OK, so I don’t think he’s a good choice for CIA director, because he had gone to the floor of the house to criticize John Kerry, who I predict he’ll be working for in a few months, but my opinion was not consulted. President Bush might have researched his nominee’s own feelings about his qualifications for the job though, if for nothing else his willingness to be interviewed by Michael Moore:
“I couldn’t get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified,” Mr Goss told Moore’s production company in March.
The White House has dismissed the interview as “ridiculous hearsay”.
The interview did not make it into the final edit of the film, which criticises President George W Bush’s policy on Iraq.
But following Mr Goss’s nomination by the president, Moore has released the transcript and video excerpt on his website.
“I don’t have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We’re looking for Arabists today. I don’t have the cultural background probably,” Mr Goss says on the video.
“And I certainly don’t have the technical skills, as my children remind me every day: ‘Dad, you got to get better on your computer.’
“So, the things that you need to have, I don’t have.”
So, by his own admission, he doesn’t have what it takes–the technical skills, or language skills, or cultural background–to head our Central Intelligence Agency at a time when we really need it to be world class. The spineless Democrats aren’t going to block his confirmation, so worried are they about how that could be spun to look heading into the election.
How serious are we about winning the War on Terror?
While I am sure that the Moore interview will make trouble for him, it seems to me that he was talking about being hired as an analyst or operative, not being named head of the CIA. I’m much more worried by his general partisanship, as illustrated by his saying, when asked whether his intelligence committee would investigate the leak of Valerie Plame’s name, that “If somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I will have an investigation.”
I also think that it would be a good thing to appoint a CIA Director who is both on good terms with the agency and open to the idea of reforming it. Goss seems to be neither: in the article you cite we learn both that “In the last two months Mr. Goss has engendered considerable ill will within the very organization he has been tapped to lead” and that “Mr. Goss has delayed or opposed legislation similar to those recommendations” (those of the 9/11 commission.) This strikes me as the worst possible combination; when you add partisanship, it gets worse still. Hopefully, Kerry will be able to appoint someone new before too long.
If somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I will have an investigation.
Good God. The man’s a total hack.
In his defense, how can you expect him to take an interview with Michael Moore seriously? I’d be flippant, too.
I’d be flippant, too.
And we’d notice the difference how? ;ppppp
how can you expect him to take an interview with Michael Moore seriously?
I’ve read (no link on hand) that he did not know that the interview was for Moore – it was apparently conducted by researchers and Goss did not ask for whom the footage was being shot.
Sort of like accepting an interview with Ali G if you ask me.
I’m sure there are plenty of reasons why Goss is not a good candidate, but I’ve seen this particular “Gotcha!” floating around for days already, and it’s dumb. My CEO couldn’t do , probably, most of the things that I do, and vice-versa. That’s why she’s the CEO and I’m not. Different skill sets.
So, by his own admission, he doesn’t have what it takes–the technical skills, or language skills, or cultural background–to head our Central Intelligence Agency at a time when we really need it to be world class.
Hilzoy is right. He is obviously talking about a low-level (analyst, agent) job. There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize him without cheap shots and dishonest arguments.
Also, for the future, anything that is attributable to Michael Moore is probably one or the other.
that was really weak Slarti. He knew exactly who Moore is, the most successful documentarian in history. Columbine was already the top grossing doc of all time at that point and Moore had won his Oscar. And Goss’ words are all the more damning now.
I’m sure there are plenty of reasons why Goss is not a good candidate, but I’ve seen this particular “Gotcha!” floating around for days already, and it’s dumb.
Killjoy. ;p
There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize him…
And those are?
The White House has dismissed the interview as “ridiculous hearsay”.
Priceless.
Since when is a videotape of someone saying something, apparently in all seriousness, “hearsay”? An out-of-context quote being repeated and mangled telephone-style is hearsay. Unsubstantiated rumors are hearsay.
But calling a man’s own stated and videotaped opinion of himself hearsay? Yet another example of the administration’s War on Vocabulary.
In his defense, how can you expect him to take an interview with Michael Moore seriously? I’d be flippant, too.
Er, not intended to be snide, but have you watched the video and read the transcript? He wasn’t being flippant. According to Moore–and take that for whatever it’s worth–he didn’t even know who the interview was for.
I’m sure there are plenty of reasons why Goss is not a good candidate, but I’ve seen this particular “Gotcha!” floating around for days already, and it’s dumb.
