Blogwar! | Right Across the Atlantic

Log in

2012 May 18 |

|

0

0

Nov 12

›

Posted by admin | 97 comments

Apparently unable to generate readers any other way for his tiny blog, Shaun Mullen has decided to make it a personal jihad against anyone who criticizes his posts in comment threads or, even worse, sends private email criticizing the other blog where Mullen occasionally cross-posts his repetitive screeds against all things Republican.

Clearly, the incidents of ideological bickering in backchannels and comments that Mullen brings out into the open are actually earth-shattering events that absolutely must be highlighted. Your participation, dear reader, in this impending blogwar is essential. For who cannot remember all the crucial insights into modern politics that have been generated when bloggers dedicate their sites to their personal vendettas? And who can doubt that what the readers really want is to discuss the comments and emails that bloggers have written to each other? It’s like the Pentagon Papers in there, only it is So Now!

Yes, This Means Blogwar!

Or not.

Sorry to disappoint, but we’re not interested in playing. Yes, we have emails that Mullen has sent where we could go blow-for-blow highlighting his own vulgarity-filled rants and condescending demands. And we’re sure we could dig up some juicy comments too. And you, the reader, could scroll for days through the attacks and counterattacks just like readers did the last time that Mullen dragged his co-bloggers into a blogwar.

If readers really want excerpts of the email fights between bloggers, email us and we’ll send some to you. Maybe you’d even like to contribute some spats of your own. It’ll be fun, like trading baseball cards, except with sneering and snarling instead of boring stuff like MVP awards and statistics. But if we’re going to have a public argument with someone, we’d prefer it focus on something that is actually important.

This post is proudly brought to you by Humpty Dumpty: Because humpty-dumptying is what he does best.

Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4907 ›

Michael van der Galiën Kreiz: exactly. That's one of the major problems with some commenters. They believe they have the right to comment. They don't. They have the privilege. There's a difference. In many cases one welcomes guests into one's home, but when those guests insult the host, start throwing around cups and pots and pans, well, they're gone.
Posted by C Stanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4905 ›

C Stanley I can recall several times when I tried to write what I thought were constructive criticisms about TMV in the comment section. In hindsight, I probably should have e-mailed Joe, but since I'd e-mailed him in the past and given donations without any response from him, I didn't really feel that was an avenue open to me...figured he either got too large a volume of mail or didn't have time to personally reply to people. And when I did post things (in a tactful and respectful way, I thought), Joe would sometimes step in and comment that those kinds of things weren't appreciated- he really didn't seem to want to hear any negative feedback. So, I backed off. His blog, his rules, and then he reaps the consequences- if people like it they'll read and comment, if not, they won't. Here, I've often seen Michael tell guests to e-mail him or Jason with complaints, so despite the protests over censorship I think at least the different approach indicates a desire to promote a good environment and there's not an attempt to tell people that they can't criticize- just that they should discuss the blog rules via e-mail instead of posting about them.
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4904 ›

Michael van der Galiën Yes Christine, that's our policy. If you don't like the comment policy, fine, e-mail us. Don't leave comments about it, for they will instantly be deleted (this comment section is a one time exception).
Posted by kritter

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4903 ›

kritter CS- Well, I don't have proof of it-- you can take my word or not. It was fairly recently in two separate posts (after the split with TMV) And since you felt TMV was inhospitable to Conservatives, I would think you would understand if I felt sometimes that this site is inhospitable to liberal views. (speaking only for myself- of course)
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4901 ›

Michael van der Galiën
I felt sometimes that this site is inhospitable to liberal views.
Not when you express them sincerely, and without taking swipes at your opponents.
Posted by C Stanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4902 ›

C Stanley Yes, Kim, but why did you criticize me so much for feeling that way at TMV, unless you now think you were wrong to do so? If I remember correctly, you and Doma both said that I should go elsewhere if I wasn't comfortable there and I pointed out that the problem with that was that TMV purported to be a place where people from all parts of the political spectrum could discuss and debate issues and that attitude wasn't in line with that goal. I think Michael and Jason and the other bloggers here also have that goal (though they're not even as explicit about that as Joe claims to be with the name of his blog and his mission statement), but again, if you feel you're being treated unfairly then e-mail them about it and if you feel that it's just that a lot of people here disagree with you then just prepare to bring your a-game. If your views hold up to people who disagree with you then they're worth holding onto, and if they don't, then maybe you should rethink them.
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4899 ›

Michael van der Galiën Meanwhile Kim; so when are you going to apologize for saying things about this blog that may not be all that true? (deleting comments only the author disagrees with one of us)
Posted by kritter

