Great Moments in Other Blogs' Comment Sections (an occaisonal series)

This exchange regarding a post Bill Quick made on his blog regarding the Ben Domenech/WaPo mess struck me as being rather funny

Comments

Since you have been suggested (by Glen Reynolds) as a replacement for Ben, should we consider you to have a confilict of interest on this topic?

Posted by: Sara | March 24, 2006 03:08 PM

should we consider you to have a confilict of interest on this topic?

Only if you're an idiot. I've already said it couldn't work.

Posted by: Bill Quick | March 24, 2006 03:13 PM

Oh lighten up. I was just kidding. Sheesh! But, that's right, you keep telling me what an idiot I am, so it must be true.

Posted by: Sara | March 24, 2006 03:46 PM

Conflict of interest? Because Instapundit tossed up an idea? Glenn Reynolds might be thrilled to learn he cuts that much ice at WaPo.

Here's a stronger possibility: Bill is speaking from his perspective as an established professional writer.

Posted by: Lastango | March 24, 2006 03:56 PM

I read the explanation too, and I don't really buy it either. Time will tell I suppose, but it's not looking good for him, nor, I suspect, should it.

Posted by: corvan | March 24, 2006 04:17 PM

Lasttango ... I'll say it again. It was a joke, said with a rather cyncial wink and based on Bill's own disclaimer that he would be the writer who pisses everyone off, hence the conflict of interest JOKE. I don't think I am the idiot here.

Posted by: Sara | March 24, 2006 04:26 PM

Oh lighten up. I was just kidding. Sheesh!

Why should I take it as a joke? Did you give any indication it was a joke?

You know, a lot of passive-aggressives on the web use this tactic all the time - spout some bit of snark, then when they get their nose smacked, whine, "But it was a joke, and you're meannn!"

If you're not looking for a fight, don't make noises like you are. As far as I could tell, your comment was intended to impugn my motives in saying that Ben's explanation didn't cut it with me.

If that wasn't what you intended to say, then you should probably spend some time learning how to write what you really mean, or, alternatively, brushing up on your humor techniques.

Posted by: Bill Quick | March 24, 2006 04:53 PM

I hope Ben goes on to success in some other field, as he does come across as likeable, and smart, enough fellow, but I'm not satisfied with his explanation either (subject to reconsideration if more info in his favor eventually comes out).

Posted by: Mark H. | March 24, 2006 05:42 PM

Bill, I am a regular here and I constantly get reminded that I'm writing to thin-skinned children. Why would you automatically assume I was putting you down? How insecure and passive-aggressive is that? When I do abuse counseling, we tell women that the first time he hits you its his fault, the subsequent times are their's. That's what it feels like trying to correspond on this site. Whenever you get your shorts in a knot, you attack the writers and call them stupid, idiot, or put all kinds of ulterior motives on them. I am an intelligent and well-informed individual with more writing credits to my name than you claim to yours, so your insults don't fly here. What bugs you, I would surmise, is that you know that I have your number. And if you don't know it, you should.

Posted by: Sara | March 24, 2006 06:15 PM

Bill, I am a regular here and I constantly get reminded that I'm writing to thin-skinned children. Why would you automatically assume I was putting you down?

Well, lessee. First you impugn my motives for a post, and next you tell me I'm a thin-skinned child when I don't reply in a manner cuddly enough for you. I don't care if you've written 100 books, on the best day of your life you won't have my number.

What, exactly, do you think my number is? Are you giggling to yourself that you think you know how to make me angry? My, what a childish triumph for you.

When I do abuse counseling, we tell women that the first time he hits you its his fault, the subsequent times are their's. That's what it feels like trying to correspond on this site.

Oh, poor baby, are you feeling abused? Why do you keep coming here, then? And posting idiotic things? Why was it so necessary for you to post "...should we consider you to have a confilict of interest on this topic?" What did it contribute to the conversation? What did it add to the post? Here's what I think - people who come here and keep asking for trouble shouldn't be surprised when they get it.

Posted by: Bill Quick | March 24, 2006 08:12 PM

>> Here's what I think - people who come here and keep asking for trouble shouldn't be surprised when they get it. <<

Well, I'm not one of those people. I have never ever come here asking for trouble. In two years, I've commented what maybe a 1/2 dozen times or so. Twice, I tried to get clarification from you on something you posted that was totally unclear, despite your inflated idea of your writing ability, and both of those times you refused to clarify and attacked me personally instead. When I called you on it one time, you got even more defensive. I'm a sixty year old grandmother and I've played those games with a host of teenagers, I expect more on a site such as this.

Your patronizing attitude with phrases like "poor baby" or "giggling to yourself" is low end tripe. I don't need to resort to adolescent games to get you angry. All one has to do is disagree with you.

I come here because I happen to think you are a good writer and most of the time I like the way your mind works. But, not all the time and especially not when you go off on one of your petty rants, then I'm just embarrassed for you.

Posted by: Sara | March 25, 2006 01:44 AM

Well, I'm not one of those people. I have never ever come here asking for trouble. In two years, I've commented what maybe a 1/2 dozen times or so.

Fifty three times. I know it would never cross your mind, but the software does keep track.

Twice, I tried to get clarification from you on something you posted that was totally unclear, despite your inflated idea of your writing ability...

And...

I come here because I happen to think you are a good writer...

You'd be more believable if you could manage to keep from contradicting yourself in the same comment.

Your patronizing attitude with phrases like "poor baby" or "giggling to yourself" is low end tripe.

Written with malice aforethought, too.

I don't need to resort to adolescent games to get you angry. All one has to do is disagree with you.

And intimating, for no rational reason whatsoever that I have a conflict of interest in the post above is "disagreeing with me?"

But, not all the time and especially not when you go off on one of your petty rants, then I'm just embarrassed for you.

Golly, somehow I'lll survive your embarassment. I'm almost exactly your age, and I've known people like you all my life, the little snarkers, the needlers, the "oh, I didn't mean anything by it" shufflers and darters. I'm not impressed. This site is what it is, and I am what I am. If you don't like that, hit the bricks. Nobody is forcing you to stay here and be "abused" by me.

Posted by: Bill Quick | March 25, 2006 09:14 AM

It's an interesting example of how easy this form of communication can get heated. I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Quick on this particular exchange, Sara knew exactly what she was doing from the start and tried to use the 'I keeeeeeeeeeed' dodge (Triumph is the only one who can get away with that) to have her cake and eat it, too.

Still I probably would have just assumed most people recognize when someone is being a jerk and leave it at that without dealing with the back and forth escalation, but to each their own.

The really funny part is that the politics of Sara's blog is similar to Mr. Quick's blog (though not the general level of writing, or popularity), so it's not a matter of the usual left/right conflict, instead it's a good old fashion (possibly gender based) personality conflict.