Dumb? “Gotcha”? I suspect you haven’t watched the video or read the transcript either. Please allow me to quote as follows:
INTERVIEWER: [Y]ou come from intelligence. This is what you did, this is what you know.
REP. GOSS: Uh, that was, uh, 35 years ago.
INTERVIEWER: Okay.
REP. GOSS: It is true I was in CIA from approximately the late 50’s to approximately the early 70’s. And it’s true I was a case officer, clandestine services office and yes I do understand the core mission of the business. I couldn’t get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don’t have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We’re looking for Arabists today. I don’t have the cultural background probably. And I certainly don’t have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day, “Dad you got to get better on your computer.” Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don’t have.
When it was suggested to Goss that he worked in “intelligence”, Goss laid out a series of reasons why that really wasn’t accurate, pointing out why he (in his own estimation) wasn’t qualified to work at today’s CIA and couldn’t get a job there.
How, pray tell, is pointing this out “dumb” or a “gotcha”? If this were a Kerry appointee, the Republicans would be foaming at the mouth about his self-professed lack of qualifications–and I wouldn’t be very inclined to disagree.
My impression of the inteview was pretty much identical to Hilzoy’s: he’s talking about working in the trenches, not management. Moore, for the sake of his own credibility, should be honest and note this on his web site. Who the hell expects the DCI to know Arabic?
I saw the movie “Clear and Present Danger” the other day, and it made very clear that the acting CIA director, Jack Ryan, had to actually do most of the important analysis himself in addition to kicking drug dealers asses undercover in Columbia.
Clearly, Goss’ admission that he would is no longer qualified for the job he held 35 years ago means that he will not be sufficiently badass to do what the job would clearly demand of him.
This is why I’m supporting Kerry for President. He has proven that he has the fighting skills needed to take out a plane full of Russian terrorists.
Who the hell expects the DCI to know Arabic?
I’d say that in today’s CIA, it’s a skill that would prove indispensable… a sentiment shared by Goss in this interview clip.
The notion that the DCI shouldn’t have the best skills or background on offer to make informed decisions wrt the current threat is sort of like saying that the owner of a baseball team doesn’t really need to understand the game. True, but it can sometimes lead to poor decisions that affect the future of the team. [cheap shot]Like trading Sammy Sosa.[/cheap shot]
And those are?
Well, based on the public comments I’ve seen from him, he doesn’t appear to conceive of the director’s job as a nonpolitical position, which is probably a bad thing.
that was really weak Slarti. He knew exactly who Moore is, the most successful documentarian in history.
Moore is on record that part of his tactic is sending camera crews out who don’t say that they work for Michael Moore; they just say they’re shooting a documentary on such-and-such, or collecting news footage, or what have you. The subjects never think to ask. It’s how he gets so many people to be so candid; you’ll notice then when he’s on-camera trying to get people, they often avoid him like the plague.
Yermum: I’d say that in today’s CIA, [understanding Arabic is] a skill that would prove indispensable… a sentiment shared by Goss in this interview clip.
The notion that the DCI shouldn’t have the best skills or background on offer to make informed decisions wrt the current threat is sort of like saying that the owner of a baseball team doesn’t really need to understand the game. True, but it can sometimes lead to poor decisions that affect the future of the team. [cheap shot]Like trading Sammy Sosa.[/cheap shot]
I would think the folks with the best technical skills should actually be working in the field, not stuck in an office managing others (I’m speaking figuratively–I do realize that field work and office work are not mutually exclusive). This is not to discount experience in any way (which is another question entirely), but would you recommend taking a Sammy Sosa, at the top of his game, off the field and making him manager? Likewise, does a good manager need to have the athletic skills of a Sammy Sosa, or even of a merely competent professional baseball player? This is a more apt analogy to what Goss was talking about in the inteview than merely knowing the rules of the game.
does a good manager need to have the athletic skills of a Sammy Sosa, or even of a merely competent professional baseball player?
No and you’re quite right that many successful managers have never been great players. They, however, have worked their way up through the minors or college ranks developing their own systems and gaining the experience whereof you speak. Not many are vaulted straight up to the big show.
I don’t know enough of Goss’ experience to comment much farther (if even this far), but I would have thought that it would be an advantage to the next occupant of the office to be able to hit the ground running with these skills.
