Raise the barricades! Someone has a pseudonym!

Freespeechers 75 Comments

Lo be it for me to criticize another blogger…cough…but Kinsella takes the cake on this doozy.

“Raphael” then goes on to play some parsing games about what’s on his birth certificate, what’s real, what isn’t, etc. But he confirms that at least part of his Post handle is bullshit.

So, does the Post willingly publish untruths, or has it simply been hoodwinked? Good question.

To answer him, no. No the Post hasn’t been “hoodwinked” and no, you don’t have a good question.
Warren, I don’t expect you to drop your partisan wont, but one expects you to be smarter than this. The Nat. Post is only upholding some few hundred years worth of history in the publishing, suffrage and freedom of speech battles of the past.

Course, given your views on freedom of speech, I should expect nothing less than your desire to cast question on freedom of the press…at least the more conservative press. “We just caunght have that deary, now caun we.”

Cheers,
lance

75 Replies to “Raise the barricades! Someone has a pseudonym!”

  1. I guess if there’s ever a column written by “Wok Your Kitty”, we’ll know who is behind it.

  2. I don’t know Raphael Alexander personally but I’ve conversed with him many times. Like me, he’s based here in Vancouver. I know what he does for a living but will let him reveal that if he so chooses.
    It was beyond hilarious for Kinsella to seem offended and then cited as his private detective “Dr. Dawg”. Just curious, is this jerk’s first name “Doctor” and his last name “Dawg”?!?
    Kinsella & Dawg: Nitwits of the decade!!!

  3. god, don’t link to the litigious twit…he’ll just get ‘aroused’ by the increase in traffic.

  4. I agree – don’t link to Kinsella’s blog. Also, don’t actually quote or he will sue you. He has copyrighted all of his blog contents.

  6. If Warren doesn’t read the National Post, how does he know what’s in it? he glanced at it? what exactly is… “and don’t do so at all, now” while focusing on the “at all” section of this attributed quote of Warren’s… what is the intent of, “at all” does it mean “zero” ? or is there another meaning of “at all” that I’m not aware of?

  7. Do you think the likes of James Carville and Karl Rove spend their spare time investigating the pen names of minor bloggers of little import?
    Just asking…

  10. “Robespiere’s cure”?
    …-
    “Beware of blood lust on the Left
    Scratch a global warming fanatic these days and you may find a wannabe executioner.
    The way I figure it, wish death upon your political opponents once and it can be ignored as just a warped jest. Do it twice and it looks like evidence of mounting frustration with your neighbors’ inability to see your cause’s crystalline righteousness.
    Do it three times and folks around you should start reaching for their hog legs (Don’t know the meaning of that firearms industry technical term? Google it, then read the entry in the Urban Dictionary).
    It seems there are more than a few global warming fanatics these days whose patience is wearing thin with those of us who refuse to endorse repeal of what the true believers view as three of the 20th century’s greatest evils – privately owned cars that empower people to go where they please, suburbs that let them permanently escape city life, and free market capitalism that produces a wider prosperity than seen anywhere else in human history.
    So we increasingly hear such folks muttering darkly about things that remind of Robespierre’s cure for counter-revolutionary thinking. Take the most recent example, a post on Talking Points Memo by “The Insolent Braggart” who poses an interesting question: “So when the right wing f–ktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events – how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now?”
    It would be easy to dismiss this as an isolated example, something akin to the slightly warped jest mentioned above, except for one thing: The sentiment expressed in this anonymous post on one of the Left’s most widely read blogs isn’t exactly unique.”
    http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/mark_tapscott/Beware-of-blood-lust-on-the-Left-47733932.html

  12. Rageaholic was a word once used to describe someone. I thought it was pretty clever.

  13. “Warren Kinsella” isn’t a psuedonym?
    You mean he blogs that stupidly under HIS OWN NAME?
    Words fail me.

  16. Warren is absolutely correct.
    I am sure that any author who refuses to publish under their own name is not worth reading.
    I am further convinced that Eric Blair (George Orwell), Charles Dodgson (Lewis Caroll), Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), David Cornell (John le Carre), Francois-Marie Arouet (Voltaire) and Josef Korzeniowski (Joseph Conrad) would agree with with me.

