For the last several days, I’ve been closely following several diaries here regarding Armando’s GBCW extravaganza.
BooMan gets back from Vegas tonight…and it seems all those diaries have been disappeared.
What’s the story with that?
By the way, as far as I can tell, this diary doesn’t violate the rules that BooMan has set. It’s more meta.
Damn! Those suskind diaries had all kinds of interesting debate. Was it *HE* who deleted them, wiping out everybody’s comments? We’re talking hundreds and hundreds of comments deleted.
I hope we’re not seeing the first shots in a Troll Wars outbreak in this peaceable village.
[Update: BooMan had nothing to do with this. It remains a mystery.]
They were purged at MyLeftWing, too.
Well, so much for my brief sojourn as a commentator. I’m going back to just lurking (reading diaries and the like). Actually, I think I’ll stick to non-community sources, like Working for Change, Alternet, and Buzzflash–I find it a bit chilling that so many people’s comments were just wiped out with the snap of a finger without so much as an explanation.
Oh, well, I guess the blogs are a microcosm of American society–so what did we expect?
Unfortunately, there’s no way to wipe out all my other comments–that’d be nice. I’m sort of embarrassed I participated here. Seems like it was mostly a waste of time.
I haven’t deleted anything, and I have no emails indicating a problem, or that anyone else deleted anything. So, I really don’t know what is going on. There is not enough detail in this diary for me to really investigate either.
Thanks Boo…Suskind deleted them. I just checked his page and they are not there. It’s a shame. They were good diaries, but obviously, someone didn’t want them on the net.
They were good diaries, but obviously, someone didn’t want them on the net.
Bingo.
This is really not cool. I thought your comment in the last suskind diary was top notch. Should have been out there for more debate and discussion.
I also took quite a bit of time to write in those and am pretty pissed off to have wasted my time like that.
Actually I’m calling bullshit. I think you’re right, there is a reason they were deleted. And it wasn’t for a freeflow of information.
Thank you. I wasn’t assuming you did this, just noting the coincidence of logging on and seeing your returned from Vegas note plus this other thing.
It’s an interesting development, since this was probably the most intense discussion I’ve ever seen on the BooMan Tribune in the 10 months I’ve been a regular here.
Is it possible that anybody other than suskind deleted the diaries??
Any of the front-pagers could have deleted them, but they wouldn’t without telling me. And if they are gone from MLW, I am going to assume the author is responsible.
Is there some reason why Armando’s livelihood is a topic for such lively discussion here? Obviously I am disadvantaged in not having seen the diary or thread, but I can only imagine that the diary was filled with personal attacks against Armando.
He doesn’t feel he can blog anymore now that NRO did their article. I don’t see that as a good thing. It doesn’t strike me as an oppurtune moment to pile on Armando. But, hey, I didn’t see the diary, so I guess I can’t characterize what the point was or where the thread went.
… but I can only imagine that the diary was filled with personal attacks against Armando.
Come on BooMan – don’t you know your own frog pond?
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
Oui, I do know this site and I know that there are some posters here that take every opportunity to be harshly critical, cynical, and even conspitorial about anything related to Daily Kos. There doesn’t seem to be anything I can do to put an end to it, and Armando isn’t helpful in that regard because he keeps egging people on and directing them to come here to bitch about all things orange.
Just look at the thread in my post about Markos and Warner and you’ll a high level of very personal stuff.
Daily Kos is obviously a subject for discussion and for occassional criticism. At the same time, obsessing over them is unhealthy. I don’t expect anyone to take criticism lying down, but there are ways to take the high road, make your points, and return disrespect with something better than disrespect.
.
But you can be proud of the vast community formed, not only the writers of course, but also the many readers (lurkers) who visit your site daily from across the world. It amazes me daily BooMan!
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
No. No. No. The diaries were meta diaries about where privacy and responsibility meet. Sure they used Armando as an example, but they went much beyond that and it was a good conversation, albeit a bit heated at times. But, in no way was Armando treated any differently than he treated others, in fact, people were quite reserved, given his propensity to calling us bitches and fucking losers.
Obviously, Armando wanted all remnants washed (just like he did after his brief stint here) and got his lackey to do it. He just made himself and by extension, Suskind, look even worse than before. A classic Rovian move and I couldn’t be more disgusted. Pretend it didn’t happen and maybe the stupid people will forget. I will not forget. He’s a fucking coward.
Uh…for the record. I’ve been in email touch with Armando ever since I got home. And he didn’t mention anything about this diary you are talking about. He isn’t focused on it. So, I would be really surprised if he has anything at all to do with it getting deleted.
As I am totally clear about, Armando is a friend of mine. I know he pisses people off. He pisses me off. He understands that he gets disrespected here because he is disrespectful to people at Daily Kos. He knows why I don’t censor it.
We’ve fought about it in the past and he has long since accepted my way of doing things.
It doesn’t mean I don’t occassionally hear about it when he thinks he is being treated unfairly, and if we thought the diary should be deleted from some reason then I am confident he would have approached me directly. Especially since we’ve been talking about other things tonight.
Thank you for this open report. This is just the kind of openness we all wish we had from our government.
I accept this as gospel. Therefore, it was suskind on his own, possibly spurred on by another.
Oh, sure, this is blogospheric navel-gazing, but we’re all evolving a whole new way of being active in the world.
yeah. I don’t discount that A had something to do with it and didn’t tell Boo, but I do believe Booman. He is nothing, if not honest and forthright. Booman rocks. I’m sorry, I was a little hot headed, BooMan. I’ll let it go.
Yeah. Once again I’m sorry I blamed A without evidence. I was just pissed and reacting without thinking. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had something to do with it since he has been known to do the same thing in the past, but I have no proof other than circumstantial evidence and Suskind isn’t talking. Nevertheless deleting diaries with dozens, if not hundreds of posts really sucks. I know I am not the only one who found the conversation interesting and thought provoking.
I think what happend is Suskind might have got hip to the fact that he was arguing vainly into a legal and moral void….and his false arguments growing popularity as a discussion topic, not to mention its easy ability to be ridiculed and/or satirized by certain cynical posters led him to the only principled, noble decision…delete yourself….at least thats my upbeat hope.
He seems like a sharp enough fellow and weve all been there before, although maybe I have not gone there often enough for anybodys good….
they are still there:
Armando’s MLW diaries
You misunderstand. The claim is that diaries about the Armando GBCW are disappeared from MLW, not diaries by Armando.
The diaries concerning Armando’s GBCW were purged. One diary had most of its comments expunged by Eugene, who was one of the people in charge of administering the site while MSOC was in Vegas. Another one was zapped entirely.
That’s why I ended my short-lived association with MyLeftWing. I don’t participate in blogs that censor posts that are inconvenient to “special people”. It’s a matter of principle with me.
There were 69 comments–after Eugene’s scissoring (or it may have been lapolitichick…hard to tell who’s in charge over there)–there are 13. Everything critical of Armando was cut out, not just the posts that linked to a DailyKos diary which revealed Armando’s true name.
Is there some reason why Armando’s livelihood is a topic for such lively discussion here?
Yes, there were several people who were trying to martyr him and were disappointed and angry there wasn’t sufficient outrage. Those attempting to generate outrage then proceeded to compare Armando’s situation with Hitler’s Germany (Catnip) and another (suskind) compared Armando to MLK. I wanted to issue smelling salts.
Those of us hurting Armando’s feelings by being insufficiently sympathetic were told we lacked the ‘big picture’, had no principles, lacked compassion and that if we’re not there for Armando, DK and the blogs won’t be there for us when we’re in need. (as if they ever have been)
At the end of his last diary Sus announced that “the left” had a sense of “entitlement” and that our main complaint here was that he is a corporate lawyer. It was a manufactured conclusion, not borne out by the responses. Most folks decided that Armando made it extremely easy to identify himself and a good many of us (myself included) have a difficult time believing that Armando will stop blogging.