I should say that I don’t think that this video is a particularly effective “gotcha” either and agree with hilzoy that the political stances reported to have been taken by Goss in the recent past combined with the seeming tendancy of the executive to allow ideology to significantly color the interpretation of intelligence are more worrisome.
Does anyone know the actual context of the remark? That is, does the excerpt extend sufficiently, or does Moore clarify sufficiently, to determine whether Goss is talking about working as an analyst or something higher? I presume the answer’s no — this is a Michael Moore short we’re talking here — but it’s worth a shot.
Agree on the inapplicability of his comments to the CEO position. It is, however, not an entirely baseless criticism. Part of the resume that Goss was sold on was his ‘background in intelligence’. By his own admission, that was basically nonexistant, so it should no longer be brought up.
“It’s how he gets so many people to be so candid”– and most will take that and read it as ‘truthful’, which it was.
“In his defense, how can you expect him to take an interview with Michael Moore seriously? I’d be flippant, too.”
He wasn’t interviewed by Moore; he was interviewed by two of Moore’s producers, who didn’t identify themselves as such.
“that was really weak Slarti. He knew exactly who Moore is, the most successful documentarian in history.”
That’s nice.
See here, scroll down to “Filmmaker Moore Quotes Goss on Lack of CIA Credentials”:
But since he wasn’t interviewed by Moore, what’s your point, wilifred? What’s “weak,” exactly?
well gary, mostly because that wasn’t Slarti’s comment! And I love how this thread is becoming a right-winger bashing of Moore when it’s Goss who has his pants down.
“And I love how this thread is becoming a right-winger bashing of Moore when it’s Goss who has his pants down.”
That’s nice. Is there some reason you are telling me this, given that I think Goss is a bad choice, haven’t said anything negative about Moore in this context, and amn’t a “right-winger”?
Meanwhile, I make no sense of this exchange:
What wasn’t Slarti’s comment? What’s “that”? What are you trying to say?
Slarti’s comment was:
Which is perfectly reasonable; Moore is not Bill Moyers. Your response “that’s weak.” Followed by a statement that is, depending upon how one takes it, either false or non sequitur: “He knew exactly who Moore is, the most successful documentarian in history.”
Either, as I read it, you meant that Moore interviewed Goss — which is false — or it’s a non sequitur. Is there another choice, and if so, what is it?
Repeat: what’s weak?
And I love how this thread is becoming a right-winger bashing of Moore when it’s Goss who has his pants down.
I see plenty of left-wing criticism of Moore here. He appears to be overstepping the bounds of honest criticism.
You know…for all the Moore bashing going on here, Goss did say “I couldn’t get a job with CIA today.”
Too many folks here guessing about the context, what he meant, how that’s supposed to be interpreted.
Mindreading penalty 25 yards for the lot of ya.
If the context provided in the video itself (which leads me to the conclusion that he is talking about getting hired as an operative and not an administrator) is insufficient to vindicate Moore, then whose fault is that?
If the context provided in the video itself (which leads me to the conclusion that he is talking about getting hired as an operative and not an administrator) is insufficient to vindicate Moore, then whose fault is that?
Goss’s I suppose. But if “I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it” is supposed to stand on its own, out of context, with attempts to explain it in context pooh-poohed as missing the point, why doesn’t “I couldn’t get a job with CIA today.”?
I’m just trying to speak the opposition’s language here.
It doesn’t.
That’s slimey and wrong, right?
Oh, Edward, we’ve been down this road before. Answer: “Because, I, Edward, shouldn’t be waving my hand in the air and shouting, ‘ooh, ooh, pick me, I want to be as slimey and wrong as Bush/Cheney/Rove.'”
Unless you do, in which case I’ll think the same of you. More to the point, you’ll be doing what you condemn.
It’s a choice, I guess.
Unless you do, in which case I’ll think the same of you. More to the point, you’ll be doing what you condemn.
It’s a choice, I guess.
Or perhaps its a useful example to dismantle and dismiss the opposition’s argument next time they try to use it.
gary, you get the ‘beating a dead horse award’ today. it was ‘weak’ to suggest that Goss was being flippant here when there is no evidence here that he was.
“It’s how he gets so many people to be so candid”– and most will take that and read it as ‘truthful’, which it was.