  17. lance…a good rip! Almost as good as Kathy ripping dawg over at Currie’s.(genre?..that sounds so asexual…)
    Thanks to ‘mouse-over’ we don’t have to contaminate ourselves by linking.
    Good for Raph…one of the best bloggers around.

  19. “I am sure that any author who refuses to publish under their own name is not worth reading.
    Posted by: Ian at June 11, 2009 9:24 AM”
    ….Barack Obama (William Ayers)

  20. maz2 has a good point, increasingly as of late, I’ve had some very hostile encounters, only verbal so far, but I thought for sure one 18 year old girl at walmart was going to try to attack me with a stapler for having a conversation within earshot of her of the falsehoods of global warming and the scam it is. I also received quite a few baleful glares, and this is alberta!
    Other than that, people like Kinsella should be locked up, he incited hatred, is quite hateful and malicious and it shows.

  23. I particularly like when someone poses a self serving rhetorical question, then follows it with – “Good question.”
    Nice comment, me.
    Thanks me. I rock my world.

  25. Anonymous comment is an integral part of free speech. That why I’ve never agreed with attempts to reveal the identities of bloggers – even unmitigated jerks like, say, Canadian Cynic.
    The way I see it, so long as sites like CC’s can operate unfettered, free speech is alive and kicking in Canada.

  26. ET is the blog name of Edwina Taborsky (also: http://www.blogger.com/profile/04080231632213914265), a Canadian who came up to Toronto not so long ago from Quebec of Anthropology and worked as, guess what, a taxpayer funded job in the ivory tower academia. She was a professor of anthropology, though no longer at Bishop’s for reasons that are not clear and, I’m guessing, better left unsaid.
    sHe’s a very typical rightist, fascist, anti-realist, anti-Canadian, postintelligence – and ‘debates’ by semantic twitches. That is, you’ll make a point, and she’ll try to rebut by switching the meaning of your terms and accusing you of what you didn’t mean. That’s a diversion. And she works only with words; no evidence and no logic.

  27. Jade Wahr:
    I agree, but then I think all commenters are up to no good – trying to impose their personal viewpoints on everybody like that. Who do they think they are?

  32. From my prospective these name calling attacks on ET are nothing other than retaliating against her accurate observations of Bam Bam and the other fascist lefties.
    And fascist is the accurate lable……

  33. I agree with ET on the blogging ethics.
    And, I will henceforth be on the lookout for semantic twitches.

  35. >>”You see, you have to first, acknowledge that IF someone is using a blog name, then, on that same blog, you don’t have the right to deconstruct that name and give any data about that person.”
    Thank u for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the point about ‘debates’ by semantic twitches. Couldn’t have found a better example. Well done.
    >>”If you object to such, then, you shouldn’t yourself have done so. Right?”
    Again, thank u for proving my point. Which was simply to show what a hypocrite you are. So worried and sensitive about your own anonymity but so brazenly open to revealing the real name of another’s. And one who you know is banned from here so has no way of responding. And YOU have the gall to question anyone else’s ethics?!?!?! It is to laugh.
    >>”At the moment, you are just using the term to name-call, and that type of behaviour is childish.”
    ROTFLMAO. Omigod. That was a funny one, Edwina. Did you laugh when you wrote that? I mean, YOU the Queen of Hyperbolic Name Calling whining about ANYONE ELSE name calling.
    >>”IF one is ‘right’, then, this means you are NOT a fascist. Fascism is ‘left’.”
    That one is too funny. Just too funny. Clearly you are an anthropologist and not a historian. I can’t believe I’m wasting my time with someone who knows so very very little about politics and history. Reas up on fascism Edwina and hopefully you’ll learn something.
    >>”And there is no such thing as ‘post-intelligence’. One is either intelligent or uintelligent.”
    I concede that point and agree with you entirely. You are not post-intelligent; you are, as you say, unintelligent. Thank you for pointing that out for all of us.
    Again, though, Edwina, think before you write. And try to be an ethical commenter rather than behave, as you did, in a childish schoolyard reaction.

  37. And I just love how ET can get so upset about someone doing to her what she has just done to others, and everyone here jumps to support her instead pointing out how hypocritical and unethical it is for her to do it.
    Conservatives once again prove the rule: our principles don’t apply to us.