It was fascinating. It reminded me of the day that the Clarkies ‘introduced’ their Presidential candidate to DK.
Armando is blogging TODAY.
Also, he said he was going to post his swan song on his own blog, the Swords Crossed or Crossing Swords (I forget what it’s called). But no swan song.
Armando has not quit blogging. I guess that’s why he wanted all discussions of his departure expunged.
Also, question for the person who deleted the diaries after Armando “reamed” you and because they were hurtful to him: Is Armando going to delete all the diaries in which he called somebody a “fucking piece of shit”? You can bet those remarks were and are hurtful to the people at whom they were directed.
Or do only Armando’s feelings have worth and merit consideration?
Ok, enough of this…Armando Armando Armando…and he’s not even leaving. Guess he just wasn’t getting enough attention and this was his way of obtaining it?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/10/231245/616
Armando is blogging TODAY.
Gee, there’s a suprise. I’m shocked, shocked. What a phoenix that guy is.
How could we have been cynical.
Does anybody have an archive of Brian Nowhere’s posts on that deleted diary?
Brian did a lot of work and research on the legal aspects of privacy and blogging and I wish I’d copied them–they were VERY informative and were a “must read”, at least for me. I’m sorry the remarks have disappeared–I intended to copy them this morning because I found them so useful. It’s not often I read a diary and learn something I didn’t know before–Brian did a lot of teaching on that diary, and I hope his well-written remaks are not forever vanished.
Does anybody have an archive of Brian Nowhere’s posts on that deleted diary?
Somewhere in this thread there’s a link to the cached version of sus’s last diary I think. If not google caches all of this. I agree that Brian’s (And Man without a Country’s) posts were particularly interesting.
LOL… there is a comment downstream somewhere that if you email suskind he will send you the diary.
I asked for both, as both were of value. But he is only sending the more recent ‘Fine day for an outing” and not his first diary.
Or so it seems. I did ask again.
Have a big horselaugh: Armando’s most recent comments, this morning at DKos, were in a diary .. that has been…
DELETED. It was deleted as I shifted from comments to “story”.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/12/13144/9362
I mean you have got to laugh at these guys. Wanna-bees. Basically they are “flight risks” in the hardened world of politics.
Well, not to slight anybody else who took the time to participate in the deleted diaries, but it was Brian Nowhere’s comments that leapt out at me for their insight and reasoning.
I hope Brian had the foresight to save his remarks and THEN post them here.
Those attempting to generate outrage then proceeded to compare Armando’s situation with Hitler’s Germany (Catnip) and another (suskind) compared Armando to MLK. I wanted to issue smelling salts.
I swear some people here have tunnel vision and it seems there is no cure, colleen.
I compared Armando’s situation with Hitler’s Germany because I posted this to remind people that larger principles ought to be considered? Like watching someone else’s back in case you ever need support? The old ‘what goes around, comes around’ ‘do unto others’ thing? Oh. I just compared Armando’s situation to Jesus. How shallow of me.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
***
Do I have to publish a fucking thesis to explain to you, colleen, that poems like this can be used in symbolic ways to exemplify that when one is silent, they risk not only their security but their humanity as well?
Exactly which part of that don’t you get, because it’s really not that difficult to grasp – if you choose to grasp it.
PS: if you or anyone else here has a personal beef with me, see my e-mail address below. Please stop taking it out sideways in discussions like this.
Uh…ok…
Niemoller’s words were written about the death of millions during the Holocaust.
It is TOTALLY inappropriate to use it in any connection with the mere “outing” of a blogger online.
In fact, such a use is deeply offensive to the memory of Pastor Niemoller and to all those killed in the Holocaust.
If you don’t grasp the reason other people find your use of Niemoller’s words in this context distasteful and objectionable, then I don’t have the patience nor the skill to explain it to you.
The point of Niemöller’s statement was that you should speak out when something bad happens to anyone, not just when it happens to someone you like.
In this case, there is substantial disagreement over whether anything bad has actually happened. Yes, Armando’s privacy was invaded. This is probably bad. On the other hand, he was using that privacy as a shield for poor behaviour – namely, threats, bullying, and blogging on company time. By his own arguments on other topics (voting, women’s health), this means that he should have been outed, as otherwise his behaviour (and the behaviour of those like him) could have been used to attack privacy rights.
And if he’d been really serious about his privacy, he’d have taken steps to ensure it, such as not posting any personal information online. If I’m not mistaken, he’s posted pictures and information about his location.
Niemöller does not call on us to defend bullies from somewhat annoying but ultimately irrelevant actions.
Plus although there has been excellent commentary (Brian Nowhere in particular but also others) w/r/t “privacy’…
the enduring issue is blogging as a “progressive” – that is the preferred term of these fellows – in fact a self styled “prgressive” thought leader, one might even say…
all the while not just a corp atty/of counsel for his firm… but a major player in the legal game to wedge Wal-Mart into PR.
Tells me all of my assessments of the coordinated nasty online blogger game of roping in liberals left progressives to a rigged game for the party (think Hillary) was right on.
Plain old tired vote delivery.
For one, these are the old Democratic thug plays.
Thrashing and bashing the alternative views… holding themselves up as “leaders” all the while something else entirely.
It is called disclaimer and there is a reason he chose to blog pro-business, pro-Kelo pro-eminent domain and not provide a disclaimer.
Two faced.
Egarwaen,
You made my point when you wrote this:
The point of Niemöller’s statement was that you should speak out when something bad happens to anyone, not just when it happens to someone you like.
In this case, there is substantial disagreement over whether anything bad has actually happened. Yes, Armando’s privacy was invaded. This is probably bad.
Yes, that was bad. And, yes, regardless of whether or not anyone likes him or not, that ought to have been the focus.
On the other hand, he was using that privacy as a shield for poor behaviour – namely, threats, bullying, and blogging on company time
Number one: how do you make the connection between his using his privacy as a shield for his behaviour? You assume that if his identity was public, his character would have been different?
Number two: I asked another person on the other thread why they had not contacted Armando’s employer if they were concerned that he was ‘using company time’ or, as that person said, possibly billing his clients for his online time.
Do you not see how incredibly out of line such an implication is?
Perhaps the blogosphere should take up the task of outing all bloggers wo that all employers can investigate whether they’re all using company time to blog?
It’s issues like that and the herd mentality that has occured here that disturb me deeply.
Niemöller does not call on us to defend bullies from somewhat annoying but ultimately irrelevant actions.
No. He calls on all of us to think about the ramifications of staying silent when we see others who may not be like us being persecuted and that persecution can come in many forms and on many different levels.
And, in our current lives where horrendous things like the holocaust are not taking place on any grand scale (except in Darfur – which is an absolutely incredible example of inhumanity), we need to be ever cognizant of the occurences in our daily lives that call us to act. I wrote a post about that on my blog. When we’re unable to impact the world in a large way, the least we can do is to attempt to live simple principles of decency in our lives every day.
I don’t know any of Bush’s torture victims personally. I don’t know any of the Gitmo detainees. I don’t know any of the so-called ‘collateral damage’ people in Iraq. For all I know, some of them may be the most vicious and cruel people I would have ever met, but that doesn’t matter: I will defend them against injustice.
And let me tell all of you here: if this had happened to any of you – yes, even you sybil and the other colleen who think I’m worth dirt and whether you would have wanted my help or not – I would have defended you as well. Because, this isn’t about personalities or who ‘deserves’ what they get. The NRO which has a very large audience, urged on by a vengeful troll, published information that they had absolutely no need to and it was only done because of revenge. That was bad, as you said, Egarwaen, and it was indefensible. That action is what I railed against and that is where my outrage lies in all of this. That is all I was concerned with.
