Jim Treacher on July 1, 2009 at 11:25 AM
.
Jim Treacher on July 1, 2009 at 11:30 AM

.
.
I had an initial response in mind to your latest comments but I paused, reflected and had a change of heart. I will concede that I made a few errors in some of my early comments. That said, it was my response on June 30, 2009 at 5:31 AM to your comment saying “How tough is it to go to the Wonkette link and look at the byline?” “Am I being obtuse?” by Jim Treacher on June 29, 2009 at 11:30 PM
that gave me quite a bit of insight about Jim Treacher. Anyone viewing your twitter “JTlol” account can either affirm or deny the exposé presented by David Young. The question now is are you a narcissist when it comes to your bylines? Do you have the ability to distinguish on whether or not you have any humility of your work? I took an observation that was made by David Young’s hypothesis and applied it to you. It was a bull’s eye to you personally and you took offence to it. Recognizing what bylines mean to you and acknowledging that fact of it is not the first step to mending. Denial, defiance and rationalizing are steps 1, 2 & 3 of which is in evidence thus far regarding to how you have plainly retorted. I am refering to your most recent comments.
.
.
I propose a poll be taken on the Hot Air site. Let’s have all the HA commenters weigh in on David Young’s hypothesis. Whether they agree with me or not that David Young’s hypothesis applies to you as well can also be added to the poll and be addressed. If Allahpundit, Ed or the Boss wants to have a post like this, it is up to them. It is after all their turf. I can see a lot of traffic hits on this site when and if that occurs. I am willing to let the masses decide. Are you? Personally I have observed that Allahpundit, Ed or the Boss show their humility time and again. This poll IMO would not apply to them.

Americannodash on June 30, 2009 at 5:45 PM

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I was pointing out that Wonkette isn’t necessarily a “she.” I’m pretty sure most of the bloggers there these days are male. And I was not directing it at you. But congratulations on your stunning victory, whatever that might be.

See works both ways. And don’t bother with the “we shouldn’t attack the kids bit”, with Letterman the gloves came off

What’s up?
Jim Treacher on June 30, 2009 at 4:36 PM

.
It is simple.
.
First: I found the chink in your armor.
.
Second: the reliable indicator for winning the argument is when your opponent calls you an unusual name.
.
Third: recognizing the fig leaf presented in one hand which is followed by an arrow being drawn back in its bow in the other.
.
I am not an eccentric Jim, analytical is more accurate.
.
In the future save your unpleasant verbal volleys for your enemies. I am a good guy really but will turn on you in a New York minute when I ask you a simple question & you give me a rude answer. Keep it in layman’s terms & we’ll get along just fine.
.

Americannodash on June 30, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Honestly, what in the world are you talking about? You seem to have a mean-on for me for some reason, and you’re babbling like a kook. What’s up?

Please see a licensed physician immediately.

Jim Treacher on June 30, 2009 at 2:37 PM

.
My previous post: get ready, aim, shoot & hit your bull’s eye.
.
Physician heal thyself.

translation: don’t read wonkette if it so unsettles you.

sesquipedalian on June 29, 2009 at 10:49 PM

If that’s your philosophy, what are you doing here?

Americannodash on June 30, 2009 at 5:31 AM

Please see a licensed physician immediately.

sesquipedalian on June 29, 2009 at 10:49 PM

I’m sure you say the same when people complain about Rush’s “hate speech”, right?

This is because journalists are narcissists. Journalists, no matter if it is their first article or the 100,000th article, never get tired of seeing their name in print. It is not uncommon to hear a journalist say something like, “I had 589 bylines last year” in an effort to show what an intrepid journalist they are. No matter if 400 of those “bylines” were for stories that were simple one source stories or press release rewrites.
In a journalist’s mind a byline is a byline is a byline and they like them all equally.
.
.
Are you being obtuse? Perhaps, yet to inform you again that I have only been a reader of journalism. This is not my field of expertise. I did not know the all the terminologies or jargon “speak” of journalism, but I was only a reader prior to today. Not all readers take a title line that identifies the source of the story or where it originated. I would have hoped for maybe some layman’s definitional terms such as “Who is the source for this story? Or, “What original author penned this subject that we are talking about?” Or, “Hey, check out Wonkette’s link embedded in the HA post.”

