Not because I had to or anything was going on, but because I wanted to.I don't like unresolved grudges.
So, when HuffPo published a nice commentary on my book today, I thought it was the right thing to do.
Of course, you can't do any kissing if the other party doesn't want to kiss you back.
But they did, and Arianna was copied on all the kisses.It is easy to start a fight, but much harder to resolve such a thing. So, I was quite frankly impressed and surprised that HuffPo did agree to kiss.
They said they had no grudges and wished the best with my book.
By the way, Arianna also came out with a new book. It is called "On Becoming Fearless.... in Love, Work, and Life."
Good luck Arianna.
And that's all for today folks.
14 comments:
Check out my blog -
http:menzneww.blogspot.com
Drugs and stuff.
Peter
As Maxwell Smart would say, don't forget to use plastic lips.
BTW, I wondered around your blog party for daze, but I couldn't find that girl with the swivel hips anywhere. Perhaps I drank too much scotch, but I ended up staggering home...alone again, naturally.
PS Where was the punk rock room?
Oh, she has disappeared into the archive, with the other girls who didn't behave. Just click on "September" if you miss her.
Hmmmmm
Once bitten...
Arianna has done some good, but her allegiances seem to be money first, principles second. She has taken a stand on principles - bravo - but her stand goes flaccid when asked to choose between them and money.
That's all fine and good that you have kissed. You're a corporate kinda guy and I guess that is the compromise you are accustomed to. You pretend to forget for the sake of business. Perhaps you are like Arianna in that way.
Her comment policy used to be one of the best, you exposed some problems, they changed the format to avoid more exposure (instead of addressing the real questions), and now their comment section isn't even worth reading.
Shallow compromises do not work out to be in the public interest, especially when democratic input (on a suposedly democracy friendly site) is compromised.
I use her site because of some of the commenters I like and the news stories I get pointed to, but the integrity of the Huffpo as a community is done for me.
I agree with the previous words. I used to come to your site here a lot more in the past when you were exposing the Huffington Post. You should admit you've made a deal with Arianna (Hitchens) Huffington, who has let a great place systematically be ruined due to her negligence. You helped expose a lot of this, while the last person and folks like myself have tried to fill in the blanks from having been in the trenches of their posting sections. I saw first hand how HuffPost went down the drain by not banning racists, spammers, wingnuts, and other obvious fake writers. You think only Yacomink was trying to astroturf? What about the site now? Have you ever tried to read through the news section comments? I noticed a post there today wondering why someone with the name martin luther coon should be able to post for months and months and never be banned. I used to post there a lot. Arianna always put up my posts. I started to post on her personal blogposts. Some out there may even think they can tell who I am. There were a bunch of us. We tried to build up the website as a force. Then I got censored for simply nicely pointing out how wrong Arianna was for the Clooney stuff and how she needed to step it up a notch, not be a gatekeeper. Now I can only post in their bullshit comments sections, not on the blogposts. I'll leave it at that. Anyone like the person above or anybody else who has read through the regular uncensored comments sections knows what I am talking about. Come on Dr. Rost. You know as well as anyone what phoniness is. Please do not sell out. Please do not forget of us who came to this blog due to the Huffington controversies.
Actually, no deal. No nothing. I just wanted officially to get the thing over with. To show there don't have to be winners and losers and whatever or deals or tit-for-tat. Thought it was the right thing to do. It was just about me and HuffPo and making that statement. I don't expect to blog on HuffPo again, and nor are they likely to talk about me. We're all moving on. I only hope you guys are staying here!
Hey Doc, thanks for the response. I guess if I post some here at your website, I'll come up with a name. Could you give us a bone or scrap atleast? Have you ever checked out their lack of moderating. I don't understand why anyone would want to post there. I think if they moderated the site and didn't censor decent people, the place would be a real mover.
Good luck with your dedicated whistleblowing. I'll check you out from time to time. Thanks for the essays on it. They were enlightening. If you gotta move on from it, I understand. If you're harping on about some two bit website that's lost so much credibility, then your efforts against big pharma will be diluted.
Do you have any opinion on the noise factor over there, the crazy postings? Sorry to bug ya. Us forum hounds get ripped if a website lets us down. Too bad you weren't at HuffPo when it first started. Maybe you still would be there. OK, sorry, I'll drop the subject. I'm not mad at you. I'm just disappointed in HuffPost for censoring decent people in blogposts while allowing trolls to run wild in the uncensored news forums.
I haven't really been to HuffPo since I stopped writing there. . . what is going on on that site??
The great thing about that place was that there were tons of good posters really on target with comments on current events. HuffPost was the Keith Olbermann of newsblogs.
Basically what has happened is that HuffPost has underestimated the intuition of the masses of sincere people who were taking time to engage in important discussion. For a while the trolls were content in spewing the Faux tv line.