As a recovering addict, I was taught to abide by the tenet ‘principles before personalities’ and I learned that lesson well. If I am to be scorned for practicing what I believe, so be it. At the end of the day, I’m the one who has to live with my conscience – not you or anyone else. And, as I’ve said before, I want to ensure that I live with a clear conscience so I do what I can to ensure that -even when it’s not popular or when it doesn’t win me friends or ratings. I don’t exist for the acceptance of other people. I exist to find peace within myself. And, I have found that in my defense of what happened to Armando because I know I have not added to any damage that might have been caused by the NRO’s outing. Had I done that, my conscience would have been terribly bothered and I would have become what I hate the most – a hypocrite.
So, while others do what they feel they must do, my place in this was only to do what I feel was necessary for me so I didn’t destroy myself as a person by not living by my principles. If that bothers people, that’s not my cross to bear. And no, I didn’t just compare myself to Jesus – that’s a cliche that many people use to describe relevant situations, just as the Pastor’s poem is a very somber reminder that I have serious principles to live up to. Whether I choose to or not is up to me.
Since you seem so fond of World War II metaphors… It’s the difference between rounding up all citizens of Japanese or German descent and throwing them in concentration camps (bad) and uncovering a Axis spy and throwing them in jail (good). In both cases we have the same action, but its badness/goodness is dependent on context. In this case, the context seems to show that revealing the information is, at worst, ambiguous, and more likely a good, as it demonstrates that a figure who’s done substantial harm to the progressive blogging community is, in fact, a conservative of the Church of the Corporation variety. (Having done extensive work to help bring Wal-Mart’s incredibly destructive influence to PR.) Which explains pretty much everything about his divisive, destructive, bullying behaviour.
Things would be different if he’d been someone like Madman in the Marketplace or Booman, both of whom have done a lot for the progressive community and progressive politics.
a figure who’s done substantial harm to the progressive blogging community is, in fact, a conservative of the Church of the Corporation variety. (Having done extensive work to help bring Wal-Mart’s incredibly destructive influence to PR.)
The burden of proof is on you to back up your accusations.
While we’re at it, as I said before, why don’t we out everyone who posts at dkos and BT to see if they really live up to what they claim to be online?
What if kos actually drives a Hummer? OMG!! Alert the community. There’s a conservative operative in their midst.
See Marisacat’s reply above. She’s been following this more closely than I have, and could no doubt provide you with detailed sources.
We’re not just talking about some asshole in a hummer, we’re talking about a person who claims to be a progressive blogger (while viciously attacking any real progressives he encounters) working directly to help bring Wal-Mart to a territory that had managed to hold off its assaults until then.
we’re talking about a person who claims to be a progressive blogger (while viciously attacking any real progressives he encounters) working directly to help bring Wal-Mart to a territory that had managed to hold off its assaults until then.
Cite a case that Armando handled that proves this.
(Why does this have to go on and on and on?)
Somebody already did–and your amigo Suskind deleted the diary. Why should everybody have to go re-create their research because Armando’s proxy zapped two diaries?
The burden of proof has already been met. Go email Suskind and get him to resuscitate the diary he destroyed.
There’s no point arguing with you, anyway, Catnip–when you are proven 100% wrong in your facts, you just switch again.
Remember when you claimed that Wal-Mart never benefited from the power of eminent domain? And somebody posted links proving that Wal-Mart had benefited from eminent domain hundreds of times?
Then you switched and said, “Well, Wal-Mart never USED eminent domain because it’s not a governmental entity!”
That wasn’t how it was originally framed. Wal-Mart benefited from eminent domain (which was the crux of the “Kelo” case) and…
You know what? I had a big old long well-reasoned argument I was going to finish, but I just realized: IT DOESN’T MATTER. You’ll just change the argument to something else.
Reminds me of how the right-wingers argue. It really does.
If Kos drove a Hummer that would be VERY newsworthy.
This would be like finding out:
Hypocrisy is always newsworthy
The fact that a progressive blogger who blogs anonymously is found to have represented Wal-Mart and never disclosed it makes this a prime case for newsworthiness, which overrules any privacy concerns, which is moot anyway because Armando is a public figure
Also, as Brian points out below, if you are against the outing of Armando on these grounds, you must have been against the outing of Jeff Gannon. Were you?
Jeff Gannon was a public figure – an actual credentialed journalist who was given special favours by the Bush White House to shill for their propaganda campaign. Are you going to tell me there’s a parallel between a guy who posts on a blog and a journalist planted in the White House press corps to further the political agenda of the most corrupt administration the US has ever seen by writing stories for the Republican noise machine that were read by millions of people? If so, please explain the similarities.
They came for the male prostitutes, and I did nothing–
Because I was not a male prostitute.
They came for the Hummer drives, and I did nothing–
Because I drove a Prius (plus I wanted their parking space).
Armando’s “outing” is a tempest in a teapot, inflated by a few of his most fervent supporters (and him) into a combination crucifixion/civil rights cause.
It’s too bad all the intelligent comments that so many people made on this issue got thrown into the black hole by one of Armando’s supporters–the one who started the diary in the first damn place–because we have been over and over and over this issue again and again and again.
Catnip and Suskind were shown to be wrong on many facts AND on the privacy laws–and merely switched their arguments. Again, it’s too bad we don’t have the original diaries at hand, because both Catnip and Suskind had their arguments there thoroughly demolished (not that it dissuaded them).
The reason those original diaries were deleted was because Suskind and Catnip were shown to be have committed numerous errors of fact and of law that, in essence, disproved the substance of their argument.
Yet here we are again.
Mailing lists are private, should blogs be public? People can try to stay hidden, and I suspect many people blog completely hide who they are. Even lie about who they are. If blogs are a sort of village hall, can we really stay private?
Yes, of course there’s a parallel. Do you seriously not remember what actually happened with Gannon? He wasn’t a writer for a major newspaper. He was a writer for a “virtual” news organization run by a right-wing website – in other words, he was a blogger. His articles rarely, if ever, appeared in major print newspapers. Gannon’s stories were hardly read by “millions of people”. His crimes were, at their worst, being used as an “eject button” for the press secretary to use when questioning got too hot and publishing bogus articles which were then sourced by other right-wing shills.
Sounds very much like Armando to me, except Armando’s feeding stories to the center-right and bullying, banning, and otherwise trying to suppress the center-left, left, and far left. He’s used similar mechanisms too – he’s an “eject button” for the center-right establishment when questioning gets too hot, and publishes articles which are then sourced by other center-right shills.
But hey, far be it from me to question the Official Record of the Great Yellow-ish-Orange Kos.
wiki:
and…:
Now where’s the legitimate comparison to Armando’s situation? Are you going to tell me that someone with access to the president and the public on such a scale is comparable to Armando?
And, fwiw, I never reveled in the fact that Gannon was outed for being gay. That crossed the line and that’s when things got really dirty in the lefty blogosphere, afaic.
Yes, and? Your original claim, which I posted a reply to, was about Gannon’s journalistic credentials. He was no more a journalist than Armando. Gannon’s stories were never published in a major publication. You’ve not posted anything to discount this. Gannon only appeared on CNN after he was outed, so if that counts as “access to the public on such a scale”, then he should be thankful for being outed, as it gave him a vastly enlarged audience.
Your one valid claim is about access to the President. So it seems that the only difference between the two cases is that Gannon was allowed into White House press briefings, while Armando has only been allowed into corporate boardrooms.
Oh, and Gannon’s gay. But I consider that largely irrelevant, and hope you do too, unlike certain other “left-wing” bloggers…
well, Armando apparently has access to the Minority Leader of the Senate and the corporate hacks running the DCCC & the DSCC. Oh, and add to that his appearances on Air America I’d argue that he is a much more influential figure than Gannon.
Sssh. They’re nothing alike at all. Didn’t you get the memo? Oh, and there was no fraud in Ohio in 2004, or Florida in 2000. It was all the fault of Ralph Nader and the women’s studies crowd.
