Macswain

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

My Defense To Patterico's Dishonest Attack

A rightwing blogger named Patterico - ironically, in real life, he's a prosecutor - blew a fuse admidst two debates we were having and banned me from his site while also deleting my last comment there. No big deal, right? It's a typical tactic righties employ who can't take the heat of an open debate. But Patterico didn't just ban me and delete my comment. He decided that he had to lie about me in a manner meant to demonize.

Here’s Patterico’s lie about my banning:

I have banned one person in the last 24 hours: Macswain. There’s a long history there of lies and vicious insults, but the final straw was when he admitted that he read through a comment thread in which carlitos said his sister had died — and *then* MacSwain declared “funny* a comment about carlitos having disgusting sex with her.


He claims a long history of lies - in fact, he has repeatedly called me a liar - yet, he has never cited a single lie or even a false statement. What I really have is a history of proving Pat wrong and, unlike Pat, I don’t make these bold claims without evidence. Here is a post and comment thread where I proved Pat was smearing John Kerry by suggesting Kerry did not fully release his Vietnam era records. He’s held a grudge ever since and has been searching for away to silence my legitimate criticism. Here's a link (See Comments 74 & 98) to our latest dust-up where I called bullshit on any suggestion that he was, as a matter of principle, opposed to the Edwards bloggers losing their job.

He claims vicious insults. This is almost comical given he usually answers my posts with name calling completely devoid of substance. Trash talk exists on his blog and he partakes in it freely. He is simply a thin-skinned hypocrite who can’t handle the better trash talk that comes back at him. I’ve never cried about his weak efforts at trash talk or name calling directed toward me. Really, if he wants to whine like a little bitch about trash talk, he shouldn’t throw mud at others.

Most importantly, Pat outright lies when he states “[I] admitted that [I] read through a comment thread in which carlitos said his sister had died — and *then* MacSwain declared “funny* a comment about carlitos having disgusting sex with her.” I challenge Pat to post this admission.

The only post he can be referring to is Comment No. 49 to Pat’s initial post attacking The Liberal Avenger. I said in total:

Too funny.

I just want to know which of you righties read the rewritten comedy and didn’t get that it was a prank.

I don’t what’s funnier - the rewritten post, Pat’s preening and posturing about caning (or was it caneing) all the guest bloggers or the Tort-Reform righties claiming a lawsuit should be brought over this.

Thanks, Pat, for highlighting this - you once again scored for great comedy.


Where do I admit reading Carlito’s post? Nowhere - Pat is simply lying when he says I made this admission (or he’s delusional in believing such an admission exists). The fact is I had not read carlitos statement about his sister and only became aware of the tragic death of Carlito’s sister when Pat posted that fact at the bottom of my comment No. 49.

Then, the first line of my next comment (No. 50) says: Now if they knew about his personal tragedy, I would agree with you. Huh? What’s that? I actually agreed with Pat that the prank wouldn’t be funny if someone had foreknowledge of Carlito’s tragedy. Why would I say that if, as Pat claims, my position was that, even knowing about the personal tragedy, the comment is funny? The fact is that was not my position and that irrefutable sentence directly contradicts Pat's false claim.

Pat simply attributed to me an outrageous position - a strawman - to try and justify a banning and now he continues to lie while preventing me from defending myself. What’s worse - and what this despicable man has completely omitted from his explanation as to my banning - is that when he made his charge that I knew about Carlito’s tragedy and, then, stated that he was going to ban me, I got a comment up before he could get the ban in place. My comment said he was wrong as to his assumption of my knowledge and that he was banning me on false facts.

Guess what this defender of the sanctity of comments did: PATTERICO DELETED MY COMMENT. He didn’t want anyone to know my defense so that he could continue his false smear.

I don’t run away from debates and will debate Pat anytime, anyplace - using logic and evidence as above - without threats of bannings or deletion of comments.

13 Comments:

  • some guy named webhub posted a defense of you on patterico's blog

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:53 PM  

  • and patterico responds:

    Macswain makes a strong argument that you sir, are a hyprocrite. He entitles it “My Defense To Patterico’s Dishonest Attack”

    http://macswain.blogspot.com/

    [Macswain is full of it. He admits reading the comment thread, and it’s the same comment thread where carlitos said his sister died. That’s the admission, which is still posted. His subsequent comment never appeared and thus was not “deleted.” His comments have been moderated for weeks because of his penchant for lying. I have published every one, but only after reviewing it first for lies, and responding to those lies. Further, if I’m interested in squelching debate, why are his comments littered all over my site? Why am I leaving *your* comment up?? Answer: because I’m not squelching debate. I banned him for repeated lies, and for ghoulishly laughing at a comment mocking what he knew was carlitos’s tragedy. — P]

    Comment by webhub — 2/15/2007 @ 1:29 pm

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:57 PM  

  • Patterico simply believes if he claps louder he can make his lie the truth.