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4900 ›

kritter BTW- I never said there shouldn't be ANY comment policy-- I don't think personal attacks are ok, and dislike sites that use a lot of profanity. Yes, its Michael's site, and he can decide--- but I hope he decides to go lite on the red pen when it comes to opposing opinions- that's all. It seems like there have been a lot of comments from the left that have ended up on the cutting room floor. OK- I'll e-mail if I have other comments about it that's fair enough. Not out to attack anyone.
Posted by C Stanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4897 ›

C Stanley But as Michael pointed out, Kim, you already have attacked by posting snide and unsubstantiated remarks about this blog over at Shaun Mullen's place.
Posted by Jason Steck

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4898 ›

Jason Steck We have no intention of deleting comments that merely disagree. The only time *I* am interested in deleting comments is when disagreement takes the FORM of personal attacks, name-calling, stereotypes, or garbage like that. The kind of complaints that have been aired on other sites are distorted at best. It is notable that NONE of the persons posting those complaints have bothered with the common courtesy of taking their complaints to us in email first. And, like Michael, I am becoming very frustrated with the double standard where Michael is publicly vilified for posting a very mild criticism of Shaun on TMV, but where the people supporting Shaun insist on their right to post much more abusive comments towards Michael and myself both here and on other sites. Anyway, as I said in another post, I welcome and encourage substantive disagreement. I get no joy from ideological echo chambers -- even if they are of a type that agrees with me, they are just boring. But I want to be clear about something -- NO ONE will be deleted or banned merely for disagreeing on the substance of an issue. As long as they can express that disagreement in a civil fashion, it is encouraged.
Posted by kritter

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4896 ›

kritter I don't think I said anything there that I didn't say here. If I did it was not my intent to do so.
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4895 ›

Michael van der Galiën
And, like Michael, I am becoming very frustrated with the double standard where Michael is publicly vilified for posting a very mild criticism of Shaun on TMV, but where the people supporting Shaun insist on their right to post much more abusive comments towards Michael and myself both here and on other sites.
Exactly Jason. It's so hypocritical, I wonder why they don't see it themselves. Kim: your 'case' at Shaun's place has been rebuted. Besides, we always tell you to share your complaints in a private e-mail. You didn't do that, did you? No you didn't. Yet, you went over there and piled on Jason and me. Again, you should be ashamed of yourself. I've got enough of this conversation, it's obvious you don't have the decency to apologize, which is fine, but your complaints have proven to be either incorrect, or hypocritical (or both). At least you should have the decency to correct your mistakes. You don't, well, we'll just remember that next time you think you have to complain.
Posted by Chris

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4894 ›

Chris
So you’re going to that other blog, to complain about me, acting as if we don’t allow dissent, at all, only because you’re annoyed that we deleted a comment of yours
I never said that, I just noted an inconsistent standard.
Yes, don’t use that ‘w-word’ especially not towards those who post here.
Which is what I especially avoided doing. My comment was directed toward a public figure, not a fellow commentor or a writer here.
What I find most remarkable about you and Davebo, etc. is that you don’t e-mail, you just put things on the Internet without caring who might read it
You're right, I don't care who reads it. That's why I'm posting it in the comments :-) Nothing we are discussing now is personal or private enough to warrant it IMO.
You could have asked me what happened, in a fucking e-mail and I would have forwarded you all the e-mails he sent me
I seriously don't care about your feud with Shaun or TMV or whatever. That's just office politics and drama. It can be fun to watch sometimes, but I don't take it seriously. If you think I'm taking his side (or anybody's side) then I'm sorry. I just don't care :-)
Posted by C Stanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4892 ›

C Stanley Chris: just as you don't care about the feuds behind the scenes, a lot of readers don't really care to read about you dissenting from the comment policy- which is one reason why it makes a whole lot more sense to take that discussion to e-mail instead of hashing it out on the boards. Not to mention, it's rather obnoxious to say that since YOU don't consider it private then you're going to insist on airing it publicly, even when the other parties involved have made it clear that they are happy to discuss it with you in private but not publicly.
Posted by C Stanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4893 ›

C Stanley To be more clear, Chris, when people behave like that (insisting on a public forum for their complaints even when the other party involved has said that they're more comfortable discussing it privately) it usually indicates to me that the real intention of that person isn't just to get their complaint resolved but to try to publicly embarrass the other party.
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4891 ›

Michael van der Galiën a serious lack of respect, and i'll remember it. if you simply 'don't care,' perhaps we should start treating you like that then.
it usually indicates to me that the real intention of that person isn’t just to get their complaint resolved but to try to publicly embarrass the other party.
Of course it is. As I said I'll remember it. We'll just, seemingly, have to treat people like they treat us.
Posted by C Stanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4889 ›

C Stanley Or, Michael, you could show him who's the bigger man. ;-) Golden rule and all that, you know.
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4890 ›