Besides, Gannon’s trash has apparently been read by millions, while Armando’s trash only has a daily audience in the high tens of thousands. Didn’t you know that makes him a much more public figure?
At a minimum Armando is a Limited Public Figure in that he thrust himself into the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.
Being that he made many appearances on the progressive talk circuit I think strong arguments can be made that he is a public figure period.
Going after Armando for the very newsworthy angle that a progressive blogger is shown to have represented Wal-Mart as a lawyer is every bit as fair as it was for the left to go after Gannon for being a public figure who shilled (or worse) for the White House Press Secretary.
I never thought I would defend Gannon ever, and I’m not. I’m doing my best to prevent my fellow liberals from taking the dive down the slippery slope of hypocrisy.
If Gannon was fair game, Armando was fair game.
And this issue is about much more than META and whether or not Armando is an asshole.
This is about progressives being consistent.
It is nice to know we can critize, flame, and investigate all of Dudya’s cronies like FEMA’s M. Brown. And really dig deep into Dudya’s worshippers such as Gannon, Red State’s Ben Domenech, HHS’ PR whore Karen Ryan
. And it is ok for us to cry foul and conflict of interest because they either worked for the profiting company or represented the offending company by lobbying for them or represented in the law firm (such as in the case with Armando representing Walmart) but when it comes to policing ourselves, we have hell to pay.
How is it not hypocritical defending the offender then criticize those from the other side who defend one of their own for the same offense?
But I guess we can turn a blind eye when it comes to upholding to the same ethical standards we expect the other side to uphold.
Just IMAGINE how the liberal blogosphere would burn mainstream media journalists as “whores” if they defended attending a $50,000 party that was clearly designed to win their favor.
But that’s exactly what Kos is doing on today’s frontpage of his blog–defending Warner’s fancy party that included (surprise!) Kos as a guest.
Ah, what nonsense. If Warner wanted to talk to the bloggers, he could have sat down with them and had coffee with them at $2.50 a head…or gotten them all pizza if he wanted to have a friendly chat-and-chew (let’s face it, people are more relaxed and receptive when they’re eating, and I’m not one to ignore the social graces).
But an elaborate $50,000 party? Might just be small change to a high roller like Kos, but $50,000 is a LOT of money to drop on a single night’s party.
Warner’s party screams I’M TRYING TO BUY YOU and Kos’ response is…hey, HAPPY TO BE BOUGHT.
Just substitute mainstream journalists from CNN, CBS, The New York Times, etcetera, in place of those bloggers…NOW what would your reaction be?
Now ask yourself…is Kos being hypocritical?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/12/15417/4242
…of summing up the proper relationship between bloggers and politicians (as well as journalists and politicians):
“They’re supposed to be policing them, not partying with them.”
And yes, Kos is seeking to have DailyKos recognized as a “journalistic endeavor” so that he can have the 1st Amendment exemption from reporting to the Federal Election Commission…so don’t give me that “bloggers are not journalists” argument.
Are bloggers fighting from the inside or selling out to become insiders? Kos says he’s “building a movement”–moving towards what? What if Warner offers to fly Kos and a few other high-profile bloggers to an all-expenses-paid retreat in Oahu so that he can “share his vision” with them…and the cost is $10,000 a person? By Kos’ theory, that would be ok, too. Hey, Kos is incorruptible…never mind that his friend Jerome Armstrong is working for Warner’s Forward Together PAC. Never mind that Kos has said it’s ok to accept gifts from a candidate (and yes, free food and booze at a fancy party IS a gift).
While we’re on about blogger ethics, what is the ethical standard for accepting gifts?
Looks like Warner’s genius scheme to buy some good press in the blogosphere is working (this is a response to Kos in the frontpage diary he wrote about how great Warner’s fancy party was
This should be in a diary all it’s own.
I know Booman doesn’t want this place becoming the anti-kos but man it’s difficult when they just keep dishing out hypocrtical and self-serving bullshit again and again.
Wealth & Influence are extremely intoxicating. Which is exactly what makes this so disturbing.
From what I’ve been reading over there, Kos is spouting a lot of “oh kossacks have minds of their own, they aren’t going to be swayed by little ol’ me” bullshit, in complete denial that he holds tremendous influence over thousands and thousands of people,(just look at the sway Armando has with some people and then multiply that by 100) which is exactly why Warner has deemed this a good investment of his PAC funds.
He should know better. I think he knows that many of us do know better, which is exactly why, in my estimation, many of us are not allowed to play in his pool anymore.
It’s worse than that.
The Fierce One Herself–aka Maryscott O’Connor–is also cool with Warner’s $50,000 (or was it $100,000?) party:
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9344
No, Warner isn’t going to buy the bloggers with one party…but it’s a start.
And of course everybody says, “Hey, not ME–I’m INCORRUPTIBLE!”
It’s not a simple equation of, “Warner gave me free booze, I’m going to support his candidacy or turn a blind eye to his warmongering support of the illegal occupation of Iraq”.
No, it’s more a softening process, very gradual and almost impercetible (which is why it’s so insidious and dangerous, like gaining weight!). It’s really hard to write something harsh and critical about somebody who has partied with you. It’s human nature…it’s how we are.
So let’s not pretend that any of us are angels. We’re not. That’s why I never made close friends with any of the people I’ve supervised…because I might have to make the decision to discipline or even fire them, and it’s impossible to be objective in a decision like that when so-and-so is your drinking buddy.
Getting corrupted by going to one of Warner’s parties, or accepting favors and attention from him, does NOT mean you are necessarily a bad person. It DOES mean you are a human being–which is why bloggers and journalists should NOT party with politicians.
This stuff about Warner throwing that Stratosphere party as a way of paying homage to the entire blogosphere, and not as an attempt to buy affection and influence? To use one of the favorite words of the inimitable MSOC, PURE BULLSHIT.
Lots to chew on here. You make some very good points.
I’d suspect you’re both right and wrong. Folks shouldn’t be swayed by a chicken dinner, but in reality we are all susceptible to being bought. Hell, I’m gonna be honest with you–I LOVE a nice soiree! My car may be cheap but my food tastes aren’t. Hey, that’s just honest. $50K is a lot of bones to drop on a political shindig (He could have had a decent party for half that which works out to $25/head) but he wanted to go all out…precisely because he wanted to soften folks up…keep them interested.
It’s why you have a great fundraiser (regardless of the cause one works for: candidate, cancer research, etc.); why companies entertain at restaurants and on the golf course, etc.–to soften you up. One could argue that the whole point of a campaign is to “soften up” enough people to vote for your candidate and/or to convince other people to go out and support for your candidate.
So…what can we do to keep folks’ critical thinking sharp? That’s the better question, because OF COURSE each and every candidate is going to try to soften folks up. It’s not just positions, or how they can sell them to people which is important, but your feeling about a candidate, too. If someone treats like a jerk, then no one will help them, no matter how just the cause, position or principle…as has been demonstrated very recently. :<)
[Case in point: my MIL went to a conference some years ago where a Democrat and a Republican were speaking at different times (and I believe on different days). The Dem, who was absolutely PERFECT on their issues, was cold and indifferent and acted like he wanted to be anywhere but there. And folks sensed it. The Republican, OTOH, was the polar opposite on almost all their issues…BUT–he was kind, he was warm, made time for folks and ACTED interested in what they had to say. So I ask if you–if our Dem and Repub asked this group to support them, who do you think would be most receptive? It’s human nature.]
What we want to prevent, however, is the damned stupid “would you have a beer with him” types of question, which is maddening because folks wouldn’t pick their accountant, lawn specialist, manicurist or lawyer that way. In a very limited sense, the question has its place–as shorthand as to whether the person was pleasant, approachable and not an ax murderer or child molester, but 90% of our decision should be on policy and what they do.
