responded to his post on my blog, here:
http://tinyurl.com/5ztdu9
I then left a polite, brief comment on his blog, requesting readers take note of my response. Within an hour, Jack removed my comment.
How do you feel? If you slam someone, would you actively seek to prevent them from bringing their response to the attention of your readers?
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:12 am
a fourth on whom I’m blocking right now
That would be me, Mitch. 🙂
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:16 am
Enough of your Jedi mind-tricks, Carlson!
It was a great evening. If Foot, Chief and AAA had been there – and if we could have seen a Wellstone!-stickered car getting booted in the Panera lot – it would truly have been like old times!
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:16 am
Within an hour, Jack removed my comment.
Correction. I never let your comment through arbitration.
I find your website and your post offensive, and in disagreement with “basic blogging principles” and I will not link to it, nor allow you to link to it on my website.
BTW, my name is Master of None, my website is Jack of All Trades.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:09 am
I know how you could eliminate the trivia competition. Two words:
Compliance officer.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:19 am
That was the most trivial trivia competition I’ve ever witnessed.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:31 am
I find your blog distinctive in its mediocrity, Master of None. But I wouldn’t seek to prevent you from responding, were I to slam you–as is your pathetic practice.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
Until Gavin can explain how Paulsen’s home address (complete with map) in any way germane to his refusal to ANSWER AN EMAIL, I have to agree with master here. At best it’s creepy obsessiveness, at worst it’s a subtle call for harrassment.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 am
Thank you, LearnedFoot. I would be only too happy to defend my post, which was entirely above-board. But before doing so, I’d like to settle the free speech question–do we all agree that if I slam you, decency requires me to permit you to respond? Can we all agree on that principle?
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:58 am
“But before doing so, I’d like to settle the free speech question–do we all agree that if I slam you, decency requires me to permit you to respond?”
Sigh.
The first amendment protects you from government action. It does not protect you from the commenting policy of another blogger.
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
“…do we all agree that if I slam you, decency requires me to permit you to respond? Can we all agree on that principle?”
How is that attached to free speech? More importantly, how does it trump private property?
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:22 am
Perhaps Gavin should seek the advice of someone well-versed in the Constitution.
Or failing that, a compliance officer.
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:36 am
The first amendment protects you from government action. It does not protect you from the commenting policy of another blogger.
Nor does it protect us from having someone hijack a thread, apparently.
I have to get to Keegan’s one of these days – sounds like a lot of fun.
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:44 am
Some quite silly responses, to my most recent…
Needless to say, I didn’t for a moment suggest Master of None is in any way legally required to allow people to respond to his attacks. I’m arguing on behalf of a principle which I believe to be widely shared. Indeed, I’m confident Mitch subscribes to it. By standing together on this point, a powerful benefit accrues to the community as a whole.
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:48 am
Hey Foot, I know this escapes you wingnuts, but just because something isn’t expressly prohibited by law doesn’t mean it’s not wrong. So you can save your lawyerly sighs – he’s not citing to U.S. CONST. amend. I (1791), which, as you narrowly and dogmatically observe, applies to governments, not to private actions.
Rather, Gavin appealed to “free speech” and “decency.” He assumed – wrongly, it seems – that you know that many people value the free exchange of ideas and think it’s important to act fairly in dealing with others.
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 am
“Needless to say, I didn’t for a moment suggest Master of None is in any way legally required to allow people to respond to his attacks.”
You invoked the “free speech” canard, not me. You responded on you blog right? Free speech wins again!
Hey AC:
Gavin invoked the free speech canard, not me.
He also published the home address (with a map) to a guy running for congress. I know you moonbats have shifting standards of what constitutes decency depending on who’s the one being “indecent”, but I think that Gavin’s creepy stalker behavior outstrips the fact that a blogger who gets 10 hits a day didn’t publish some stupid comment.
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
LearnedFoot blasphemed: “canard.”
Don’t let Angryclown catch you speaking French again, you wacky wingnut. That’s “freedom duck.”
Gavin invoked no freedom duck, nor did Angryclown. Beyond that, Angryclown declines to intervene in your little Minnesota teapot tempests. Is Gavin an evil stalker? Angryclown cares not. SitD is the only Minnesota blog and the only wingnut blog that Angryclown deigns to notice. Sort out your little feuds among yourselves.
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
blogger who gets 10 hits a day
Hey, nine of those hits are me
Sort out your little feuds among yourselves.
Yet here you are….
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
If I published a piece on my blog attacking LearnedFoot, basic decency, self-respect and my commitment to the principle of free speech would require me to allow LearnedFoot to respond, at http://www.gavinsullivan.com. LearnedFoot rejects this basic principle of civility, I’m saddened to learn.
A dogmatic charge has been leveled against me–that I am a stalker. (No instance of stalking has even been suggested.) The one fact that all parties agree upon is that the author of the charge forbids me to reply on his site. That ought to end the matter–and end Master of None’s credibility. My response to Master’s charge is linked above. LearnedFoot does not appear to have read my response.