Thanks, Roget. I’ll take that under advisement next time I need a synonym. Otherwise, is there a point here, or were you just trying to gainsay me, or . . . ?
wow. having phil and gary tag team me today here is such an honor. kind of like being humped by two lonely dachshunds at the kennel club.
The notion that the DCI has to have the skills to qualify as a basic analyst or operative is a bit silly, I think. I’d love the DCI to be able to speak 15 languages – but it’s not necessary; he’s not the one who actually analyzes intel, he has to run and coordinate the agency.
What SHOULD disqualify Goss is an apparent disregard for for national security and the sanctity of the intelligence community. As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee – and as a former CIA agent – he should have bolted upright at the notion that anyone might have knowingly leaked the identity of an active CIA operative. That “blue dress” quote didn’t come from the flippancy of a Michael Moore interview; that was his reponse to a request for a Congressional investigation of the Plame leak. He can’t be trusted to look past his party affiliation long enough to actually serve his country.
It is Moore, not Goss, who stripped that quote of any context in the clip. And in the transcript, Goss talks about having been a case officer in the clandestine service. He then goes on to say he couldn’t get hired there today. I don’t see how he could possibly be talking about the DCI position or any similar high-level position. He’s clearly talking about lower-level work. If there is a broader context, it is up to Moore to provide it.
What SHOULD disqualify Goss is an apparent disregard for for national security and the sanctity of the intelligence community. As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee – and as a former CIA agent – he should have bolted upright at the notion that anyone might have knowingly leaked the identity of an active CIA operative. That “blue dress” quote didn’t come from the flippancy of a Michael Moore interview; that was his reponse to a request for a Congressional investigation of the Plame leak. He can’t be trusted to look past his party affiliation long enough to actually serve his country.
Tha-a-a-a-t’s what I’m talking about…what else?
I don’t see how he could possibly be talking about the DCI position or any similar high-level position.
OK, yes, I agree. But until the left is willing to mock the right the same way the right is willing to mock the left, as a device, it will remain very effective against the left. Yes, it would be much better if both sides were more serious and didn’t throw up sound bites to paint their opponents as flip-floppers or what-have-yous, but sometimes folks need a mirror held up to them before they get it. Just sayin’…
Besides, why should the right have all the fun?
Besides, why should the right have all the fun?
This is true to a certain extent. But I’m much, much more impressed by the kind of mocking that comes from, say, Jon Stewart – which is funny, on-target and right (see, for example, his demolition of Harry Bonilla and the “first and fourth most liberal senator” smear here, or his consistent reduction of talking points to absurdity of late).
What this kind of tactic does – long used by the Limbaughs and Drudges, now used by Moore – is throw a spotlight on a subject long enough to make some noise before everyone sees there’s not much to it. The problem is that there’s a much bigger problem with Goss than the issue being voiced by Moore – namely, he appears to be a partisan hack. But Moore has the media loudspeaker, so a much less serious charge – he can’t speak Arabic, he’s not good with Excel – is being heard instead.
(In defense of Moore – whose films I continue to enjoy – I find a number of his villified tactics laudable. The wince-inducing cheap shots of Bush et al in pancake makeup, for example, are a direct counterpoint to the barrage of brush-clearin’, diner-hoppin’, cow-pokin’ imagery this administration’s PR machine has faithfully churned out in an effort to replace actual forthrightness with the visual language of forthrightness.)
“Or perhaps its a useful example to dismantle and dismiss the opposition’s argument next time they try to use it.”
Not so useful if you use the tactic yourself. Doing so tends to reinforce the legitimacy of the tactic rather than dismantle it.
But wait! There’s more… This is an article from the Brookings Institution. A quote:
Forgot to say: the above via Kevin Drum.
Wah, wah, wah, wilfred. You were wrong with your, “He knew it was Michael Moore comment.” Take it like an adult and move on, or not.
Not so useful if you use the tactic yourself. Doing so tends to reinforce the legitimacy of the tactic rather than dismantle it.
This probably deserves its own thread, but using the Kerry “before I voted against it” comment as an example, these sorts of comments enter the daily stump speeches Rove writes and get repeated so often even those of us who took the time to understand why, in context, it’s not what Bush uses it to signify begin to accept that it’s a perception problem for Kerry.
One can argue that using the same tactics drags us down to that level (goody…we’ll be dead right), but I rather suspect that using the same tactics illustratively will nullify their effect.
