Qritiq The Writer On Monsters

Some anonymous, oh excuse me, private tweeters and commenters have been attempting to discredit anyone making any progress on the unveiling of the Weinergate sockpuppets. Lets take a look at just one example of this campaign  – one attempting to brand Lee Stranahan. (Keep in mind that all Stranahan has done is report on the story and give his own analysis, like any other blogger or podcaster.):

@wittier (aka koam aka probably a lot of other names):
 
frustrated that lee won’t sort emotional evidence from factual. he’s not helping himself.
 
We could spend a lot of time analyzing Lee’s jumping to wrong conclusions as those pile up.
 
Lee declared anything that didn’t fit his story from JG was just a lie
 
I found JGCA was former UCLA staff right wasy (sic) &thought that Lee was mistaken
 
We know that’s how you see it Lee. Many others do not.
 
i agree that you are 100% honest about what you think Lee.
 
i tried to persuade Lee to dial it back for a long time. he’s contentious
 
Lee labels half of conversation as lies. But we need harder evidence that some of them are actual, proven lies.
 
I think Lee accused Pat of saying things Pat didn’t say
 
Lee has way (SIC) of turning his own theories into hard facts in his own mind.
 
The record shows that Lee escalated the accusations and emotions, as is his way of doing things.
 
I asked Lee to list everything he said to JG MA and he hasn’t responded.
 
[re a threatening call -ed.] Is there some discussion that JG received a call from a caller ID that matched Lee’s and that there is tape of a voice that sounds like Lee’s on JG’s answering machine?
 
lee just said jg was lying about everything and he didn’t give all the details.
 
[Re: Stranahan accidentally posting under an administrator’s name -ed.] the word evil comes to mind.
 
[Re: “Stranahan’s pattern of actions” -ed.] It’s a disgusting development.
 
One of the most common [opinions] was, “Lee, I can see your theory may be right, but you mix up what you consider to be proof.
 
Those can be explained by a real JG, who’s innocent, who wants to remain unfindable by Lee who she’s afraid of …
 
Lee delivered this story with quotes. I can’t tell you if it’s real, just what we heard him say.
 
Lee is an independent with some pictures of himself on his page that maybe a girl afraid for her life wouldn’t really want to see. (Tough guy, scowling photos) [puh-leez -ed.]
 
If we are to believe what Lee says happened…
 
…we can see how JP allegedly talks about Lee. Pretty rough stuff…
 

Quite a good ad campaign, don’t you think?

A Coke pin

Image via Wikipedia

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Qritiq The Writer On Monsters”

  1. Oh good grief. Lee isn’t a victim when someone notes he has often conflated fact with his inductions. It’s a pretty well established point.

    Yes, there is some conspiracy crap going on here, but that doesn’t mean every comment is a dark attempt to rebrand and ruin anyone. Lee dishes it out and he takes it too. It’s not a big deal.

    I think the phone call is difficult to understand. It is a manipulation. Once you grant that, why accept anything else about it? Did Lee get a call from someone trying to manipulate opinions about this story? Yes, I believe he did. Is there anything else we can say? Not really.

    I don’t make much of Lee’s commenting as Patterico. I’ve interacted with him many times, and I just don’t think he’s the kind of person to deliberately set himself up like that.

    You say all Lee has done is report the story straight and give his analysis, but in fact, Lee has apologized for the occasions he has not lived up to this objective, hasn’t he? Seems Lee is a witness against your case, then. I don’t feel like bashing Lee right now… I think he’s sincerely holding back on a story he’d like to talk about because he doesn’t want to be reckless. That’s a good thing, and good for him. But it’s particularly odd how sure some people are that everyone they don’t know is a deep dark evil sockpuppet of someone else.

    Koam has been pretty damn straight and engaging. His coverage is vastly less dramatic and more honest than, say, Ron’s has been. If you don’t agree with him, he doesn’t threaten to sue you.

    You make a lot of assertions about Koam, such as your claim he’s got ‘a lot of names’. I am wondering where your evidence is. I want the truth to come out, so if you’re right, and Koam is cynically manipulating folks like me, you should lay out your case.

    And if this is your case, you need to reassess.

  2. BTW, I realize you’re actually trying to be fair and figure this out honestly.

    I am simply tired of people being dicks to the few people who aren’t dicks in this mess. It gets seriously old.

    Anyone who has tried and made any headway in discussing this issue is attacked harshly, usually from someone who shouldn’t be mad at them in the first place.

    My criticism is simply that you should give people the benefit of the doubt up to a certain point. If that point has been reached (for example, with Neal Rauhauser or Ron B), it’s fair to express something more pointed. If you’ve reached that point with Koam, I just don’t see it.

Leave a Qomment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s