But there’s always that 10%…
Thanks for making such good points. Like I said, lots to chew on.
We have blurred the line. We talk about creating blogs to blog about things the media doesn’t report because they are in the pockets of corporatation and politicians, hence, the term citizen journalism. We cry out “BULLSHIT” to Faux. From wiki:
Matthew Buckland from Media Online said this:
Which is fine, yet bloggers cheered when the court ruled in our favor that we can keep our sources confidence because we were considered in the rhelm of the press. So have we become what we disliked about the bought out press. And in reality, we just want the same ticket to the show?
Sure, there’s a parallel.
PARTISAN POLITICAL OPERATIVE.
If A or K were just blogging “link trees” to odd sites like the National Underwater Basketweavers Guild, that’d be one thing…
But K and his bully buddies, A prominent among them, are NOT doing that, are they? They run a VERY large POLITICAL ORGANISATION. They have, by choice and CONSIDERABLE effort, put themselves forth as leading heavy-duty political operatives, and highly vicious ones at that. As such, they’re fair game for any enterprising reporter, left, right, or center, to do a little basic research (and from what I gather it requires VERY little) and find out, and publish, just who they actually are and what they do.
And an enterprising reporter at NRO got curious, checked, found what appeared to be character-related conflicts and maybe some conflicts of interest, and published. It can happen like that.
There’s still such a thing as credibility… y’know, the “say one thing, do another” approach of which those who would be our Rulers are so fond? Those who have to live with the consequences of that have the right to know what’s going on — or are you seriously wanting to argue that we should all just shut up and let Bush and Rove and Cheney and Co do what they want, because we have no right to actually know about their personal and private business dealings? Halliburton, Carlyle, the Tribes, — those are all private deals, right?
See, when you make of yourself a Public Figure, then the public has the right to know whether, and to what degree, what you do conflicts with what you say.
Bottom Line: Nobody dragged Armando into the limelight against his will, kicking and screaming. He scratched and clawed and verbally abused any number of people to get there. He MADE himself a Public Figure, which changes the rules, and the way he conducted himself when he became a Public Figure made his character and judgement an issue, just as they did for Dick Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Karl Rove, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and, yes, even Bill and Hillary Clinton.
And Jeff Gannon.
seriously, I really don’t want to keep wading into this shit, but your statements above are just factually incorrect.
I would point you to the post I wrote on suskind’s diary explaining EXACTLY what the difference and similarities are, but low and behold I can’t, because it was deleted. And yes, that REALLY REALLY pisses me off.
But here I go again, and yes, not going to repeat this, but I was involved in the Gannon thing from the beginning, and no, I didn’t go digging on his identity.
I’d say more, but who knows, this diary may be deleted already and I’ve already wasted way too much time on the drama queen that is Armando. Nice week we’ve just spent since his GBCW… which he then immediately revoked after getting the requiste sympathy.
And let’s not even get into what happened with starkravinglunaticradical that I didn’t see this much effort spent defending her from the vile, actual attacks, she was subjected to, vs. the non-attack that Armando got. If you want to talk about hypocrisy and this instance those two cases alone should be enough to get us started. Without even getting into this armando nonsense.
Can I have your baby? :o)
Actually a more appropriate comparison figure would be the blogger formerly known as “stark”. Like Armando, she tended to grate on some people’s nerves, and like Armando, with a bit of internet detective work one could piece together her professional identity. Also, like Armando, those responsible for outing her and who egged such psychopathic behavior on were motivated mainly by hostility toward their chosen victim.
The main difference is that stark was something of a misfit at Big Orange (as was I for that matter), and so hers and her husband’s livelihood were for a time put at risk with nary a peep from anyone beyond the “she deserves it…yuk yuk yuk…etc.” Armando has some of the same to deal with, but also at least can console himself with a lovefest apparently at Big Orange.
As I see it the usual Golden Rule applies…do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Putting myself for a moment in both Armando’s and stark’s shoes, I would be dismayed to be treated as they were by their particular perpetrators. Norms of confidentiality being what they are, I think it’s a good idea to simply refrain from divulging personal information you have on another person unless that person has given explicit permission to do so.
Look, we could all debate until the cows come home about just how much of an asshole and bully Armando is (I won’t really argue – if anything I’d probably enthusiastically agree with ya) or about how dubious his pretentions of “progressivism” are (most folks with a pulse could have sussed that out without trying to figure out his clientele). All that seems to me beside the point: is it okay to make unwelcome intrusions into another person’s personal and professional life? Where is the line drawn? Personally, I’m uncomfortable with what happened to Armando, just as I was uncomfortable with what happened to stark. At this point, whatever opinions I might have about Armando’s personal qualities, I am cannot fathom how what NRO did was a good thing or agree that he “had it coming.”
Where do you draw the line? That’s the $64K question.
Like you would know anything about reason. All you can hear is the sound of your lips smooching Armando’s backside.
This is about hypocrisy and if it was ok to out Gannon/Guckert (it was), that it was fair game to do the same to Armando.
All schadenfreude aside, I swear this would be my stance if Armando conducted himself like the ambassador of Niceland.
What I really don’t like is when NRO ( A publication I despise), in one fell swoop manages to make this whole progressive netroots movement look like a bunch of whining hypocrites.
I don’t troll rate without giving a reason as well. So here’s my reason:
Like you would know anything about reason. All you can hear is the sound of your lips smooching Armando’s backside.
That was completely uncalled for.
I troll-rated you because you are disruptive. You flamed and disrupted Suskind’s diaries and you’re flaming and disrupting this one.
Yeah, I’m still here…lurking (reading).
I could have hit catnip back with a 0 but I believe it’s against the rules to retaliate a 0 with a 0.
I think flamewars are lame anyway. Any idiot can toss around 0s It takes a brain to actually debate and back up your shit and catnip has proven that he/she can’t do that.
This little tag team rating thing you guys have going on here is really quite amusing. Carry on.
Big Surprise-Not.
Tell Armando I said hello from the Frog pond.
Do I have to publish a fucking thesis to explain to you, colleen, that poems like this can be used in symbolic ways to exemplify that when one is silent, they risk not only their security but their humanity as well?
I understood your argument and your excuses for that particular piece of hyperbole it’s just that I found them weak, unconvincing and manufactured to shame others into outraged activism. I can unde4rstand why you deleated the diary. I certainly don’t feel my humanity is at risk. Thanks for your concern.
Sorry, I’ve little time and no interest in an email conversation.
I can unde4rstand why you deleated the diary.
Which diary?
??
Both in reality, and in Pastor Niemöller’s poem, they came for the Communist’s first. Here’s the original (in German):
…and in English translation:
During the Cold War, the Communists were frequently eliminated in American translations. And, as the Holocaust rose in American consciousness, the position of the Jews rose within the poem as well.
I didn’t know that. Thank you!
And just exactly how irony-challenged is that!
I don’t remember any personal attacks beyond a little gratuitous name-calling (which you can think of as a tribute, given Armando’s perfection of that art). We did have a lengthy exchange over whether Armando might have been billing his clients for the massive amount of time he spends blogging, which was probably over the line given the absence of any real evidence.
to my article here
Which I wrote in response to another of suskinds diaries that was #1 on the charts here at Booman which was titled Fighting Back ~Armando and was forwarding the embarrassing POV (IMHO) that Armando’s outing needed to be fought against.
I saw a double standard danger in that when the left outed Gannon it was ok, but when basically the same thing happend to Armando it was all of a sudden declared “out of bounds”
I do not wish to see my brothers turn into hypocrites so I felt a strong responsibility to respond with an opposing viewpoint.
Very strange that suskind deleted these. Last nights diary saw the logic some are claiming behind Armando’s defense get torn to shreds and I guess it wasn;t the POV Armando & company wanted put forth. </speculation>
I did check suskinds cross-post of the same diary he had out last night over at Dkos and the comparison between the two was striking.
