Hi Arne,

I posted this to jeremys earlier, having included a side-snark at jeremys in an even earlier post-

"When I read your post, I took it to include a non-snarky assumption on your part (not Mr. Cohen's part) that all readers would wish that Scooter Libby had been spared this agony and that Ambassador Wilson should not have taken things so personally."

Upon re-reading his post, I came to the conclusion that he was not trolling, but rather critiquing one aspect of Mr. Greenwald's post - giving a different (still negative) interpretation of part of Mr. Cohen's article.

Here's jeremys:

While I ordinarily find your writing to be insightful, I believe you are off-base in your criticism of Mr. Cohen today. Clearly, in Mr. Cohen's article, when discussing the "urging of the liberal press (especially the New York Times)" he was referring to Joe Wilson's July 6, 2003 "What I Didn't Find In Africa" op-ed.

Here's Cohen, from the article:

With the sentencing of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald has apparently finished his work, which was, not to put too fine a point on it, to make a mountain out of a molehill. At the urging of the liberal press (especially the New York Times), he was appointed to look into a run-of-the-mill leak and wound up prosecuting not the leaker -- Richard Armitage of the State Department -- but Libby, convicted in the end of lying.

The only "urging" in Cohen's post (and the part that jeremys explicitly quotes from) is as to the prosecution of Libby. jeremys was wrong in his claim, if it's to be taken seriously. I stand by my comment.

Cheers,

Then tell us what you are actually concerned about in words you would use if we were sitting right next to you.

...Naked. With the lights ON.

Sounds to me like Ace is either jealous or a rapist.

If your erection lasts more than 4 hours see a doctor.

A smile for, and to you, from a more beautiful world.

Thanks.

I must go pick berries for you.

Thanks for the scoop. I should try to keep up on the letters more often. Sad that in different ways Cohen and Ace seem to find shelter in bitterness, though Cohen does not use overtly abusive language.

But Cohen's derision comes out between the lines of his discourse. It's an ugly thing, this hatred he holds -- perhaps at those who understood the truth when he did not. Maybe it's his own deficiencies he wishes to hide in that darkened place.

Heck, I just thought it [jeremys] was pgs: pretty good snark.

Hard to tell nowadays. How can you satirize that which is already so far over the edge?

jeremys's second post (about requiring disclosure of real estate information) is either way too high-brow satire for my simple mind to comprehend in today's political climate, or he's muddling the waters with another purpose in mind.

Cheers,

I have no respect for the Beltway pundits, absolutely none, and yet they think that they're the greatest.

I respect Glenn Greenwald, Joe Conason, Gene Lyons, Greg Palast, and others, but none of them are on the mainstream news media as often and as prominently as they should be.

Glenn, you perform a truly needed public service in your critiques of media dishonesty. Your demonstrations of MSM's complicity in governmental deception are a breath of fresh air in the midst of a huge stench. Keep it up!!

As with sex or real estate, it is often best to keep the lights off.

I've spent a few hours trying to pick my jaw up from my computer desk. For a journalist to write that is like, well, a doctor saying what you don't know can't hurt you, so let's just not run any tests.

Question: Even if someone does come to this site to be contrary or to provoke an argument, does it really do us any good to identify that person as a troll?

I am not sure where you came under the impression that a "troll" is "someone [who] come[s] to this site to be contrary or to provoke an argument." Arguments are good, and interesting, and helpful for understanding a point of view and/or sharpening your own. Even rank contrariness can be helpful for inspiring a good debate.

Trollery, as I have come to understand the term, is the hurling of invective for no purpose other than that of a boy with a stick, poking a hornet's nest. The outcome, generally, is the same: much noise and activity, resulting in the poker getting hurt and wailing about the unfairness of it all.

I like this letters section, and the excellent examination of content by people who see things I don't. (She asks herself, does it count as voyeurism if I can't keep my mouth shut?)

I do wonder about how the real estate disclosure angle connects in the other post. That part of Mr. Cohen's article was what got me fired up in the first place - given my work, I believe it should be obvious to all that no matter how illegal sharp dealing is, the real estate (and related lending) industry needs its lights turned on and its lightbulbs replaced on a regular basis. People get up to all kinds of things. For Mr. Cohen to say it is best left in the dark just about made my head asplode.

best regards -

LBS asks a good question:

Question: Even if someone does come to this site to be contrary or to provoke an argument, does it really do us any good to identify that person as a troll?

My answer is, yes, if they are, in fact, a troll..

A troll is not simply someone who is contrary, or who tries to provoke an argument, but rather someone who acts in bad faith. Examples include--but are not limited to--being consistently abusive; arguing by assertion, without presenting evidence; repeating the same arguments or "evidence" over and over again when they have already been refuted or debunked various times before; repeatedly employing double standards despite being called on it; repeatedly interjecting irrelevancies ("Cinton did it, too!"); etc.

This will sound Pollyanna, but how are we going to connect with others in this country if we can't form a dialog with people on this site?

Trolls represent only a tiny fraction of the population. The notion that they represent any large mass of people out there is one of their most cherished delusions. It is utterly false.

I also wonder if the term does more harm than good. Won't people be frightened of voicing legitimate concerns for fear of the label?

This is a legitimate concern, and just one more reason why we should make a point of the fact that disagreement is a positive value--but it needs to be disagreement based on publicly disputable content. This is the very essence of a creative dialogue, it is how we keep our minds open to new possibilities, it is how we keep from falling into bad habits, as well as stimulating good ones.

I would be happy to hear any suggestions you have about how to underscore this more forcefully. And I'm sure I wouldn't be alone.