    As anyone cane see --- he fails to quote any comment by me where I admitted reading carlito's statement about his sister and he fails to quote a single lie by me.

    It must be funny when he stands up in court and says" "Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, the defendant is guilty because I said so. The State rests."

    By Blogger Macswain, at 3:21 PM  

  • Not surprisingly, Patterico's fevered little mind is working overtime.

    He now accuses me of being webhub and using that identity to post on his site.

    As my 5 regular readers know, webhub posts comments here regularly. Most of those who know my identity also know who webhub is because - duh - we work in the same offices and access the internet through the same server.

    He is a real person who does not act at my direction and posted on Patterico's site of his own volition.

    One can only wonder how any city can pay to have such an idiot like Patterico acting in the role of one of its prosecutors. Is he always spinning in circles chasing fevered conspiracy theories?

    By Blogger Macswain, at 5:34 PM  

  • You are so pathetic, Macswain.

    You not only sock-puppeted using "webhub" on Patterico's blog ("posted from Macswain’s IP address — an IP address used by Macswain dozens of times on my site, but never used by any other commenter on this blog" — Patterico), but you posted an anonymous comment from yourself referring to webhub (probably, but no matter)... and then, and this is where it gets funny, used your webhub puppet to talk to yourself on your blog.

    Dude, you need to get laid or something. Step away from the keyboard — you'll only hurt yourself with it.
     
     
    [cross posted at Patterico.com]

    By Anonymous Christoph, at 5:46 PM  

  • Christoph the Retarded,

    I know Pat and his acolytes would love desperately to change the subject from the fact that Pat has now been proven to be a liar, but this effort to say webhub and I are the same is as stupid as Pat's false reason for banning me.

    There is a lil modern device you seem not to have heard of ... it's called a server.

    But I did bust a gut laughing knowing that webhub has Pat running around all wild eyed and feverish comparing IP addresses.

    By Blogger Macswain, at 6:06 PM  

  • Ah yes, the server.

    It is remotely possible that you are not lying in this case. You could be one of those decent honest blokes who laughs at men whose words are altered, in painstaking detail, to make it appear that they are bragging about having sex with their sister before she died.

    You could be one of those kind of decent honest men.

    Because of course it could be that that IP address was never used in the history of Patterico's blog, then once you were banned someone jumped on that exact same server and, with all the issues Patterico discusses, chose to ride to your defense, which you immediately noticed, and began commenting on here.

    That could be too.

    Either way, you're a sicko who is also a sockpuppeteer or isn't one. We'll let the readers decide.
     
     
    [cross posted at Patterico.com]

    By Anonymous Christoph, at 6:38 PM  

  • "I don’t run away from debates and will debate Pat anytime, anyplace - using logic and evidence as above - without threats of bannings or deletion of comments."

    Right. You would never delete comments.

    This post has been removed by the author.

    By Adam S., at 11:41 AM

    By Blogger Patterico, at 8:37 PM  

  • Patterico and his sycophants like Christoph might want to check the history of macswain commenters to see that webhub has posted on macswain numerous times. Webhub hasn't balked at calling macswain on his insipid posts where appropriate.

    Now, a right wing conspiracy-seeing wack job might think macswain spent months/years posing as webhub so that one day he could use that to defend himself when patterico starts checking IP addresses after getting caught with his pants down.

    Yea, that's probably what happened.....

    By Anonymous webhub, at 10:04 PM  

  • I already said I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on that issue.

    But he does delete comments even though he claims not to.

    By the way, the only reason I checked your IP, marhub, is because your comment initially showed up in moderation. I wondered why. It turned out that it was because I had been moderating Macswain's IP, due to his repeated lies, and yuor comment was caught for that reason.

    By Blogger Patterico, at 7:36 AM  

  • Oh, hell yeah! It looks like we're going to be having another fun day in the blog wars today.

    I've got biz this a.m. so it won't be 'til this afternoon until I can deliver my latest whacking.

    Meanwhile, I hereby command all of my hundreds of sock puppets who've I spent gizzilions of hours creating ... ATTACK!!!

    By Blogger Macswain, at 8:33 AM  

  • Patterico:

    You write: "I already said I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on that issue"

    Why didn't you just admit you were WRONG about webhub and macswain being the same person?

    By Anonymous webhub, at 2:27 PM  

  • Mr Patrick Frey (Patterico),

    Now I'm NOT stalking you, like you cowardly LIED and said I was, and, you LIED about WHY you banned me from your website,

    BUT,

    How about me and you starting over and debate certain aspect's of The OJ Simpson Case. Let's me and you keep it civil.

    We'll go question for question. I'll start out with this:

    Have you EVER talked to Assistant LADA Bill Hodgman about me? Now that can't be that hard, can it? You can answer me, and then you ask me a question about The OJ Simpson Case.

    OK?

    MarioGeorgeNitrini111
    mariogeorgenitrini111
    _________________

    The OJ Simpson Case

    By Blogger MarioGeorgeNitrini111, at 5:01 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home