The dkos one is still there Nice Day for an Outing
The one here had dissent and intelligent debate throughout the comments. The one at dKos is a major smoochfest between Armando and his worshipers.
I mean there is not ONE dissenting opinion in the whole frigging diary. I find that amazing. The purge over there must have been way more exhaustive that I thought.
Watching 80,000 people marching in lock-step is not a fun thing to watch. The site is becoming more vanilla by the second.
This debate was important and I spent alot of time on commenting in it myself. It was not just aout Armando but about the concept of anonymity. It is a shame that Suskind was too embarrassed by them to let the comments stand on their own merit.
The last thing I remember was Susking giving me a 4.
Brian, I’m sorry your commentaries on privacy law and your analyses were deleted by Suskind.
They were brilliant. And I don’t praise people often. But I was very impressed.
If you have copies of your remarks, could you make them available? This issue is going to arise again, make no mistake about it, and your commentaries were so insightful.
It’s extremely rare for diaries to be deleted. I would wager that the percentage of diaries deleted since BT got started is a small fraction of a percent. I hope the person who deleted the diaries in question had a real good reason to do so. I know that MLW really really frowns on that sort of thing, at at minimum we could say that deletion does fall outside of accepted group norms.
For the most part, it’s not a huge deal to me – in particular diaries that turn into blog wars are probably better forgotten. In a hundred years no one will even remember that there were blogs (I say this by the way as the occasional casualty of the deleted diary). That’s just me though, and I have a habit of being a bit iconoclastic on the issue.
I know that some of the commentary on the Armando meta diaries were downright ugly. If suskind removed the diaries perhaps he was upset by the flamewars the erupted? I dunno, and I’m not positioned to make any sort of educated guess as to the whys right now.
Fwiw, I’ve never deleted any of my diaries here, nor do I care to do so. Granted diaries from me are few and far between, as I am usually way too lazy to cross-post material from my humble blog. That aside, your comments will be preserved for posterity on any of my diaries. Howzdat?
It was a civil discussion until someone got ugly about Armando, and to spare him any more of it I deleted…. he’d mentioned how hurtful that he’d been reading it and it was hurtful, so I deleted.
Well that was really uncool. I spent a lot of time trying to examine the issues and raised some valid points about how differently Gannon was treated vs. Armando. There were some other great comments from both sides as well.
So much for community involvement eh? I think that’s bullshit suskind. Really and truly bullshit.
Armando’s feelings are hurt so you delete diaries with hundreds of comments from members of this community? Nice way to build bridges and have open discussions.
Ever heard of troll ratings if the comment is a personal attack? Or asking for an admin to delete a comment?
We don’t do dailykos bully tactics here which is exactly what you did by silencing the debate.
BooMan, I would ask you un-delete the diaries in question and let the community moderate itself. I know this is possible because eugene at MLW un-deleted one of catnip’s diaries.
And on that note, then we can have a debate about intellectual property on blogs and who owns your writings if they are posted on a community blog.
For shame suskind, really that’s just deplorable on your part, on behalf of Armando.
So Armando can deal it out, including calling people “a fucking piece of shit”, but anything pointing out that he’s a hypocritcal asshole could hurt his feelings and must be deleted ASAP? No wonder he’s “quit blogging”.
Bullies, whether sandbox or online, are typically cowards whose taste for abuse and invective is STRICTLY and ABSOLUTELY one-way; they’ll beat the crap out of anyone when they’ve got six or ten or fifteen supporters, but when caught out on their own, they’re cowards — which they’ll try to hide by playing the “I’m a victim” card. (cf Bush, Rove, Delay, and on and on. Standard right wing tactic, and, as said, bullshit.)
It looks to me as though the right wing is once again desperate enough to have started eating their own. The bullies at Orange are neither liberals nor progressives, they’re rightists in jackass suits, they’re opportunists and bullies, and they’re not worth worrying about.
I long ago realized that if you’re going to try to live by principles, sooner or later (mostly sooner) you’ll have to deal with the fact that the bullies (and their friends, if any) WILL try to find ways to use your principles as weapons against you — as we’re seeing here.
And how much of that we allow in our own lives is a call each of us has to make for ourselves.
As far as I go, scruemall. They get the respect and the treatment they earn, and if they’re sorry now, too effin’ bad. You don’t want to be treated like an asshole, well, hey, y’know, you can avoid that easily — don’t act like an asshole.
wow … so delicate a flower is our dear, (not really) departed Armando. Interesting from one so willing to spew venom.
Of course, the worthy discussion that happened in the rest of the thread was secondary to the bruised feelings of the recipient of some folks’ misplaced idolotry. Reminds me of this:
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. – George Orwell.
The ugliness I was mainly referring to were the personal insults that were being slung around among and between commenters. There was plenty of cogent on-topic and rather spirited discussion that was worth reading, but too many of the threads had devolved into “you’re a liar”“you’re an asshole”“fuck off and die already” territory. Got too painful to read.
So it goes. They were good diaries. I think Oui somewhere in this diary has posted a link to a Google cache for one of those diaries – if one wishes to see what the deal was.
The ugliness I was mainly referring to were the personal insults that were being slung around among and between commenters. There was plenty of cogent on-topic and rather spirited discussion that was worth reading, but too many of the threads had devolved into “you’re a liar””you’re an asshole””fuck off and die already” territory. Got too painful to read.
Without in anyway endorsing such behavior (which I deplore), I do think it was strangely appropriate on a diary devoted to discussing Armando.
Luckily we have your word that members of Booman Tribune were uncharacteristically hurtful and offensive, since you deleted the evidence.
you mean took your toys and went home? havent you done this sort of thing before? Sort of a hit and run blog prima donna? coming and going away again over and over?
Sort of like me?
Your entire point was fatuous to begin with…
.
I am the one who is embarrassed, as I had high esteem of suskind and his many excellent diaries here @BooMan and over at the European Tribune. The words written and read by participants of this community will never lose their substance.
I do wish sometimes their was a comment delete button, for my own comment that is.
I am looking forward to more of your participation on the blog, I guarantee I will never delete my diary with one of your comments.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
I read your comments with interest. I am sure many others did too.
It is very rare that diaries are deleted here.
I think mine was the very last comment in the second of those diaries and it was a response to one of yours. It said in essence, that while I might not agree with all of your opinons in the diary I was glad to have your voice in the debate. It also mentioned my take on the legal, ethical, moral and probability of outings aspects of the debate.
I read that last night and it was a very tasteful restrained post and you disagreed with suskind with the untmost graciousness.
I was impressed with it, shame it’s now in the memory hole.
Thanks. I was very reluctant to get involved in that debate, and I wrote and didn’t post something similar several times. I wanted to thank you also for your research on the public figure and limited public figure stuff. I had some of that in my head, but in a form that I could have posted, since I just didn’t have the references or the time to dig. Very good work on that.
Thank you, Kelly.
Ok, I’ll try again, but I have to tell it, I was really stunned and more than a little pissed off at seeing the hard work of so many people just tossed into the memory hole because it didn’t please Armando. It’s just not right to delete the words of people who took the time and trouble to write them–and a lot of people on those diaries (including me) did some research!
So yes, I’m a little skeptical and wondering if maybe I’m not better off as a lurker. I posted a few comments on this diary so I’ll just have to take this one day at a time and see how it goes.
Thanks for the encouragement, I appreciate it.
I’m a little skeptical and wondering if maybe I’m not better off as a lurker.
Well, I wonder that often myself. However, I’m pleased you have decided to (provisionally) continue. We appear to share the same blog watching avocation and I found your comments and observations yesterday cogent and very interesting.
How could it be otherwise?
Once you learn that the nature of things is that they change, that nothing is permanent, and that you answer for each day as it comes, everything else falls into place.