Kerry’s being a flip-flopper has entered the CW
as true. Forget how many times Bush has also changed his policy. Rove wrote it first.
You can’t change politics as usual until you expose the tools used to create it.
I guess I ought to step up and take my medicine. Perhaps (any evidence for this? Just curiuous) Goss didn’t know he was being interviewed for a Moore flick. Still, what he said is (or, more correctly, could be construed as) a statement that he couldn’t get a job as a CIA agent. If he was talking about getting a job as head of the CIA, I’d think he’d have mentioned his qualifications (or lack thereof) in that context of running the CIA, not just “getting a job” there. The head of the CIA doesn’t, for instance, need to have the language skills that a field operative would need.
So, cut out the gloating. It’s far from a damning bit of video.
Wah, wah, wah, wilfred. You were wrong with your, “He knew it was Michael Moore comment.”
phil, time for your nap. my post below:
“He knew exactly who Moore is, the most successful documentarian in history.”
What about this don’t you understand? Does Goss not know who Michael Moore is and where there do i imply he knew it was Michael’s film cameras? jokes on you kiddo, you’re wrong again, as well as childish in your above post. please find a new person to bully on these threads. i’m very bored with your constant assaults on me daily when i don’t initiate comments towards you. consider yourself warned (yet again!). are you not aware you’re leaving a trail of hostility and harrassment across these threads?
“But until the left is willing to mock the right the same way the right is willing to mock the left, as a device, it will remain very effective against the left.”
And after everyone on the left is acting like an idiot, those on the right will continue to so act. How does doing the same thing make the other person doing it more or less effective? If anything, obviously it makes it more effective, since you/we are no longer standing on the high ground, but endorsing their technique.
“Yes, it would be much better if both sides were more serious and didn’t throw up sound bites to paint their opponents as flip-floppers or what-have-yous, but sometimes folks need a mirror held up to them before they get it. Just sayin’…”
How is adopting their illegitimate technicques going to make them “get it”? If I resort to attempting to convince you by use of bad logic, and insults, would that have any sort of salutory effects? By their use of such techniques are you “getting it” that you shouldn’t use such unethical techniques?
“Besides, why should the right have all the fun?”
I don’t find acting like a scummy moron to be fun. I don’t think calling for more admiration for and adoption of the techniques of Tom DeLay and Rush Limbaugh by the left to be advice I respect or encourage, myself. YMMV.
Wilfred: “it was ‘weak’ to suggest that Goss was being flippant here when there is no evidence here that he was.”
Fair enough on that. Thanks for clarifying; it helps clarity to actually write in sentences, as you do here, rather than in sentence fragments.
“…kind of like being humped by two lonely dachshunds at the kennel club.”
“phil, time for your nap.”
“…childish in your above post….”
Last I looked, ad hominem is against the posting rules, is it not? Am I incorrect, any of the site posters?
“You can’t change politics as usual until you expose the tools used to create it.”
Indeed. And simple adoption of dishonest techniques doesn’t do that in the slightest.
funny gary, you have no problem with phils ad hominem comments that i was replying to:
“Wah, wah, wah, wilfred”
“Thanks, Roget. I’ll take that under advisement next time..”
thanks for defending the guy who’s been attacking me today and most days i’ve posted for the past few weeks. if you actually read the thread, you’ll see i was defending myself in those comments you cherrypicked and was not the aggressor here. what gary, did i ever do to you to put you personally on the attack, because this attack today is personal. i take trying to get fellow posters or moe to join in your gang-up quite personally as i’ve certainly never made a habit of critiquing your comments. if you have problems here gary (or phil), you have my e-mail address, i’m certainly not hiding but enough is enough. quit the bullying now.
Not to be pedantic or jump on the dogpile, here, but how precisely does one get “bullied” in a blog comments section? What do you have at stake that is threatened?
OTOH, when they finally develop that magic technology that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet, do let me know, I’m interested.
Why Oh Why Are We Ruled by These Fools (Goss Says He Is Unqualified to Work at Langley Department)
Goss gives himself a very bad reference. Via Obsidian Wings: Obsidian Wings: Goss Not Boss Material: President Bush might have researched his nominee’s own feelings about his qualifications for the job though, if for nothing else his willingness to be…
Not to be pedantic or jump on the dogpile, here, but how precisely does one get “bullied” in a blog comments section?
