I’m sorry to see that the potbangers at Liestoppers bought into the story, but maybe that’s one of the reasons I’ve never commented (and hardly ever visited) over there.

Here’s how my bullshit detector worked: First, I always have doubts about a story of a type that I’ve never known (not merely “heard”) to have happened before.

Here are the facts as the woman presented them:

1. She says she was robbed at an ATM. Ok, I’ve known of that to happen, so the story is plausible.
2. She says the robber, after noticing a “McCain” sticker on her car, then beat and mutilated her. Hmmm, sounds doubtful, but there was a recent story about a NYC man who attacked a number of old ladies who were carrying McCain signs. So now I think the story is more likely than not to be false.
3. She says the robber used a knife to carve the letter “B” (supposedly for “Barack”) into her face. Ok, now the bullshit detector is officially screaming. Besides the fact that I’ve never heard — much less known — of a similar politically-motivated mutilation, there’s the problem of how the robber could carve any recognizable letter while the victim was conscious and therefore no doubt struggling mightily. At this point I was as convinced of the falsity of the woman’s story as I had been 2 1/2 years ago of the falsity of the Lacrosse story.
4. Then I saw a picture of her and all doubt was removed because the “B” was drawn backward, as though she did it to herself in a mirror.

Now she has confessed. I hope she’s charged with a false police report. I can think of some fitting punishments, but that’s because I’m so “politically-incorrect”.

Speaking of politically-incorrect, I never expected that I would report on this blog on a comment of mine that KC censored, but here it is:

KC has recently reported on the book by Crystal Mangum, employing the scathing style that we in the DiW commentariat have all come to love. As a comment to this blog entry, just to rib him, I wrote “Can’t we all get along?” and suggested that perhaps he and Crystal should get together to co-host a rally for Obama.

To my surprise, he refused to publish my little comment. He may have lost his sense of humor. Now that I think of it, I haven’t met many professors with the gift of self-deprecating irony.

RRH

This doesn’t strike me as a case that required any special knack for bullshit detecting. It seems like the kind of thing that any sensible person would reserve judgment on for a few news cycles, at least, especially in the middle of all the election craziness. It’s not the lack of a bs detector as much as the opposite—a desire to believe—that would lead people (like these) to buy this story right away. Though I guess the habit of carefully thinking through the specifics could balance out that desire.

As to the comment, I guess it might count as off-topic, but lots of off-topic humor gets through (and as I learned a while ago, some on-topic replies don’t get published). I don’t think he has much of a gift for irony even if it isn’t self-deprecating.

Will Baldo sue IMHO?

Will IMHO sue Tony Soprano?

Will Newport return from his captivity on Hitler’s yacht in time to testify?

Will these star-crossed blog personalities ever find true happiness?

To those breathless readers… hanging out there on the edge of your chair…I exhort you….don’t miss the next thrilling installment ….as the suspense ever builds on Professor Zimmerman’s increasingly hijacked blog.

BeMused writes….”Has it ever occurred to you that people may fervently want to believe something (happened), yet they are mistaken in their beliefs?”

How silly.

With one line, you undermine your entire post. Your sentence attempting to exonerate the behavior at the Cave because they were “fervent, yet mistaken” would also apply if, for discussion’s sake, posters at LS were “fervent but mistaken” about the hacking.

What “free pass” you now extend to one…you must extend to the other.

And here I was wondering if you might have missed the double-entendre, Joan. Thanks for clearing that up for me!

a reader wrote:

Your second point seems to be….that you are not another Internet “personality” named IMHO?

Who YOU are is of no consequence. Like the non-racist member of a club that racially excludes….all we need to know about you is…you are part of a collective effort that has a long history of defaming innocent kids and their families.

If who “I” am is of no consequence, then why did you devote a 689 word post, addressing me repeatedly as “immy”? Nope. No tribalism present in that portion of your comment, Joan. (That’s me being facetious, Joan…in case you were confused. )

a reader wrote:

I asked about empathy. If after over a year, of mocking and defaming three real young men and their families whose real faces and personal information were worldwide, if IMHO has any new perspectives on false accusation now that she “claims” to have suffered the same? There is never any attempt from you Bats to apply the same standard to YOURSELVES …ever. Your post reaffirms it.

I don’t believe that I have ever defamed three real young men or their families, but thanks for accusing me. (There’s that pesky tribalism thing rearing it’s ugly head, Joan. Tsk. Tsk.)

As for imho…well, again, you’ll have to ask her your pressing questions yourself. You know where to find her.

a reader wrote:

There is never any attempt from you Bats to apply the same standard to YOURSELVES …ever.

Followed almost immediately with this gem:

We have to have a goal of better understanding the “tribal” positions this case excoriated.

Why yes Joan, why don’t we discuss tribalism and the fact that you certainly seem to be fond of lumping people into one “tribe” or another, even when you know NOTHING about an individual, other than guessing (and I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here) that their opinion differs from yours.

a reader wrote:

Direct your posts, energy, and mind to what does matter.