Then over time it became apparent that HuffPost was unwilling to ban sick writers. Word leaked out that decent posters were being censored in the blogposts. It became obvious that HuffPost was ignoring the flag button that was put in place for appearance only.
In short, if one wants to post in a blogpost, they will get their comments posted immediately until they upset the administrators. This is what happened to me. For a while, I was able to nudge Arianna for some accountability, to not be a gatekeeper. Then the Clooneygate took place, and she refused to even acknowledge that she messed up until she was forced to. She first came out with her it's the message not the messenger post even though the Clooney post wasn't his writing, it was an assortment of long quotes from him.
Dedicaterd posters were unsure what to make of this. Then your episode with Yacomink arrived. Put that together with Greg Gutfeld and Carole Liebeau posting there, and such people started to get frustrated.
Why censor good posts on blogposts simply for asking tough questions? Why allow posters with names like Martin Luther Coon and Libsmustdie to continuing posting?
To me it seems fairly clear what is going on. The main news forums are uncensored and not good reading compared to other forums. The blogposts on the otherhand are censored. Many veteran posters there have simply left. It is tough to read the blogposts knowing that there is no way to respond to them.
What I don't understand is why isn't there democratic, consistent moderating? Why are wingnuts and trolls allowed to continue to disrupt news threads with their obviously bannable comments?
I gave up on that place just as they shipped you out of there. They are trying to give the illusion of free speech while they continue to prop up their sham flagging system.
I think the best blogs are where readers are given rules and freedoms that are as clear as a day without fake clouds.
You don't have to spend much time there to see what I mean. Perhaps Arianna is like Colonel McLean Stevenson on the early M*A*S*H* episodes, yet instead of Radar, Hawkeye, and Trapper John running the place, you have Eddie Haskell, Archie Bunker, and Morton Downey Jr. running the show.
Exactly!, Anon. Here's the problem as I see it. While Arianna would claim she works really hard, anyone who wasn't married to a multi-millionaire would tell you there's a difference between working "hard" when you need to feed your family, and working "hard" to feed your ego. I always rooted for women who, for one reason or another, were stripped of their lofty positions and had to fend for themselves. Examples would be Ivana Trump, Suzanne Somers, Donna Hanover, and of course, our Mz Huffington. So I was one her earliest supporters and wished her the best as she tried to make a name for herself. My disappointment in what she evolved into was profound. Why she didn't pursue a path based on her intellect and curiosity is baffling. Her name recognition and rich/powerful backers could have made her blog the one that all others would be judged by. Instead she exposed herself as a manipulative, deceitful, calculating shrew. Her contempt and dismissive atitude towards smart people who were drawn to her site is beneath contempt. Did you read the post by one of her "checkers" begging forgiveness for the long delays in printing posts because two of them were on vacation? Who were these Hollywood airheads checking anyway? As you point out, most of the posters being blocked have more intelligence and more interesting things to say than the groupies, psychophants, and bubbleheads that constitute her "Maginot Line" of censors.It seems they have trouble comprehending or understanding serious topics. Calling Laura Bush a "C" and Frank Rich of the NYT a "Jewboy", THAT they understand.
The only thing I can think of, inasmuch as she trots the Globe to appear on any forum that will give her airtime, to discuss topics that are timely and serious, is that the numbers just work out that way. Maybe there's just a bigger audience for cretins, racists, and imbeciles ( have you checked talk radio lately?) than intelligent and cogent discussion. But the bigger disappointment for me was that there wasn't a wholesale abandonment by her bloggers when her disgusting "business model" was exposed. I guess the aphrodisiac of stardom trumps dignity and self-respect and for that, all those bloggers have forever stained their reputations. If my demographic analysis is correct, she is probably cackling to herself, " Sure, let them talk, I've got the numbers." And to add an exclamation point to the decline of our country, she may be right.
As to Peter, go ahead and rationalize, you're a star now too, bury the hatchet. As for me, I wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire.
Star? Me?
Hahahahahahahahha.
You ARE funny.
I wrote a few of the posts above. Sure, it appears you're a great whistleblower. Thank you for that.
It just doesn't wash, this making up with Arianna. If one has to go into cognitive dissonance for some selfish gain, where is the honor in that? Sorry to have to whistleblow on this unfortunate development exposing an Arianna type flaw in yourself. I hope you're happy to be back in the fake fold with that HuffPo endorsement. Guess it doesn't matter what any of us think or went through over there. Sorry to take up your precious time.
congratulations on the kissing and making up Peter... I was first turned on to your blog from the Huffington Post... love going there to see the links and news info... and especially enjoy seeing Angelina Jolie blowing kisses at me today:-)
Nice to see all is well... you realize, that's the difference between Liberal's and Neo-Conservatives... Liberal's can understand and work around differences... while Neo-Con's just look at you like you're a nut case.
Jerry in Gladstone Oregon
And Moses came down from the mountain and addressed his followers........"Great news!, I've made up with the Pharaoh, see ya later...Bye!"
Post a Comment