Michael van der Galiën Christine: I meant 'not caring' about them. IOW: not shouting at them, or insulting them, simply not caring about their complaints because we know that, in the end, they don't care about it or us. That's just logical, isn't it? Reap, sowing, goes around, comes around, and all that.
Posted by C Stanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4887 ›

C Stanley It was (mostly) just a joke, Michael.
Posted by Chris

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4888 ›

Chris Haha... stop distorting what I'm saying. I don't care about your feud with Shaun.
Posted by kritter

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4886 ›

kritter Mvdg- I was also ganged up on on the editorial in which a writer accused the GOP of racism. BTW, the Randi Rhodes article was when I was called a liar. I thought it went over the line and asked for an apology or retraction but never got one.
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4885 ›

Michael van der Galiën link?
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4884 ›

Michael van der Galiën Kim. This is quite dishonest of you, I have to say it. It's on this thread Firstly, it shows that something got very passionate and that you weren't exactly blameless. Secondly, you attacked Jason, but were incorrect, yet refused to give in. What's more, it didn't involve me, it involved Jason. I said just about nothing. What's even more, he didn't call you a 'liar' he said you were 'lying.' As you know, every person lies every now and then, but not every person is a Liar. Can I have your apology now? O, and also for implying that I called you a liar?
Posted by C Stanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4883 ›

C Stanley Not only were you not involved directly Michael, but I noticed that your main contribution was to tell everyone to 'tone it down'.
Posted by kritter

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4882 ›

kritter Michael- Since you're admitting you don't care about us-why would we e-mail complaints to you? If someone says you're lying - they are calling you a liar. Obviously you knew it was happening and did nothing. It was a personal attack- so why try to whitewash it now? The attack was made over the internet- so were my comments.
Posted by kritter

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4880 ›

kritter CS- Thanks for making excuses for them. Michael's incident was in a different post. And "tone it down" in no way is an apology or a retraction.
Posted by Tully

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4881 ›

Tully Can't...can't we all just get along? ;-) Sorry, but the only thing in blogdom more boring than a blogwar is a re-hash of a month-old thread fight. (OK, maybe cat blogging, but that's masochism right out of the gate. Unless there are cute LOL pics.) RE: comment policies. Several weeks ago, Michael deleted a comment of mine, and emailed me to say so. I still don't know which one or precisely why, because I simply didn't care enough to either ask or check. (I probably got overly personal while being snarky.) My reply to his email was simple. Your blog. Your rules. I respect that completely. No argument from me. And I'm sure that in the future should I get overly personal, that comment will disappear. I'm good with that.
Posted by Jimmie

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4879 ›

Jimmie I can't help but notice similarities in the comment fields between TMV in the last year or so and John Cole's blog in the past two years. It certainly seems to me that there's a hard left turn happening there. I'd pretty much stopped reading TMV a couple of months ago after being a rather faithful reader and linker in my early days of blogging. There's only so much abuse I'm willing to take, I suppose.
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4878 ›

Michael van der Galiën lol Kim. I'm using Chris' words against him, and before he said it, I told you all many times that you can e-mail complaints and concerns to me. "Tone it down" is not a retraction, but it is a sign that I believe people should change their approach. You know that, I know that. As I said: care to give me an apology? Or do you want me to apologize for something I didn't do and instead told people to tone it down?
Posted by Jason Steck

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4872 ›

Jason Steck Kim, if you genuinely feel that I called you a liar, then you have my apology and retraction here and now. As for the rest, I only want to say that our goal (I think I can speak for Michael here as well as myself) is to encourage debate that is vigorous and diverse but also that is civil in a way that it definitely is not in many, many other forums where ideological group-think has run roughshod over basic civility (this isn't just about TMV, it includes experience from several forums from the right as well as the left). All that actions we take are with that intention. Are we perfect? Of course not. But that is our goal and intention. You can disbelieve that if you like, but if you really do think we are lying about that, then why would you even want to be hanging around here at all?
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4873 ›

Michael van der Galiën Jimmie: I checked out your blog: it's a good one.
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4874 ›

Michael van der Galiën Of course it is sad that you don't link to us.
Posted by kritter

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4875 ›

kritter Michael- I'm not saying I'm totally blameless- but I never accused anyone here of lying- to me that is totally insulting and I never would. I admit that I was annoyed with Jason over the stupid Air America post,but still wouldn't think of questioning his honesty- or yours. Also, maybe you could put your comment policy in writing. I honestly did not read that you wanted e-mails about it, and it has changed over the last few months.
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4876 ›

Michael van der Galiën
Kim, if you genuinely feel that I called you a liar, then you have my apology and retraction here and now.
Great, I'm still waiting to get the apology I deserve?
Posted by kritter