Over a lengthy period, I had been discussing Paulsen’s refusal to respond to even the most innocuous constituent correspondence. To drive my point home, it was relevant and germane to prove that Paulsen and I are neighbors. By linking to this publicly available information, already-published info, I helped drive the point home. I make no apology for having done so; it was an important point.
Were Paulsen a blogger and I his stonewalling state rep, I pray he’d hound me mercilessly, were I to behave as he now does.
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
http://kevinchiu.org/emote/facepalm.jpg
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Again, Gavin’s stance on and understanding of private property is…?
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I have created a response to Gavin’s vicious attack on me that I didn’t read, which can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/37ws8e
A person who considers someone who lives more than 2 miles away a “neighbor” and feels the need to prove that irelevant point by posting directions to a congressional candidate’s house is someone that ought not be further engaged.
If I were an annoying, self-important pantload blogger, I would expect Gavin to ignore me as fiercely as I will be ignoring him henceforth.
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Gavin,
In most cases, I agree with you. I expunge very few comments from this blog, certainly not coherent responses to serious points. I DO reserve the right to delete comments for whatever reason I want.
That being said, a blog IS the property of its author(s). Most people – especially people who haven’t been doing it all that long – have no need for a “policy” about this, and pretty much fly by the seats of their pants. It is their call; it’s also a tacit statement which you may or may not use.
As to the charges that Mo’N et al made – the “Stalking” bit – I’m a bit leery of people posting maps and photos of peoples’ houses. Yes, it’s all out there on the ‘net, but I think it excessively personalizes the issue; it’s not business (the business of politics, in this case) anymore; it’s where the subject’s children live. It blurs the line between public and private life, which is yet another reason for good people to avoid public service if it becomes a common practice. It’s also risky; there are a lot of Ken “Avidor” Weiners and worse out there.
I don’t see that it adds anything to the debate. If a candidate doesn’t respond to a constituent’s contacts – well, that’s the story, isn’t it?
I guess I’d urge you to reconsider that practice.
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I dunno Gavin,
If your goal is to refute the notion spread by one blogger that you are a creepy, obsessive stalker-type person, hijacking the thread of another blogger to pursue a private feud seems like an odd strategy.
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Throughout the campaign, I’ve posted numerous Zillow links to many addresses. I find this information to be of interest; in the Paulsen case, it was an essential fact proving a fundamental point I’d been making for weeks. (Since posting the link, Paulsen has not reported any unannounced visit, nor have I.)
I’m glad we agree on the underlying principle, Mitch. Since your ‘right’ to delete comments was never at issue, we can leave that red herring aside.
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Since your ‘right’ to delete comments was never at issue, we can leave that red herring aside.
Not a red herring; just jumping out ahead of the inevitable “Hey, on April 13 you whacked a comment of mine…”.
Paulsen has not reported any unannounced visit
Well, that’s good. Hope your luck holds up!
I’ll stand by the underlying principle, though; it’s in everyone’s interest, eventually, to at least try to separate private from public lives.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
When posting a link showing our addresses, I was in no way ‘personalizing’ the dispute; nothing in my post could be construed as a suggestion for anyone to visit either myself or Rep. Paulsen. I was limning a public, political fact, not a personal one.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
“By standing together on this point, a powerful benefit accrues to the community as a whole.”
He’s suggesting that you live in the fever swamp Mitch! That statement alone qualifies this ‘bat for banning.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Say, Gavin?
What’s YOUR address? How about your SSN? Care to divulge your MDL#? What time you go to work?
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I was limning a public, political fact, not a personal one.
Gavin, I understand your stated rationale for posting Rep. Paulson’s address et al. I happen to disagree with it.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
“nothing in my post could be construed as a suggestion for anyone to visit either myself or Rep. Paulsen. ”
Doesn’t really matter, Gavin. You do know that a lot of folks visit blogs, and that you can’t really rely on who visits and reads the details.
Anti-Strib, on at least two occasions, edited or deleted personal phone numbers and/or addresses.
This was done as you can’t verify that the original poster is posting reliable information. Even if you could verify it, that undeniably ties the post personally to the person involved… not a good idea.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Mitch,
Here’s a picture of that fence I was talking to you about on the corner of Central and Broadway.
http://jackofalltradesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/lga_waste_3.jpg
I haven’t been able to find any info online about how much this cost, but I’d sure like to find out.
Anybody know how to get this kind of info out of the city?
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Maybe Rep. Paulsen read your blog and thinks chatting with you would be a waste of time, Gavin. Or perhaps he noted you like to post Zillow links for no good reason and he thinks you’re a creepy stalker type person? *shrug*
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Full disclosure: I typically Google-link authors of letters to the editor in posts… but the rapid appearence of personal information in the search makes me a little nervous.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Mitch, while i agree with your stance about posting that public information why then do you find it acceptable to post Garrison Keillor’s home address (assuming to the best of my knowledge he still owns that property even though he is moving)
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Was that address not a story a couple of times?
