Monday, August 29, 2005

Katrina 100: 002 So much for NewOrleanist

I can't help thinking of many months ago, after a Metroblogging* reporter squatted on the domain What ensued was the sissy-boy slapfight to end all sissy-boy slapfights in the blogocracy.

Ironic, because by this time tomorrow, running a New Orleans blog could require gills.

Let's hope not.

*Would someone please introduce some sort of web-based tool to transform Metroblog's use of the first-person singular to the less LiveJournally first-person plural? Thanks.


seanbonner said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Deceiver said...

It says: "...a Metroblogging reporter..." Not "".


seanbonner said...

Nice after the fact edit. Your original post, and your RSS feed which I still have a copy of said

"after the Metroblogging* folks" Not "a metroblogging reporter"


The Deceiver said...

I did go live with an error in semantics (though the case could easily be made that the way an employee of an organization represents that organization reflects upon the organization as a whole). That error was very quickly corrected.

However, as far as YOU are concerned, posting a comment at 2:12am (a piece of history you've already re-written yourself), the correction had already been made, so there is no "after the fact" about it.

So, again:

1. Learn to read.
2. Get a better RSS feed.
3. And stop being such a melodramatic wuss.

Anonymous said...

You're still straining credulity by using the word "reporter."

seanbonner said...

Yeah I'm the wuss since you are playing the biggest game of dodge-the-blame ever mr-wah-I-didn't-write-that-ok-i-did-but-then-i-changed-it. And what does Get a better RSS feed mean? You are the one publishing the feed. If you want to blame that it's still your fault. But luckily for you there's no record of when you editied your post, just that you edited it so I'm sticking with my side that the post was incorrect when I made my comment.

Additionally, smart guy, you really should learn the difference between an employee, a reporter, and an unpaid volunteer. You little logic jump here is like saying a local animal shelter endorses smoking since some the the people who donate their time smoke when they aren't there helping.

But please, keep grabbing at straws and pointing fingers, it's amusing to watch.

The Deceiver said...

Umm. I'd say, "Nice try", except it was actually a pretty pathetic try.

I told you EXACTLY what happened w/r/t correcting my post. I'm not "dodging blame." You seem the definition of "dodge" is "To evade by cunning, trickery, or deceit." By obvious contrast, I owned up to the mistake I made. Yes, Sean, it's called the English language.

When I commented at 2:40am, I saw that you had made your first stab at reasoning at 2:12AM, and at 2:12am, I had LONG made the correction. Hence, my conclusion that you needed to back and attempt to read for comprehension.

But, by your own admission, you referred to my initial erroneous post. Then, you either waited some three hours, presumably struggling with subject-verb agreement, to make your post, or you came after I had made the correction and just wouldn't let it go, and thus made a comment that was supercilious and disingenuous.

And yes, maybe you need to get a new RSS aggregator (my mistake, using the word "feed") so that you may know what a blog says before you comment on what it does NOT say.

Of course, this is continuing pretense on your part--you knew FULL WELL that the correction was made prior to your comment, which is why, like a base, craven pussy, you deleted all record of your 2:12AM statement.

What you are doing is projecting your own insecurities onto me.

And incidentally, the entire second paragraph of your comment is the ONLY ACTUAL INSTANCE of blame-dodging going on here. If your hypothetical animal shelter worker wore a sandwich board while smoking that read "This Animal Shelter is a Festival of Nicotine", said "volunteer" would be involving the shelter unknowingly and subjecting that organization to criticism and scandal. This is the equivalent of pointing a squatted blog to the organization your "reporter" "volunteers" for (something you and I are not DENYING, right? Because we both know that would be untrue).

Ugh. Disingenuous crybaby.

The Deceiver said...

Maybe Metroblogs should work "promulgation of sissy boy slap fights" into their mission statement.

In the meantime, doesn't little Seannie have floodwaters to watch? There's a good boy.

(Here's hoping this doesn't make Dobkin all cuckoo lycanthropic again as well.)

seanbonner said...

heh, yeah...

what was your real name again?

Anonymous said...

Can't argue with the DCeiver. He is the man!

The Deceiver said...

Sure you can! Some do so very well. A good, hard-charging debate can be invigorating. But when I concede I made a mistake, it's pretty stupid to go back and say I'm dodging blame.

A Unique Alias said...

"What ensued was the sissy-boy slapfight to end all sissy-boy slapfights in the blogocracy."

I was going to ask what this was in regards to.

Hahahah. Nevermind!

The Deceiver said...

As an -Ist contributor, I can tell you there was plenty for our side of that debacle to be cover-your-eyes embarrassed about, too. 'Twas a slapfight, mutually pursued.

The intent of this original post was to simply note the irony of fighting over an asset that's not likely to be worth fighting over at the end of this day.

rcr said...

Insipid. Vapid. Rancid. There really aren't enough -id words to describe the content at

K said...


The Deceiver said...


Anonymous said...

They get stupid, they shoot an arrow like Cupid. They make up words that don't mean nothing like "Lupid."

Anonymous said...

If it truly was some rogue metroblogs reporter that squatted the site, how did it come to pass that got pointed to a Metroblogs-branded page with the title "New to the highest bidder" with a picture captioned "You've been squatted!"

You'd think that in denying their involvement, Metroblogs might, oh...I don't know...take down the page that more or less paints them as directly involved.

Browse on out to today!

Am I correct in surmising that the 2:12 comment spoken of here was maybe something Mr. Bonner said, only to realize later would look sketchy based on the evidence?

Hmmm...another -id word? How about putrid.

the h said...

beyond the semantics, the link to Frank Black vs. Kelly Clarkson has me jumping up and down more than KC last night at the VMAs.... man, that is some good good shit.

The Deceiver said...

Frank Black's riffs make everything better! If I were Clarkson, I'd seriously consider using that arrangement--the guitar parts binding verses to chorus to verses are just more interesting--a lot more going on.