Journalism is a profession where journalism “speak” is taken for granted between fellow journalist. What you consider to be common knowledge may not be so common outside of your professions sphere. Like all professionals in a particular field of expertise, you know that not everyone’s skills are equal. Yet, many try to exhibit the same level of narcissistic attitude such as admiration of oneself and of their own works. It is actually the readers or the consumers rather of their works that allows them their noteriety, thereby allowing them to continue their employment. If you lose your readership [e.g. the NYT's], your editor/employer have the tendancy to trim the deadwood or terminate your a*s because of your ineptitude or lack of revenue generation. I did not mean to totally divert from the subject at hand of bylines. Hey, I am not a professional, not even amateur journalist. Those are the facts in this subject matter. Although, I know that you will acknowledge that as a fact. Obtuse? Nah, so I now will leave you with this last remark taken from my sourced byline.
.
What do they have to show for at the end of the day? Money? Power? Fame? No. After all of it, journalists are left with only their cherished bylines.
.

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions

What they don’t realize is just how much this type of attack really ticks people off.

Trnaslation: Let’s censor the reactions of people who find Wonkette and Biegel repulsive, in the name of freedom of speech!

CK MacLeod on June 29, 2009 at 12:36 PM

translation: don’t read wonkette if it so unsettles you.

inviolet on June 29, 2009 at 9:26 PM
.
Yes, I am laughing now too.

Jim Treacher on June 29, 2009 at 8:38 PM

Byline on the Home Page Display date and author information on the Home Page
Byline on the Story pages Display date and author information on Story pages
Byline format Control the format of the date and author information

.
The byline is: posted at 8:37 am on June 29, 2009 by Legal Insurrection. Is this right this time?
.
Treacher wins this coin toss — now what do you want to do; receive the ball, or kick off. What can I say. Reading journalism versus being trained in journalism isn’t the same is it.
.
Thanks, I researched much much more this time. I like it when I learn at least one thing a day. Will you ever forgive me?
.
Still shy of twitter though. I have not joined for that very reason. Your exchanges there with the masses get a little heated. BTW, did you ever go back and read my final post here:
.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/06/16/why-sarah-palin-should-appear-on-letterman/#comment-11668
.

And what was the byline, grouchy?

Jim Treacher on June 29, 2009 at 8:38 PM

LOL

Couple that with their absolute right to punish anyone daring not to toe the party line wrt “women’s views” and it’s always open season on those baby-poppin’, gun-totin’, Bible-quotin’ disgustos. Why when you take the ‘need’ for abortion by all those poor poor women into account, it’s practically noblesse oblige.

Do you imagine it’s Trig they’re trying to hurt with these photoshops? Oh my no. These are shots across the bow. And thankfully Gov. Palin isn’t taking them lying down anymore.

I took the the words “check the byline” and re-read Wonkette post and how I had commented prior to your comment, then responded to it. ES&D

Americannodash on June 29, 2009 at 4:41 PM

And what was the byline, grouchy?

Leave them a tip.

One think the lefties do is sound the alarm and email/tweet/post any thing they view as a transgression. The RNC ad spoofing Pelosi that they went ballistic on — they were nonstop spreading the word that allahpundit was a sexist a-hole.

the PC police strikes again.

sesquipedalian on June 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Consistently wrong;
I’m outraged, because it was always universally understood that the children of political figures were off limits.

We’re not advocating censorship. We’re advocating a return to a standard of decency that your side of the political spectrum has abandoned.

Now, simply;

Would you prefer to go back to the standards of polite behavior, or do we go to the mattresses?

It’s your call.

Jim Treacher on June 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM
.
Whatever, I took the the words “check the byline” and re-read Wonkette post and how I had commented prior to your comment, then responded to it. ES&D

Heh.

There are certain things that do not have any excuse and those pictures are one of them.

the PC police strikes again.

sesquipedalian on June 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Horrible. Grow some decency.

You are so right. These people lack a fundamental chip of common decency and are damaged down to the core. This is why they cannot stand Jesus. Jesus stood for one principle “love one another.” They must denounce him because they are incapable of loving their fellow man. I never feel any hatred for them, just sadness for their children.

Anyone who would mock a child, let alone a child with Downs Syndrome, has a damaged soul.

As much as I dislike the Obamas, if they gave birth to a child who had some form of condition like Downs, and they knew before hand, I would do nothing but heap praise on them for THAT act because it is noble.

Any one who would do otherwise is rotten inside.