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Hey! Look at me! I was at Keegan’s, too, ya know!
What’s up, Mitch? Too involved with the Kadampa/Shugden anti-Dalai Lama clique to acknowledge my presence on your blog?
And WTF- I followed instapundit’s link this morning to the conservative foreign service officer site, “Diplomad”, posted a comment and it still hasn’t appeared!!
That’s it- from now on, nobody visit Diplomad!
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
why then do you find it acceptable to post Garrison Keillor’s home address
I wasn’t aware that I had. I linked to a Strib article.
I, for one, don’t know Keillor’s address.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Well this has been an interesting thread. It has offered up some solme excellent ethical questions.
As Badda stated at Anti-Strib commenter (and contributers) DO NOT post personal information like home addresses. Also comments ripping wives, husbands and children of others are strictly forbidden. And recognized as cowardly.
As Mitch noted, a blog is private property, and you can publish the phone book if that turns your crank. Where the line is crossed is in actively encouraging others to some action. If Gavin had told his 10 readers to go to representative Paulson’s house at such and such address, that would be crossing a distinct line.
Otherwise it’s just creepy stalking, and it degenerates the blog medium.
My $.02.
May 24th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Mitch, i am a little confused, as you wrote on the 21st:
Anyway – stay the course, Al! The Strib’s hard at work gundecking all that “tax” folderol, anyway – you can ride this out, with a little help from your friends at 425 Portland (occupant moved, no forwarding address)
May 24th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
425 Portland is pretty well-known as the address of the Star Tribune’s home office. (425 Portland in Saint Paul would, if I remember correctly, be over by Dale Street, which’d be a bit plebeian for His Highness).
Are you saying you thought that was Keillor’s address?
May 25th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
haha…got it, sorry.
lets say gk lives on the 400 block of portland, or at least did as the paper’s reported he bought a place on summit.
seth
May 25th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
gk lives on the 400 block of portland, or at least did
Schwoops!
I honestly did not know that. I thought he lived farther east in Crocus Hill.
May 26th, 2008 at 4:20 am
That creepy Eric Paulsen has posted his home address on his own website:
http://www.erikpaulsen.org/pages/contact.html
Self-stalking. Doesn’t it make your skin crawl?
But seriously folks… calm rational discussion of the issues is a fundamental necessity for democracy to function. Obviously the Paulsen campaign feels it has a stronger chance of success by avoiding any concrete discussion of the issues. It would be entirely counter to this strategy to engage a minor liberal blogger. Thus, I have little expectation that Representative Paulsen will answer Gavin’s questions. Issues of sincerety have nothing to do with it. I do hope that at some point candidate Paulsen’s constituents will get a chance to examine his policy positions in detail.
In the short term, I have higher hopes for a minor conservative blogger. Master of None, you have used your blog to attack another blogger. It seems to me that any blogger has a responsibility to allow anyone they have attacked to respond on their blog, if the response is civil. In fact, it seems a measure of the credibility of the blogger, the willingness they have to engage with opinions counter to their own. If you stand by your convictions you should be willing to defend them with something other than censorship.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:57 am
It has been suggested above that I am guilty of some wrongdoing, having linked to Erik Paulsen’s residential address. Since Paulsen himself provides the same info on his own site–http://www.erikpaulsen.org/pages/contact.html
I suppose that pretty much ends Master of None’s moronic accusation.
I continue to discuss this matter here: http://tinyurl.com/6mg282
May 26th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
far east independent and Gavin both seems to think posting your own address (on a site you control) is exactly the same a someone else posting your address (on a site you don’t control).
That is pretty silly, if you think about it. I recommend they both do that sometime.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Umm, thanks for the advice Troy.
Might I steer the dialog back to the fact that candidate Paulsen refused to answer any of Gavin’s emails (both the serious ones and the ones just seeking to engage an elected official’s duty toward one of his constituents) long before Gavin posted links to the offending information (notice, not the ‘address’ itself but ‘links’, which could have instead been to Representative Paulsen’s own page where the address is provided). Indeed, as Representative Paulsen has posted the info himself, surely he seems far less thin skinned than those who would claim to be offended by Gavin providing links to the same information.
It seems clear to me that this issue is a false one and only serves as an attempt to avoid facing the real issue. Which is: should Representative Paulsen provide answers to serious, civilly forwarded questions from a constituent/blogger of both his current office and the office he seeks?
I believe current and potentially future constituents of Representative Paulsen not only would be well served by a thorough examination of his positions but are entitled to them. As a supporter of his, it would seem that if one had faith in candidate Paulsen’s beliefs and his ability to promote them, one would seek for him to have as much public exposure as possible.
If however one felt conversely, that the more exposure candidate Paulsen has to his constituents, the less likely he is to be elected, the more understandable one’s position would be. One might expect a blogger, who had been critical of someone on his blog who then denied the recipient of his criticism space on the blog to respond civilly, to hold such a position.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:23 am
You could, far east independent, but you’d still be hijacking this thread. Try this one instead:
http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?p=2615