POST RAGE
I am a twit without a functioning brain.Needing to meet Mr. Brady is hardly the issue.
I also do not have any [censored].
Despite 10 years spent in online media, I really don't understand the Internet.
I am a dangerous ideologue , an enemy of democracy.
At least, that's what I've been told -- in much stronger language -- by dozens of people who have never met me. ...
- BLOG RAGE, by Jim Brady
It's incomprehensible it took over two weeks to respond to the moderated chat, to then cast online readers and bloggers as some Hurculean villain who cannot be engaged. Nothing is further from the truth.
Jane Hamsher went out of her way to take part in the Post event and even though Deborah Howell was the impetus for it, she chose not to participate. That was questioned by one of the participants.
Jim Brady: Deborah has chosen for the time being not to any live discussions, but we've talked about it, and you'll see her on here at some point.The question remains unanswered.
Jeff Jarvis: I'll push the transparency button: Why not? I worked with Deborah (at my last job). She is, indeed, tough. So I don't believe she fears this; I wouldn't make that simplistic assumption. So I have to believe she has a reason she believes is good for avoiding live interaction. What is it?
In "Blog Rage," Mr. Brady shares his "favorite story," which revolves around Ms. Hamsher. The kicker is he doesn't even name her, but instead and for the second time dubs her Columbo, like we were having some intramural high school club spat. His attempt to replicate an anonymous attack by zeroing in on Ms. Hamsher was noticed, logged, but ineffectual.
Frankly, Mr. Brady's venting is not befitting the Post, its readers, Ms. Hamsher, or any of us who feel deeply about the factual errors that brought on this discussion. How Mr. Brady thought "Blog Rage" would move this debate forward is a puzzlement. Now, can we all get back to the subject at hand?
"But there is no doubt about the campaign contributions that were directed to lawmakers of both parties."There is no proof I've uncovered, read about or been handed to prove Jack Abramoff "directed" money to both political parties. Silencing online readers and taking an anonymous swipe at truth seeking bloggers won't change the facts.
The Firestorm Over My Column, by Deborah Howell
posted by Taylor Marsh at 12:13 AM
4 Comments:
I just sent this to Brady... he probably didn't get it, because I used the "F" word... but I don't really care, because the guy is an egomaniacal, lying (and probably sociopathic) scumbag and it really doesn't matter what you say to him, he does whatever the fuck he wants...
**********************
Mr. Brady:
Under the nom de plume "ami", I repeatedly defended you at Jay Rosen's Pressthink blog... repeatedly telling people that you were on "the side of the angels"
Your "Blog Rage" column, however, has convinced me that you are nothing more than an egomaniacal, self-righteous, LYING asshole. And I mean LYING -- you NEVER address any of the questions that Jane Hamsher raised -- even though you claim you did in your column. THAT IS A LIE. AND YOU ARE A LYING SCUMBAG.
BTW, where is the PROOF that Jack Abramoff "directed" ONE FUCKING PENNY to a Democrat? Not "suggested" --- DIRECTED as in ORDERED. The PROOF cited by the Post had the name of three Democrats -- Jean Carnahan who got NOTHING (why did the Post lie and pretend she did get money), Max Cleland who got NOTHING from the list (he got %500 from the Coushatta tribe only because someone from the tribe contributed $1000 during a joint fundraiser held in Louisiana for Cleland and Landrieu), and Daschle who PAC received $5000 MONTHS AFTER THE LIST WAS PUBLISHED (compare to Burns, whose PAC recieved $25,000 within weeks of the list being published.)
THAT IS YOUR "PROOF" --- and its NOT proof, and citing it as proof demonstrates just how IGNORANT AND CORRUPT AND DISHONEST you are.
Go Fuck yourself, asshole.
Paul Lukasiak
philadelphia, PA
Letter to the editor, WaPo -
Regarding Mr. Brady's alleged virtual mugging by blogs, Shakespeare said it
best - "Much ado about nothing".
The original Howell piece (the one with the egregiously false statement about Abramoff sending his own money to Dems) remains "uncorrected" on the Post web site. In other words, if you were unaware of the controversy, you wouldn't know that Deborah Howell is lying about Abramoff giving money to Dems.
In other words, Brady continues to lie. No correction has been made to the original piece -- and that is where it counts.
Nice to see reasoned arguments made by Paul, without resorting to name-calling.
btw, the "directed" stuff?
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/01/abramoff_direct.html
and i'll note that you're the one saying "ordered," not the WaPo or anybody else. So, lemme get this straight: if the actual facts and statements don't gibe with what you'd like to believe, you start changing the definitions until they will?
Post a Comment
<< Home