It is quite common in some corners of the net, and it happens pretty much the same way one gets bullied in any other social context: through persistent insults, derision, intimidation, or other aggressive behaviors. Actual potential of physical violence is completely unnecessary for bullying to take place, as many a remote guest on the O’Reilly Factor can attest.
Whether it is taking place in this thread is a separate question, of course.
Just for the record, neither of the things wilfred quotes is an ad hominem. Unless one doesn’t know what that actually means, which I’m not suggesting at all is the case.
When one puts one’s comments out there on the Internet, one is going to be responded to negatively at times, particularly when one happens to be actually, factually, wrong about something. (Happens to me often enough.) If one cannot handle it, one can visit here for respite.
Finally, when one tosses out warnings at someone, one might want to find out if one has the power to enforce them.
Now, let’s roll back the tape:
Slart: In his defense, how can you expect him to take an interview with Michael Moore seriously? I’d be flippant, too.
Yermum: I’ve read (no link on hand) that he did not know that the interview was for Moore – it was apparently conducted by researchers and Goss did not ask for whom the footage was being shot.
(EDITOR’S NOTE: Here we establish initially that Goss may not have realized his interview had anything to do with Moore or his movie.)
wilfred: that was really weak Slarti. He knew exactly who Moore is, the most successful documentarian in history. Columbine was already the top grossing doc of all time at that point and Moore had won his Oscar. And Goss’ words are all the more damning now.
(EDITOR’S NOTE: If wilfred is not trying here to establish that Goss did in fact know both that he was speaking to Moore or Moore’s representatives, and that he knew that Moore was A Very Important Man, then what’s the point?
I’m sure that. in the abstract, Goss knows who Michael Moore is, but if he didn’t know that the camera crew he was talking to had anything to do with Moore, then who cares what abstract facts Goss does or doesn’t know? He probably knows what the capital of Alabama is, too.
Maybe someone just like to hear himself talk, and likes to throw out thoughts like, “This person knows this thing that doesn’t have anything to do with this other thing.”)
“Constant assaults.” Get off the cross, kiddo, cuz we need the wood down here. My first response to something you said was nothing other than polite; you felt the need to gainsay me by pointing out that “candid” and “honest” were synonyms, something which served no point other than to imply that I thought they were not.
“Get off the cross, kiddo”
more of the same, phil. and my only comment on this thread was to Slarti, not to you. And then i spend an entire thread being attacked by you (yet again).
Do each of us have the ability to enforce a warning? No, but that can be an effective comment if the other side has any kind of conscience. But then bullies never think they are bullies, do they?
I’m off for the day. Hack away at will. You’re obviously on some kind of pathetic mission. But understand, this kind of behavior sadly drove Katherine from this site, much to our loss,and to see it continue shows nothing was learned.
And simple adoption of dishonest techniques doesn’t do that in the slightest.
Ye of little faith. ; )
Wilfred:
I’m not the comment police here; I notice when things are directed at me, and I notice what I notice. I didn’t notice “wah, wah, wah” as an ad hominem because I didn’t know what it meant, and I still don’t. I agree that “Thanks, Roget” is sarcastic and uncalled for, but it’s not quite at the level of an ad hominem, unless you find being called a thesaurus insulting.
I’ve not been here “most days… for the past few weeks.” If you’ve had a problem, why have you not taken it up with one of the site owners, rather than me?
Excuse me?
At this sort of thing, I myself become tempted to start questioning your sanity.
Is this secret knowledge, or did Katherine make a statement to this effect that I missed? Does Moe, Edward, Sebastian, Katherine, or any poster have a comment to verify or deny this assertion? If Bad Things are going on here, surely one or all of you should speak up? (If Bad Things are not, particularly, going on here, it might be good for one or all of you to speak up.)
Myself, I don’t like being accused of being involved in a conspiracy of bullying; it’s particularly silly when the accusation is regarding someone I don’t know from a hole in the wall (“Phil”).
I’m often a sharp and blunt commenter, yes, but I’m quite equal-time about it.
Wilfred, if you want to have a private conversation with Slarti, have it in e-mail. Post in public, get responded to in public. I’m not going to refrain from pointing out things people say that are incorrect, regardless of how think their skins may be.
You’re obviously on some kind of pathetic mission.
Care to elaborate?