Actually, I think the people here should be proud of themselves if they aren’t already–a sharp debate and nobody’s really gotten one-twentieth as nasty as it gets on DailyKos. Which is why I will ALWAYS remain a lurker there.
and I do understand the stress, but hopefully your future experiences at Booman will be more pleasant ones. Make sure to stop by the Froggy Bottom cafe diaries for a more thorough welcome.
Arminius, you seem to know everybody around here.
Any way to get my comments deleted? Put in a word with Booman for me if you can.
Thanks for everything!
No, actually I’m a comparatively scorned outsider, since I tend to be a Catholic scolder and a bit on the pompous side. But for what it’s worth, I was on your side on this debate, and I’m sorry to see the entire debate vaporized! I was still pondering several of the comments, not quite ready to respond. It was one of the most interesting debates I’ve seen on the blogosphere, one that is close to my life (since I’m also a law firm partner and a diehard Democrat).
By the way, I don’t think it’s impossible for somebody to represent WalMart and claim to be a progressive. You have to choose. You can’t claim both.
Arrgh. Double negatives! I mean, of course, that I don’t think it’s POSSIBLE straddle both positions.
And I think it’s REALLY odious to be doing that while also fiercely suppressing hundreds of other Democratic voices.
I’m one of those really happy to see Armando taken down, hopefully many notches.
I am not shedding tears over Armando, but I won’t gloat over his predicament either. I am pissed because a lot of good talk was had and many of us really had to think about our position. It was a good debate and all I can hope is that Suskind deleted his diaries and not Booman. Maybe Armando was pissed that so much debate was going on and asked Suskind to delete it. I don’t know, but I am not pleased. I was learning a lot and enjoyed the conversation.
. . . convince people to troll rate you.
I’m not sure why we are all worrying over this.
suskind’s diaries “Nice Day For An Outing” and ” Fighting Back — Wikipedia — Armando” are still on DailyKos as of 2 a.m. Monday, June 12, 2005. They’re gone from BMT. The latter diary got only 37 comments on DKos, but 216 here the last I looked.
What’s up with this?
I checked my own comments list just now. It appears what you say is correct. At least, correct in that the diaries, including the most recent, are gone.
If someone removes a diary iwth many comments – on any topic – I never bother to comment in their diaries again.
There is no point.
Agree strongly. If suskind pops up again, he deserves major grief over this. I had many comments on those diaries. For what it’s worth, I had over 30 “4s”, which are the little bits of gold we pick up in this adventure, which I prize.
My theory: Catnip to Armando to suskind to punt.
I don’t litigate very often (only 14 times so far), but so far I’ve never lost. I would love to really cross swords with Armando before a neutral judge who wouldn’t abide his profanity.
My theory: Catnip to Armando to suskind to punt.
Here we go again.
Perhaps an end to the speculation is in order until someone who actually knows the truth informs everyone about what happened?
I had linked twice to that diary from a post I made on my blog on Sunday and there I was, on Sunday nite at 2am proofing my links to make sure I hadn’t screwed up and poof, suskind’s diary was gone, so I e-mailed him to ask what happened. Did you?
I don’t know why you think I’m involved in some kind of diary deleting conspiracy and I can tell you almost certainly that Armando had nothing to do with it. If you think he was bothered by the discussion, I can tell you he was not. His beef was and is with the National Review. I have e-mailed him as well. Have you?
Suskind’s comment above:
It seems Armando was bothered by it afterall, and Suskind, feeling badly for him, deleted.
He can handle insult against him.
I was wrong to delete on his behalf.
And I was mistaken to say that he felt hurt by it… he’s made of sterner stuff.
If he mentioned to you how hurtful it was, then how are you mistaken to say that he felt hurt by it? Either he said it, or he didn’t. Which is it?
Another thing, in saying you deleted on his behalf, does this mean he asked you to delete? Or even hinted that you might delete?
The truth please. This is a big deal.
He said over on Daily Kos that he’d been reading the comments over here. They were hurtful, nasty attacking, hostile.
I felt sickened by what was happening. I was ashamed for what is meant to be a progressive community… sickened by the troll fest.. the insult, accusations, and the insinuations….
most of all the judgement…. frankly, it was appalling to me and making me ill
But then again, I’ve been “on the case” since the 20th of May when I found some really nasty stuff being edited in and out of Wikipedia.
I felt bad for him. And I needn’t have. He’s used to insult and it doesn’t hurt him.
He wasn’t aware that I had done it, and was not at all happy that I did.
I didn’t ask anyone, tell anyone, nor did anyone tell me.
That just pisses me off. I was involved in that entire discussion and perhaps you didn’t like it that your hero was not coming off in a great light, but to call anyone who posted on that thread a TROLL is a gross mischaracterization.
How coincidental that you refer to people you disagree with as trolls. I wonder who else that reminds me of…
I can vouche for the fact that Armando was called an Asshole, he was called abusive, comparisons were made between Armando and Gannon ( two very similar cases) and Armando was called an Asshole some more. That’s about it. The speculation that Armando may have billed his clients for blogging was about as out of bounds as it got and community moderation was handling that just fine.
Mostly it was you trying in vain to claim that Armando
was a martyr wronged by the National review. Then after a long legal discussion where you argued in vain based on a false assumption that Armando is a private citizen ( I must have written the words limited public figure about two hundred times in that thread) and when this was disproved beyond any reasonable doubt you deleted your diary.
No one referred to him as a piece of shit, or a scumbag or a vile degenerate who has no value. No one used one tenth of the kind of language Armando uses on others against him.
As far as Armando’s standards go he was practically treated as royalty in that discussion.
For you to refer to ANYONE who took part in that discussion as a troll is dishonest and cheap, especially since you can’t prove your false claim since you destroyed all evidence of it.
And let me say again it was wrong and I’m sorry.
If anyone wants it, email me and I’ll send it to you.
Another, ‘nother thing,
why isn’t the diary at dKos deleted as well? Only here and at MLW because the discussion became hurtful, in Armando’s opinion, to Armando?
see above
not at all in his opinion, he e mailed me and said i was wrong
Just a couple of observations, from the far fringe.
I didn’t enjoy the attacking comments re: A either, however, I also know this: we tend to reap what we sow. If I choose to swing my weight around in any venue, in ways disrepectful of others, then thats about what I ought to expect in return. It’s not how it should be in an ideal world, but thats just how it is, period.
If someone close to me “knows” that I am really a good person undereath all my rudeness and disrspect of others, and sticks up for me when I am attacked, THEY will also be attacked, sooner or later, also because that’s also just how it goes. (Been there, done that more than once, and ended up feeling just about the same way you do.) Because I got too swept up in somebody elses “stuff” (whatever that “stuff” was,) so much so I ended up losing my own objectivity. Hey. It happens.
When all is said and done, there is only one person ultimately reapsonsible for the consequences of thier own chosen behaviors, whatever they are.
The discussion this all raised is a vitally important one, and I too, regret seeing it disppear from here. But I am also not surpised that A drew fire, either, as one who long ago was also subjected to his chosen communication style, and decided to just keep my distance after that.
This will pass. Maybe things will be learned from it. Maybe not. Maybe not now, but someday.
the funny thing is that tonight is the first and only time i’ve ever been “reamed out” by Armando…. an unforgettable experience
So which version of your story are you verifying with this “reamed” remark?
Version 1: Armando’s feelings were hurt and I deleted the diaries at his request.
Version 2: I deleted the diaries of my own accord and Armando is mad at me for doing it.
Version 3: Armando reamed me and that’s why I deleted the diaries.
You have all three versions on this diary and only one of them can be true.
Which one is true? #3 sounds about right to me.
I propose Version 4: suskind deleted the diaries, posted why the deletion was done, and then got reamed by Armando for publically revealing what a delicate flower the poor soul is.
Oh, I didn’t think of that scenario.
I agree, that seems most probable.
