Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Dear Joel: I think it's time for you to go.

At this point, I think it's safe to say that Joel Johannesen has been treated more than fairly at this blog and it's time for him to vacate the premises. In response to my two brief comments at his site, he has positively inundated my comments section with his petulant and utterly uninformative whining. But before I finalize those thoughts, a couple observations that he's welcome to take with him.

Part of Joel's outrage is apparently that I referred to one of his columnists, Barbara Kay, as a "loon" and an "innumerate dumbass." And yet, Joel has made it clear that he has no interest in debunking either of those claims. How odd.

More generally, Joel has made it clear he's positively outraged that anyone would impugn the integrity and reputation of his precious web site, but when a number of us have done exactly that (in great detail, mind you), Joel's response is not to stand and defend, but to throw up his hands and say, "Hey, not my problem, talk to Barbara." In short, Joel wants to have it both ways: he wants everyone to respect the integrity of his web site, even as he simultaneously refuses to address accusations that impugn exactly that. Not exactly a profile in courage, I'm sure you'll agree.

In any event, Joel has had more than his share of air time here and, for someone who is clearly ready to ban commenters at his site for the most insignificant violation, he really doesn't have the moral high ground to complain about being shown the door. If he wants to continue this discussion, he has his own shiny web site to do that, and he's welcome to whine like a childish six-year-old over there until he's happy, but any further comments on this site will be summarily deleted. Quite simply, Joel has become tiresomely repetitive and is no longer contributing anything to the conversation, and that's enough for anyone to get the boot here.

I will, however, being the magnanimous sort that I am, leave him an opening. Joel is always welcome to come back and comment if his comment addresses, directly and explicitly, the issues raised about Kay's apparent dishonesty at his site. He knows what those issues are, and if he wants to stop being such a whiny-ass titty baby and actually look into the accusations from myself and others and report back with his conclusions, he's always welcome. Anything else will be turfed without comment.

So there you go, Joel. You can either put up or shut up. The choice is entirely yours.


Anonymous said...

You know, the commenting issue aside, the issue of Kay being wrong really only comes down to one word, "sole". Her point, such as it is, wouldn't really suffer if this word, which makes the statement go from True to False, is removed. Seems like Joel could address the whole issue just by saying that "sole" should not be in that one sentence. Not exactly a stunning concession to make, that the editor of a piece missed catching one word.

Kay contending that women are given unfair favourtism in custody battles is true. That there is a national feminist conspiracy keeping it that just silly. Hence Kay being referred to as a "loon".

CC said...

That one word is not the only issue. As I and others have pointed out, there is serious question about the accuracy of at least two of Kay's quotes. Go back and read my original post to see what I'm talking about.

Anonymous said...

I meant it wouldn't be a stunning concession for Joel to make, CC. You don't have to concede that she is allowed to print lies, I'm saying Joel could say that is was a simple error. But that would mean admitting an error.

As for the second problem, I had forgotten the "aftersnark". Another instance of changing one word to completely change the meaning. Shocking to see such a sneaky dishonest pattern from such a fine journalist.

Also, I'm having trouble posting, have I been banned, or is blogger just dying again?

CC said...


It's not you, it's just blogger.

First, with respect to that single word "sole," you have to appreciate that it changes the meaning of that claim significantly. Anyone who claims differently is just plain deluded.

Now, if Kay did that deliberately, she's dishonest. If she did it accidentally, then she's an unforgivable sloppy journalist. And for Johannesen to continually refuse to address that issue means he's a dick.

And that doesn't even address the rest of it, with Kay's obviously doctored quotes.

Anonymous said...

will you children just stop. you are soooooo over the edge. geez, there is so much going on today to talk about. so much snark potential and you are wasting your time on this.