Can I get a ruling on this whole “bullying” baloney from someone who actually has some authority, please? Because my immediate thought is that maybe somebody has a persecution complex, and can’t handle being disagreed with, but being incapable of introspection, I’d prefer the thoughts of somebody with posting privileges.
And while I’m awaiting this ruling, I’ll also note that I’ve been:
— Called a “bully” at least twice
— Been likened to a horny dachsund
— Been accused of being in a “tag-team” with a person I don’t even know
— Been implicitly accused of being without conscience
— Been implicitly tied – for the second time, mind you – to some “kind of behavior” which “drove Katherine away” and which I am “continuing”
All for the crime of pointing out that Michael Moore’s camera crews don’t indentify themselves as working for Moore when they go out to do interviews. So let’s all be clear about who has responded disproportionately to whom, here.
Bully Police here:
Re Wilfred vs. Gary.
Gary asked Wilfred to clarify what he meant by noting Slarti’s comment was “weak.” Wilfred responded. Gary didn’t understand the response and asked for another clarification, which led Wilfred to comment that Gary was beating a dead horse. In same comment, Wilfred tried another approach to explain his comment:
Up until this point, it looks as if Wilfred was making every effort to answer Gary’s question sincerely. Gary, I believe thought so as well, as evidenced by his comment: “Fair enough on that. Thanks for clarifying; it helps clarity to actually write in sentences, as you do here, rather than in sentence fragments. ”
By this time, however, things had turned ad hominem from Wilfred’s POV. From what I can tell, it looks as if Wilfred believes Gary was ad hominem first (or he project that onto Gary, in response to others’ comments) and Gary believes Wilfred was ad hominem first.
Ruling: Wilfred’s humping dacshund comment was clearly the beginning of direct ad hominem comments in the Gary vs. Wilfred exchange…but, alas, it’s not that simple.
On the heels of Wilfred’s previous clarification, Phil responded to a comment Wilfred had made (more on Phil vs. Wilfred later) and this is where Wilfred noted that he felt he was being tag-teamed by Phil and Gary. It doesn’t look to me like that was a conscious decision on Phil or Gary’s part, but the chronlogy of comments sometimes suggests things other than the posters meant.
Phil vs. Wilfred:
It looks like both commenters were sincerely addressing each other until the “Thanks, Roget.” by Phil. As Gary noted: it is “sarcastic and uncalled for, but it’s not quite at the level of an ad hominem.”
The follow up comment (“Wah, wah, wah, wilfred.”) however, was more provacative. I would note that Phil was right technically that Wilfred had lost on the “He knew it was Michael Moore comment.” point, but this does look like the introduction of personal type comments.
So Wilfred was fair in calling Gary on pointing out Wilfred’s ad hominem retorts, but not Phil’s initiating taunt. (Gary’s defense, that he’s not the comment police, doesn’t hold water because he was pointing out Wilfred’s comments that were NOT directed at him, even if they, through all the quoting, end up in posts also directed to Gary.)
It does seem unfortunate, as Wilfred notes, that his “only comment on this thread was to Slarti, not to you. And then i spend an entire thread being attacked by you” even if “being attacked” is perhaps too strong an interpretation of the initial disagreements.
FINAL JUDGEMENT: No one was intentionally bullying anyone here. There was an unfortunate chronology of comments that made it seem that two folks were picking on one person, when no indications of collaboration are clear.
I blame nonlinear communication.
Thanks, Edward. Can someone now explain to me what “wah, wah, wah” means? Is it a reference to the way adults in Charlie Brown cartoons “talk”? Something related to a trombone? An attempted imitation of someone crying? A reference to Evelyn Waugh? Something to do with a “wah-wah” pedal? A reference to this poem? This George Harrison song?
If I’m going to be faulted for not catching people’s insults (I still don’t recall hiring on for the job; what’s the pay, again?; if I volunteer on occasion, that incurs no further obligation upon me), I’d like to at least know what they mean. Thanks!
By the way, Edward, what’s up with this?
Does wilfred have some inside info here, or what? Or is he just doing the old “me and the gerbil in my pocket” gambit? (That gambit is when one makes one’s plaints in plural form which is either unjustified (“who’s ‘we’?: you and the gerbil in your pocket?”) or based upon hauling in someone else (“look how you picked on poor [BLANK], you brutes!”) without cause.)
I was shooting for “imitation of crying,” but I’ll take the Harrison song. I’m sure I’ve given more than my share of wah-wahs over the years.