It’s always special when the thought police show up, directing people on what to do with their energy and their minds!

a reader wrote:

Do you think our indulgent host or any of his readers care about “blog wars” or Internet personalities? Or if we know who YOU are? Or if LS was hacked or not hacked? If that is going to court, so be it.

I don’t know if our indulgent host or his readers care about “blog wars” or internet personalities, but you just added another 502 words to his blog about both.

a reader wrote:

I have been stupid, I suppose, because I didn’t realize you considered this a “game of asking”.

Well, I wasn’t going to go there, but since you brought it up…I’d have to say I think you’ve been stupid because as far as I can tell, ‘you’ have never once seemed to be able to distance yourself from YOUR “tribalism” and actually tried to digest — with some attempt at objectivity — what those whom may have a different opinion than yours, are actually saying. As far as I can tell, you have no interest in “listening” to what those varying opinions might be, because you already “know” all you need to know in order to dismiss what someone is trying to say — they’re not a member of YOUR tribe.

I apologize for this lengthy 697 word post…282 words of which were quoting Joan, of course. I am more than happy to donate to Mr. Zimmerman’s blog to help pay for any excessive bandwidth usage resulting from my 5 comments.

Given all the history behind this exchange, I’d be crazy to weigh in on one side or another. But since I’ve gone a number of rounds with Joan at this point, I have to say that I think that in our exchanges she has tried to digest my opinion.

I would be interested in the real “WHY?” of that from you”

Asked and answered on many occasions Joan. You normally ask me this at the end of a discussion that you are not entirely satisfied with. You ask not because you are interested in my answer but rather to try and paint our previous discussions as disingenuous on my part. You frame your questions in a way that insults me Joan, and you never miss a chance to show me in a negative light. I still have tried to be polite and reasonable despite your tactics. I have been stupid, I suppose, because I didn’t realize you considered this a “game of asking”. That is the one truth I get from your post. You are not interested in the ‘WHY?’ and you do not want to believe my answer in any case. So be it.

How silly.

With one line, you undermine your entire post. Your sentence attempting to exonerate the behavior at the Cave because they were “fervent, yet mistaken” would also apply if, for discussion’s sake, posters at LS were “fervent but mistaken” about the hacking.

What “free pass” you now extend to one…you must extend to the other.

So, your “point” nullifies your reason for posting. You must ask YOUR question …TO YOURSELF.

Your second point seems to be….that you are not another Internet “personality” named IMHO?

Who YOU are is of no consequence. Like the non-racist member of a club that racially excludes….all we need to know about you is…you are part of a collective effort that has a long history of defaming innocent kids and their families.

I asked about empathy. If after over a year, of mocking and defaming three real young men and their families whose real faces and personal information were worldwide, if IMHO has any new perspectives on false accusation now that she “claims” to have suffered the same? There is never any attempt from you Bats to apply the same standard to YOURSELVES …ever. Your post reaffirms it.

We are not here, however, to talk about your Internet personality, or mine, IMHO’s or Bill’s. They don’t matter.

Liestoppers and the Cave do not matter.

We don’t matter.

Direct your posts, energy, and mind to what does matter.

We should be discussing issues larger than this juvenile prattle. We have to have a goal of better understanding the “tribal” positions this case excoriated. What happened here, what it says about our justice system, our racial interaction, campus culture, electing D.A.’s, media rush-to-judgment, false rape accusation…so many important issues. Not WHO you are. Your whole second post wastes bandwidth all about you.

Do you think our indulgent host or any of his readers care about “blog wars” or Internet personalities? Or if we know who YOU are? Or if LS was hacked or not hacked? If that is going to court, so be it.

WE are at THIS blog to discuss the issues of the Lacrosse case and all its larger implications. We have a host who has offered some excellently sourced and brilliantly argued new takes on the case. I come here because even when I disagree, I find what he writes fascinating. Let’s drop the team spirit and leave it for our home bases. Engage the issues.

One thing I have learned at this Blog is an awareness that often our “agendas” were as real as those we criticized in the 88. My concern has always been that we never lose sight of those to whom this was about ONLY THIS…their child. We must always keep their realness in front of us.

Getting back to the real issues, the real discussion must begin with me. My participation in “As the Blogs Turn” ends now

Well, IMMY, I find it curious to see that you are protesting that you are innocent of hacking the original Liestoppers board. Yet, you and your friends had absolutely no problem at all in helping to further false accusations of rape against three young men who never even touched Crystal Mangum.


So, please, spare me the protestations. If you really are that sensitive to false accusations, then perhaps you and your friends should stop accusing Reade Seligmann, David Evans, and Collin Finnerty of rape and other crimes.

Perhaps you find it curious, because I am not Immy. And I have never accused Reade Seligman, David Evans or Collin Finnerty of rape or other crimes.

Perhaps you and joan should both take a few deep breaths before continuing your “rush to judgment” about me.

I am not the owner or moderator of the LS blog or Board. I know that people that I trust, who have never lied to me [that I know of]….have told me what they ardently believe happened.


To me, my position is similar to those who knew the integrity of Pressler and the Team. I know the integrity of these folks. I have no reason to doubt their word over the word of others who have done little to demonstrate their credibility over the past many months as they’ve strained to maintain that “something happened.