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4877 ›

kritter OK Michael and Jason- I apologize for all of my many transgressions and multiple failings. It is true you only deleted one of my comments- I was thinking about a post this weekend when some other commenters' posts were deleted along with part of mine. I know I don't usually agree with the majority, and have strong opinions. Peace Out! White flag waved. 8)
Posted by kreiz

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4870 ›

kreiz Same, Jimmie- nice blog. I'll try to visit there.
Posted by Tully

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4871 ›

Tully See? And you didn't even have to torch South Central to get there!
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4869 ›

Michael van der Galiën :) Thank you Kim, that's appreciated. And my apologies for offending you (if I have done so in the past). Lets burn the white flags and talk about the issues ;)
Posted by kritter

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4868 ›

kritter Sounds like a plan. I promise I won't write mean comments about you and Jason again. But I can't promise I won't get in trouble for my obnoxious opinions, lol.
Posted by Jimmie

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4866 ›

Jimmie
Of course it is sad that you don’t link to us.
Wait...I don't? Let me go remedy that right away. .... .... Okay, I'm back. I'm honestly embarrassed by that. I read your blog every day, Michael. I think it's one of the best blogs I've ever seen and I genuinely apologize for not putting my linkage where my eyes have been.
Posted by C Stanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4867 ›

C Stanley Kim, One thing to keep in mind is that everyone will react when their buttons are pushed. So, when people like you claim that Jason isn't willing to listen to criticism of his views, I think it's important to note that when people present that criticism respectfully he very much does respond to that and engages them in debate. But when they conflate his ideas with neocons, warmongers, Bush apologists, etc, he gets ticked off- and rightly so. For some, it seems to be an intentional ploy- bait someone and then when they have a heated response, broadcast this as typical of how that person responds to criticism. I don't think you are playing that game intentionally, but maybe would be worth paying attention to how others do this.
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4865 ›

Michael van der Galiën Jimmie, no problem of course, I was just kidding. For what it's worth, I've added you to the blogroll as well.
I read your blog every day, Michael. I think it’s one of the best blogs I’ve ever seen
And yes, I would've put him in the blogroll even if he hadn't written that. probably Seriously: that's a very kind thing of you to say Jimmie, and it's greatly appreciated.
Posted by kritter

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4919 ›

kritter CS- I'm sure you mean well, but honestly, its hard enough to settle this with Jason and Michael without you running interference through the whole thing. For, one thing, you're not exactly a disinterested observer. For another, they also, maybe unintentionally,write things in a way that sometimes push buttons (not mentioning specifics to avoid antagonizing anyone again, LOL) I'm sure you understand that given your reaction to a lot of Shaun's posts. If I said anything at TMV to make you feel unwelcome, though, that was wrong, and it wasn't my place to do so, as Joe invited all range of opinions. So, for that I apologize. Also because I preach tolerance and should practice it. :)
Posted by C Stanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4864 ›

C Stanley Kim, I tend to run interference because I sometimes feel I can add to people's understanding of the other side of an issue. Sometimes that seems to be appreciated but I also realize that some people feel I should butt out, and I apologize if that's how you felt here. Now, I almost hesitate to add this but I'd like to 'run interference' for YOUR side of the issue because I think your point is very apt about the blogposts themselves pushing buttons. Personally of course I don't see anything here rising to the level of Shaun's vitriol but I do realize that my agreement with Jason and Michael on many issues would prevent me from seeing some level of that which would provoke a strong emotional reaction from left leaning readers. And having said that, sometimes even I can see a small degree of that. My take on it with Shaun Mullen was first, that he uses this style of writing so copiously that it can't be unintentional, and IMO that degree of 'in your face' writing doesn't belong at a moderate blog. And second, at the very least, there ought to be an extra degree of sensitivity to the reactions of the readers in the comment section and angry responses should be taken in context of what the blog post may have said to provoke that. Same goes here- I do think that Michael and Jason ought to cut people a *bit* more slack if a post was potentially inflammatory- or choose not to write the post that way if they want more measured responses. Overall, as I said, I don't see a lot of that here but occasionally I can see your point.
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4862 ›

Michael van der Galiën What's inflammatory about calling all Democrats communist wussies?
Posted by C Stanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4863 ›

C Stanley LOL... Oh, nothing wrong with that, Michael. It's when you guys occasionally cross the line and call them all 'traitorous, American-hating, cowardly communist wussies' that I can understand people getting a bit ticked off.
Posted by MontyP

| Quote | Trackback | Link #4958 ›

MontyP Michael van der Galiën said: "What’s inflammatory about calling all Democrats communist wussies?" Nothing wrong at all Mr. van der Galien. It's just like calling all Republicans Nazi Thugs... No harm done.