I was just pointing out, in case anybody missed it, that Suskind has offered three competing versions of the decision to delete the diaries, and the three are irreconcilable.
In the future, I will remember to archive any diary in which I participate so that remarks are not lost. I realize diary deletion is rare, but something tells me it’s going to become more common. Fortunately, ever since I got a 500gb external hard drive for backups, there’s LOTS of room for that kind of stuff!
I think Suskind already said what version is true. He is saying that Armando reamed him for deleting. Let’s not have this get too far out of hand alright?
I think things got “out of hand” when Suskind deleted the diaries and then offered up three different, totally irreconcilable stories, about how he made the decision to do so.
That’s all I have to say on the subject.
he was angry at me. he told me i was wrong. and i was. i did my best to correct it. i have apologized up and down the block. i don’t know what more it’s going to take here.
and no matter how many times it’s repeated, the diaries at mlw were not deleted, nor do i have the power to delete comments.
the site moderators stick to the Online Integrity Statement, and they enforce it. Any violation of a person’s privacy through linking or outing will be deleted.
apology accepted.
the diary was hurtful. i deleted because i felt bad for a guy who was being attacked and insulted. i felt bad the guy was reading it. he made comments on dk about how he was reading it.
he wasn’t hurt. and he can take the insult.
he recognized that they were hurtful, but he never said that he was hurt by them. to the contrary. and he “reamed me out” for deleting them because it was wrong on two counts.
i was wrong. i apologized. i’ve done as much as i can to correct it.
Please Man, listen to your self! Read what you just wrote. It positively smacks of idolatry and star-struckism
Somebody tell me I’m wrong but reading the abovce post you just wrote you sound honored to have been reamed out by the great Armando
An unforgettable experience?? Like the time you went to Graceland and got to touch the King’s jumpsuit?
This right here is why dKos is getting to be a scary place.
snap out of it man. He’s just a lawyer who can type.
“Great” isn’t necessarily a superlative. It could also mean “big”…
You are wise, dear scribe. I, too, have had the experience of “defending” friends who, it turned out, neither wanted nor needed my help. And thus do we learn what the road to hell is paved with.
clarifying things for me (and others, I’m sure). Sorry to see your comments, among others, gone.
I was just looking for Suskind’s latest and even opened my diary list to 50 and searched for my comments. I just assumed it was too far in the history, but that didn’t make sense. I thought we were having a good conversation about privacy and celebrity. I am very bummed…I hope it was Suskind.
.
Thu Jun 8th, 2006 at 09:57:46 PM EST
Diary in cache with 153 comments …
Everyone can copy the info into an email addressed at oneself: Ctrl+a and Ctrl+c (approx. 1MB)
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
Oh good, now Suskind can point out which comments were so horrible they offended Armando’s delicate sensibilities.
Since Booman did not remove these diaries, why not change your title to something less provocative, e.g. deletion rather than purging?
I don’t really catch the distinction, because it doesn’t seem to me that “purging” implies involvement by BooMan. To my ear, it simply implies some nefarious behind-the-scenes action for political reasons, which seems to be sort of what happened. However, I trust your writing, and I see a couple of people agreed with you, so I’ve made the change.
The diary “Nice Day For An Outing” was deleted by me about an hour ago. It was a civil discussion until some posters made some very hurtful remarks about Armando. He had been reading them and said so, that he found them hurtful. So I deleted.
I’m sorry, but I have to take exception to your saying that his announcement that he was quitting blogging as a “GBCW” extravaganza.
He’s been attacked by the right and by the left. Mine was not at all an attack piece. It was about the first and fourth amendment protections for free speech and privacy.
If anyone wants the diary and comments, I’ll email them to you.
I am not interested in hurting the guy.
.
was and is a poor choice to execute without any warning so community members can copy the diary with its comments.
Please mail me the diaries with comments suskind. You still have my email address?
Thanks
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
email me and i’ll send it to you.
Conveniently, this also prevents other people from seeing exactly what the “hurtful remarks” were. Given that Armando has done everything from calling people “a fucking piece of shit” to threatening to ban them for posting inconvenient facts, it’d have to be pretty nasty, I’d think.
Then again, I also don’t particularly give a damn about Armando’s feelings. He’s kos’ attack dog, nothing more.
the diary was hurtful. i deleted because i felt bad for a guy who was being attacked and insulted. i felt bad the guy was reading it. he made comments on dk about how he was reading it.
he wasn’t hurt. and he can take the insult.
he never said that he was hurt by them. to the contrary. and he “reamed me out” for deleting them because it was wrong on two counts.
i was wrong. i apologized. i’ve done as much as i can to correct it.
He hasn’t quit as far as I can tell.
1) Explain what I misunderstood please [none / 0] Replies: 0
posted by Armando on 06/12/2006 06:59:05 PDT
attached to Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…or the sickening
2) Well [none / 0] Replies: 0
posted by Armando on 06/12/2006 06:42:30 PDT
attached to Nice Day For An Outing
3) Well [none / 1] Replies: 1
posted by Armando on 06/12/2006 01:20:48 PDT
attached to Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…or the sickening
4) I don’t see it that way [none / 1] Replies: 1
posted by Armando on 06/12/2006 01:07:36 PDT
attached to Whose Rights? What Cost?
5) Steverino [4.00 / 2] Replies: 1
posted by Armando on 06/12/2006 00:16:30 PDT
attached to Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…or the sickening
I know, I know…who am I to tell you what to do?
But he hasn’t left blogging. He’s not going to leave. So all this discussion about his “outing” and was it legal and was it ethical and so on and so forth…was all for nada, zilch, zero, zip, big fat donut!
Because he’s still blogging.
Ok, folks, that’s SIXTEEN–count ’em, SIXTEEN–comments on 12 June 2006…the day he said he would fade away forever.
And it’s only 2:41 pm Pacific Standard Time as I write these words.
Which means there’s about 9.5 hours in the day, and I’m willing to bet money that Armando will write some more before the clock strikes midnight.
What’s more, Armando is acting like he never wrote his “Goodbye Cruel World” diary and so is everybody else.
That’s why reading DailyKos sometimes–sometimes–makes my head ache. I begin to question my sanity because there are people there who pretend that what happened yesterday simply didn’t happen, and by wishing reality into the cornfield, all problems are solved.
Sound like a certain president’s administration?
Oh the great irony that Armando and his worshipers provide for me and others to ponder.
First, Armando himself gets outed and decides to “quit blogging” in a way that will give his outing & identity the noisiest & widest publicity possible.
Next, Suskind writes an ill-concieved diary wherein all of his points and arguments are thoroughly refuted and debunked & just when the diary was about to fade away into the memoryhole, he deletes it and sparks up the whole uproar all over again wherein the whole debate gets hashed out once again & all suskinds arguments are refuted anew.
When will they learn, these princes of lame, these kings of no logic? When.will.they.learn?
I can’t read this whole thread, long day, but hope it doesn’t get deleted. Just want to add my two cents, in case no one else has said it. I’m sure someone has, but here it is again.
Someone who got banned at DK thanks to Armando researched the abundant frequency of Armando’s postings with detailed itemization. The implication was that this might raise questions about the billing at the firm where Armando was a partner. I wish that person would post their research again. It was very interesting. Nuff said on that subject.
And I wish people would stop trying to make this a partisan issue. It’s not like Booman or even Markos was distraught about being “outed” on a right wing website. This about someone who was abusive to many people and who has abused his own anonymity. These are not things I can factor out of my assessment of his situation, although I recognize that there are larger issues about journalistic integrity that we need to address and pay attention to.
. . . on Armando. I should have my head examined.
BooMan gets back from Vegas tonight…and it seems all those diaries have been disappeared.
What’s the story with that?
Arminius, you should update your diary. Don’t delete anything; just add a correction and apology.
He did add an update, early yesterday. It says:
Update: Booman has nothing to do with this. The mystery continues.