Is it so terribly important to be right?

Has it ever occurred to you that people may fervently want to believe something (happened), yet they are mistaken in their beliefs?

Again I ask, have you seen the evidence which supports these publicly posted declarations that a REAL PERSON has committed the crime of hacking?

What is the expression, “doveryai, no proveryai”?

I also know that I received a PM from a banned IP just before the crash that linked to the Cave. I know I m a favorite target of yours…though I have had only one, fairly pleasant exchange with you, Immy.

If you believe that I am ‘Immy’, well, that’s twice in one post that you would be mistaken in your beliefs. However, I’m not done counting.

But I will ask you this: if you have been falsely accused, has it given you any empathy for the great sport and delight you have taken in the pain of others falsely accused? Has it moved you to use your own frustration to assess the hate and mockery you directed at these kids and families? Can you now step back and say…if it bothers me THIS MUCH to have my real name besmirched on an insignificant blog read by a small group of people…why did I want to continue to add to the pain of those besmirched in every form of media nationwide?

To my knowledge, the only thing I have been falsely accused of, is being ‘Immy’.

That’s the best I can do in answering your comment, Immy.I cannot comment further on the “crash” of LS because I understand the matter is far from over.

Again, I am not Immy.

And yes, I also understand that the repeated, publicly posted declarations that a REAL PERSON committed the crime of hacking the LS forum is FAR from over. As a matter of fact, I understand that the REAL PERSON who has been repeatedly DEFAMED by the LIES posted on the LS blogspot & forum has several more months to decide whether or not to take legal action.

That you choose involve yourself in the rhetoric and antics of the Cave stands as a contributing fact about you… as does my participation in LS. We are defined in part by the company we keep. With all the causes to give our time to…the Cave is one of the ones you chose.


I would be interested in the real “WHY?” of that from you. As well as one from Immy. But I don’t see that happening. So I’m tired of the game of asking.

I’m pretty comfortable with the company I keep, but thanks for your concern. If you are interested in any “whys” as they pertain to Immy…well, you know where to find her and ask her yourself.

FYI, my comments are my comments. No one has requested nor encouraged me to comment here.

Believe it…

or not.

So, please, spare me the protestations. If you really are that sensitive to false accusations, then perhaps you and your friends should stop accusing Reade Seligmann, David Evans, and Collin Finnerty of rape and other crimes.

To me, my position is similar to those who knew the integrity of Pressler and the Team. I know the integrity of these folks. I have no reason to doubt their word over the word of others who have done little to demonstrate their credibility over the past many months as they’ve strained to maintain that “something happened.”

Is it so terribly important to be right? .

I also know that I received a PM from a banned IP just before the crash that linked to the Cave. I know I m a favorite target of yours…though I have had only one, fairly pleasant exchange with you, Immy. I can only think that my belief in the kids , my belief in their innocence to you…gave you “permission” to behave toward a stranger in any fashion you chose….That’s interesting, no? That’s part of the tribalism we are discussing here.

But I will ask you this: if you have been falsely accused, has it given you any empathy for the great sport and delight you have taken in the pain of others falsely accused? Has it moved you to use your own frustration to assess the hate and mockery you directed at these kids and families? Can you now step back and say…if it bothers me THIS MUCH to have my real name besmirched on an insignificant blog read by a small group of people…why did I want to continue to add to the pain of those besmirched in every form of media nationwide?

Why would you do that?

“Do you know - FOR A FACT - that the crime of (hacking) rape even occurred? If so, please post the evidence for all to see. Otherwise, well, the claim smells an awful lot like a deliberate attempt to smear the reputation of an innocent person.”

Did you ever ask this question of yourself? Did you discipline yourself by that standard?

I understand you assembled a very impressive library of facts about the case. That took talent and time. But why but equal time into just hours and hours spent mocking ….boys and their families you did not know? What is it about them you so despise so much? To me, that kind of free floating antipathy is as shameful whether directed at “homeboys” or “hooligans”

What if proof came out that the young men who are accused of murdering the Student President of UNC were INNOCENT? What would YOU think of people who formed a blog just to mock them and their families…because they don’t like “kids like that?”

Have you considered your OWN behavior in light of your own “righteous indignation?”

That’s the best I can do in answering your comment, Immy.I cannot comment further on the “crash” of LS because I understand the matter is far from over.

Mark, you are always polite. But our discussions go nowhere. That’s no insult. And I only question your motives in particpating in a Board that has no purpose but to defame and degrade kids and their families that most believed suffered much.

And I question your sincerity to discuss anything…when you don’t want to reach into yourself and your motives to answer.

As I see it, if a man swears to me that he’s no racist….yet chooses to support and belong to clubs that exclude by race… I have every right to factor THAT into my impression of him. Don’t you?

That you choose involve yourself in the rhetoric and antics of the Cave stands as a contributing fact about you… as does my participation in LS. We are defined in part by the company we keep. With all the causes to give our time to…the Cave is one of the ones you chose.

I would be interested in the real “WHY?” of that from you. As well as one from Immy. But I don’t see that happening. So I’m tired of the game of asking.