  38. …everyone here jumps to support her ~ If
    I see it more as people jumping to shun you IF.

  39. ET, in debating buddywhatshisname, may I suggest that you use techniques that he is undoubtedly familiar with and that his tiny mind can understand? I suggest you use the “I’m rubber and you’re glue…” defense.

  40. ET: I don’t debate my work with people who have no knowledge of the field. Fair enough. But I did take a moment to read a bit about the field of semiosis. Very simply stated it’s about the process of communication. Ironically the jargon is rife and the communication about the field appears to be limited to those who “get” the jargon. That is a way of establishing an in-crowd. With all due respect to ET, now I understand why I sometimes don’t understand ET’s posts.
    ps I do think the identity outing was unethical and unfair. However we’ve all learned by now that you’re never guaranteed anonymity on the blogoshphere. ET seems to be taking it in stride.

  42. “I am sure that any author who refuses to publish under their own name is not worth reading.”
    George Orwell would not be amused. Or perhaps he would.

  43. Is it just me or does everyone get the feeling that if Kate had guest bloggers for an extended time her site would die or become one with few readers at least.I guess theres a reason for that thirteen million plus.

  44. If-You-can-do-it-so-can-i
    Give it up. That BS about fascism being right wing was discredited the momment STALIN first pronounced it.
    The most notorious fascists the NAZI’s were but a different flavour of socialist…..and anyone smarter than a 5 th grader knows that.
    THE COLD WAR IS OVER! YOUR SIDE LOST! ACCEPT THAT!

  45. Come on, spike, it wouldn’t die, it would just lie on its back the floor, inert and barely-breathing, with a poultice on its forehead…and… think of England….

  46. eeyore – thanks. But I won’t debate with ‘if’, because there is nothing to debate. Furthermore, if he refuses to acknowledge my blog name and gets personal, then he has overstepped the ethical boundaries of blogging.
    Again, talking about the real name of someone who does not post here, for whatever reason, is not an unethical action.
    nettie – I’d be cautious about what you read on the internet as definitive of any subject. Semiosis is not, in my research, about communication but about cognition and morphological formation. Nothing to do with communication. That field is more accurately called ‘semiology’.
    And any field gets located within an ‘in crowd’. The people I work with are in physics, biology and computers – working on processes of morphological formation in the first two, and cognition in all three.
    So, back to Kinsella. He first tells us that he doesn’t read The Post. Then, he starts to comment on an individual who writes in the Post. Then, he comments about ‘truth’ and ‘untruth’. Isn’t there some kind of contradiction in these statements? If he doesn’t read the Post, then, how does he know about this author in that paper?
    Then, he refers to the ‘writer’s name’ of the author. He asserts that IF this name is a pseudonym, THEN, the Post is publishing untruths. But this is a fallacy. The truth or untruth of the Post’s article is not the name of the author, but has to refer to the CONTENT of the article. Kinsella doesn’t say a word about the content, about its facticity or untruth. Not a word.
    He’s playing The Semantic Twitch. He’s diverting the notion of Truth in a newspaper, from the content of its articles, to whether or not its authors use pseudonyms or not. Sorry, these are two different issues, and the use of a pseudonym is not related to Truth of reporting. But, trying to smear the content of an article, by smearing the author – ahh, nice Twitch.

  47. Kate needs to return, post haste.
    The children she has left in charge is turning this site into a tasteless joke.
    How sad.

  49. So let me see if I have this straight ET.
    If someone has chosen to remain anonymous and is not allowed to comment here, then it is OK and ethical to reveal who they are and publish their name.
    But, if someone has chosen to publish under their name on the internet in comments and elsewhere, and then changes her mind and decides she prefers to be anonymous, then it is not OK to publish publicly available information about her… because she comments here.
    There are actually many words for that, ET. Hypocrite, moral equivalency, blind, deceitful, unethical. But I’m fine with just sticking with the way you yourself described it: unintelligent and nice semantic twitching.
    Conservatives: our principles don’t apply to us.

  50. ET, I think you’re wonky on Israel but find you very insightful outside of that.
    And good stuff from the guest bloggers as well.
    Thanks

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation