ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, May 01, 2015

David Pakman: Interview shenanigans I

Last week, I was invited to be interviewed about GamerGate and game development by a YouTube show with which I was unfamiliar, the David Pakman Show. The invitation was as follows:

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:30 PM
From: VD
Subject: show appearance

Message Body:
You tweeted at me and asked me if I would appear on the show. That's fine, you can contact me via this email.

Regards,
Vox

Terrific, would love to set something up. We do our interviews via skype video. If that works in principle it would be great to set something up for sooner than later. Would you be available this Friday at 11am eastern time? I'd love to discuss your views on gamergate and just more broadly how you general views inform your views on gamergate and the gaming industry. It will be a casual discussion, likely 25 or so minutes, just between you and I.

best,

David Pakman
Host / The David Pakman Show / www.davidpakman.com

David has been insisting that the subsequent interview, which lightly touched on GamerGate and barely addressed the game industry at all, much less 23 years of experience in it or my current game development work, was not an ambush, even though he spent about 40 of the 49 minutes (24 more than requested), asking me to justify past blog posts, past WND columns, and in one case, the headline that the editors wrote for the column.

When called on this by Mike Cernovich and others on Twitter today, David claimed that I eagerly encouraged asking about his "controversial" statements.
Mike Cernovich@PlayDangerously
So @dpakman claims my assertion is laughable...yet he keeps dodging this question: Why not ask Kluwe about underage girls and rape jokes?

David Pakman ‏@dpakman
Interview with Chris came up quickly to specifically discuss why he was angry with our show, that was focus. Who are you?

Mr. Bones ‏@wellplayd_ggate
“to specifically discuss" "that was focus” You couldn’t focus on #GamerGate with Vox for 5 minutes, despite title

Bill Wilson ‏@piefke4
not only "despite title" but also despite the email he has sent to vox.

David Pakman ‏@dpakman
.@piefke4 @PlayDangerously thing is that before interview started @voxday eagerly encouraged asking about his "controversial" statements

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You asked me to talk about #GG and game dev. I'm lead on 6 games in development and you asked about ZERO!

David Pakman ‏@dpakman
right before we started you eagerly said you like focusing on the controversial stuff and to ask you q's

Vox Day ‏@voxday
I will publish the transcript. The fact I don't run from controversy doesn't excuse gotcha journalism.

David Pakman ‏@dpakman
no idea what you're talking about. that conversation took place before interview. there's no transcript.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
There most certainly is. Like I said, you're an amateur, David. I'll publish it later today.

K Gallagher ‏@miles670
Well holy shit, INTERESTING.

David Pakman ‏@dpakman
How could there be transcript of something that happened before interview? Did @voxday secretly write it down by hand?
From the pre-interview transcript:
David Pakman: So what I'm thinking is that I've just been reading a ton of your stuff and doing research and all that. The kind of, like, entry door to our conversation will be #GamerGate, since that's kind of like where your name surfaced to us. But then I plan on talking to you more generally about your work and other stuff you've done too.

Vox Day: That's fine, and if you want to broach any controversial topic, I'm not afraid to address it.

David Pakman: Okay, sounds good.
Now, not being afraid to address a controversial subject, such as the one that has been almost constantly in the news for the last month, and about which I was contacted by the Wall Street Journal, and which has been covered in a fair amount of detail (if not much accuracy) everywhere from the UK Guardian to the New Zealand Herald, is not reasonably described as being eager to discuss the headlines of old columns I didn't write or a single blog post cherry-picked from the 15,080+ posts available here.

When he said he wanted to talk more generally about my work, since I provided him with a description that said I am Lead Designer of Alpenwolf and Lead Editor of Castalia House, I assumed it would be about either the games I am developing or the books I am publishing.
On 4/22/2015 11:03 PM, David Pakman wrote:

Perfect. What I need from you to lock this in:
-a one line introduction for introducing you on the show

One line intro: Vox Day is the Lead Editor of Castalia House, a professional game designer who supports GamerGate, and a 2015 Hugo Award finalist in the Best Editor category.
I certainly did not expect that "my work" encompassed a syndicated op/ed column that has been defunct for several years just as I didn't expect to be asked about my job shingling rooftops in an American Air Force base in Japan either. It is deceitful, and demonstrates a complete lack of journalistic integrity, for a would-be journalist to ambush his interview subjects this way. It's not hard to see, from the sly way David expands the possible range of the interview in the pre-interview from what he wrote in the email, that the ambush was not only intended, but premeditated.

And David's attempt to falsely characterize my "eagerness" to discuss controversial subjects in an ex post facto defense of his ambush underlines his fundamental unreliability and lack of integrity in this regard.

I wouldn't have had any problem with David Pakman bringing up any of the controversial subjects that have repeatedly appeared in places like the Weekly Standard or Entertainment Weekly. They were at least tangentially relevant given the Hugo coverage. But to bring up non-controversies that literally no major media source anywhere has discussed anywhere in relation to me cannot possibly be justified. This was a shameless attempt to make a story, not discuss or analyze an existing one.

Labels:

240 Comments:

1 – 200 of 240 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Eric Ashley May 01, 2015 11:29 AM  

If I were David, I'd be seriously considering apologizing, and then taking a two week vacation from the Net.

Blogger Markku May 01, 2015 11:36 AM  

See that roman numeral "I" in the header, heh heh heh...

Blogger Doseux May 01, 2015 11:39 AM  

ALWAYS BE RECORDING.

And, like you've said before, "SJWs always lie."

Anonymous mistaben May 01, 2015 11:40 AM  

I foresee yet another valuable lesson on documenting everything.

Anonymous Smea May 01, 2015 11:40 AM  

It is deceitful, and demonstrates a complete lack of journalistic integrity

That's what everyone says when they show their ass.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 01, 2015 11:41 AM  

If anything, the pre-interview makes me think even more that it was intentional. It's obvious, he was prepping you for the later excuse, so he could say "who me?"

I didn't get to see the whole interview... What's up with the shingles story?

Blogger M. Bibliophile May 01, 2015 11:43 AM  

He tipped his hand a little, but nowhere near enough to call it anything but an ambush. He's being very disingenuous on Twitter and I think he might be wondering just what he stepped in.

Blogger Jassi May 01, 2015 11:44 AM  

Jewish people seem to consider deceit so normal that they're not even lying when they say they haven't deceived you. There was no intention of being dishonest, because nature precedes intention. Many folks from India are the same way.

It works wonders sometimes, but over time backfires.

Blogger Jim May 01, 2015 11:46 AM  

David Pakman ‏@dpakman
How could there be transcript of something that happened before interview? Did @voxday secretly write it down by hand?


Ah yes. As we all know, data recorders only work during an interview. It is physically impossible to save information that does not have the "interview" tag appended to it. Einstein or Oppenheimer or Aristotle or someone proved it.

Anonymous BGS May 01, 2015 11:47 AM  

Someone bought Dragon voice transcript software.

Blogger Daniel May 01, 2015 11:50 AM  

I didn't expect to be asked about laying cement shingles on rooftops in an American Air Force base in Japan either.

So, to get back to the relevant topic GamerGate: talk about those shingles. Was your foreman racist?

Blogger WATYF May 01, 2015 11:51 AM  

The kind of, like, entry door to our conversation will be #GamerGate, since that's kind of like where your name surfaced to us. But then I plan on talking to you more generally about your work and other stuff you've done too. Vox Day: That's fine, and if you want to broach any controversial topic, I'm not afraid to address it.

I'm confused. Isn't this pretty much what he said happened (and exactly how the interview went)?

WATYF

Anonymous David Pakman's Brain May 01, 2015 11:52 AM  

Hey! Not fair! That was supposed to be off the record!

Anonymous mistaben May 01, 2015 11:53 AM  

We're all just lucky Pakman didn't bring up the Dead Horse.

*twitch*

Anonymous Feh May 01, 2015 11:53 AM  

I read a recent piece on Roosh's site in which he described being ambushed on a show about fat shaming (basically, they brought a horde of fatties onto the show to scream at him).

Makes me wonder why anyone who is not an SJW ever agrees to appear in the MSM. You know they're going to do you in the ass... with dishonesty, without lubricant, without reach-around.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 01, 2015 11:54 AM  

They disqualify themselves and one day this will be openly stated, I pray for that day

Anonymous BGS May 01, 2015 11:55 AM  

I didn't expect to be asked about laying cement shingles on rooftops in an American Air Force base in Japan either.

When you laid the shingles did you have affirmative consent or was it marital rape?

Blogger Vox May 01, 2015 11:57 AM  


I'm confused. Isn't this pretty much what he said happened (and exactly how the interview went)?


How is "my work" a) a defunct op/ed column, or b) things that other people wrote about my column? Did we discuss anything I actually do these days?

And how are the criminal statutes of the 50 United States my work or views that inform my game development?

Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 11:59 AM  

"David Pakman ‏@dpakman
How could there be transcript of something that happened before interview? Did @voxday secretly write it down by hand?"

lololol Is this guy for real?


He must have forgotten rule 3 of my "8 rules for dealing with bureaucracy" - Record EVERYTHING

http://rulethewasteland.com/?p=419

Blogger kh123 May 01, 2015 11:59 AM  

"That's what everyone says when they show their ass."

Translation: When they're not afraid to answer Left-field questions (later confirmed as disingenuous) with upfront answers on the spot, rather than pondering at that moment the definition of "is".

Anonymous Alexander, Minion #0010 May 01, 2015 11:59 AM  

I could be wrong, but I believe the last time we were treated to Roman Numerals was the SFWA.

Minions, popcorn shareholders, rejoice!

Anonymous Porky May 01, 2015 12:00 PM  

"and other stuff you've done too"

That phrase is all the hamster food Pakman needed.

Blogger szook May 01, 2015 12:01 PM  

Slow clap......well done sir, you deserve another of those little umbrella drinks you so crave.

Blogger JAU May 01, 2015 12:03 PM  

I, for one, still believe that Yammamoto was hours away from launching an invasion of the West Coast...

Anonymous mistaben May 01, 2015 12:04 PM  

Oh crap.

Blogger Vox May 01, 2015 12:04 PM  

That phrase is all the hamster food Pakman needed.

Even that doesn't cover him, though. I didn't do the headlines for my WND or UPS columns.

Blogger Jassi May 01, 2015 12:04 PM  

"That's fine...if you want to....I'm not afraid to"

If these terms are considered eagerness, what sort of subtlety might be considered consent to hug?

Blogger Guitar Man May 01, 2015 12:08 PM  

This is only part 1. Nice. Because I'm impatient, I hope you release the rest of them in a timely manner.

Blogger Noah B May 01, 2015 12:09 PM  

"But then I plan on talking to you more generally about your work and other stuff you've done too."

These being the key weasel words. An ambush was exactly what Pakman had in mind.

Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 12:09 PM  

Vox, I think you should have called him on it during the interview, and not doing so until afterward weakens your position here a little bit.

Blogger Russell May 01, 2015 12:10 PM  

"Who are you?"

Mike's been a GG ally for months now. Since last year, if I recall correctly.

All that does is make it sound even more like a pre-meditated hit piece, set up under false pretenses with weasel words should Pakman get called out for it.

"But I told mean ol' Vox we would be talking about GG and other stuff, too!"

> Vox publishes transcript to much larger audience that Pakman's YouTube channel.

Tactician, meet Strategist.

Blogger Daniel May 01, 2015 12:10 PM  

Isn't this pretty much what he said happened (and exactly how the interview went)?

No. WATYF. Not even close. Did you miss the interview? I watched it and I merely assumed that Pakman had no idea what GamerGate was and did not know what he was doing. It was completely disorganized and only because of Vox's polite willingness to spare the video from being boring and unwatchable did it remotely address any content of interest.

I'm an amateur interviewer: I've done maybe 20 in my lifetime for publication or corporate things. I would never dream of potheading my way through an interview like this "pro" did. If he had any sense, he would have just quietly killed it before broadcast. It wasn't Stephen Glass bad, but this sort of approach isn't exactly a resume-builder.

It'd be like a construction crew deciding it would be fun to get the crane to do wheelies. They might get lucky and survive the first few attempts without harming their job prospects or breaking their necks...but it isn't a professional habit you want to get into the practice of doing.

Blogger Noah B May 01, 2015 12:10 PM  

Basically, you expected a slight degree of integrity that simply isn't there.

Blogger Matt May 01, 2015 12:11 PM  

You really shingled Aur Force Base roof in Japan?

Anonymous Crude May 01, 2015 12:12 PM  

I wonder if Pak's going to think this was worth it at the end. If Vox is dumping information on how he operates, that could make interviews a lot harder for him to secure to begin with.

Blogger WATYF May 01, 2015 12:14 PM  

How is "my work" a) a defunct op/ed column, or b) things that other people wrote about my column? Did we discuss anything I actually do these days?

Would "your past work" have been better? Would you still have the same complaints if he had added that qualifier?

I don't doubt that he was engaging in gotcha journalism. I just don't see how his transcript statement contradicts what he said on twitter or even how the interview went (to any extent beyond nitpicking). It's more of a, "Well, I thought you meant this when you actually meant that" situation.

WATYF

Anonymous Menelaus May 01, 2015 12:18 PM  

While you were roofying in Japan, did you see any evidence that would suggest a Japanese invasion of the US west coast during WW2 would have succeeded? Please elucidate and show how gamergate was a direct result of your analysis.

Blogger rcocean May 01, 2015 12:18 PM  

Yeah, I guess that fact that he focused on old Vox Day columns that no one can remember very well - even you - kinda indicates premeditation.

Blogger Daniel May 01, 2015 12:19 PM  

No, WAYTF, not in the least. "your past work history AND the past work history of editors you may or may not be familiar with AND a number of issues UNrelated to Gamergate and of zero relevance to the subject of the interview" would have been better.

Have you ever conducted an interview?

Blogger Markku May 01, 2015 12:22 PM  

Would "your past work" have been better? Would you still have the same complaints if he had added that qualifier?

Better, yes. Good, no.

The honest way of describing this - and there was no reason to not describe this except to make Vox look unprepared - would have been "discuss some of your controversial statements".

Blogger rcocean May 01, 2015 12:22 PM  

Maybe he wanted a more contentious interview with Vox storming off shouting "this has nothing to do with gamer gate!" - a certain amount of off-topic discussion is expected, but this interview had little to do with gamer gate. In any case, I'll just go back to ignoring the guy - which I've been doing for forever.

Blogger rcocean May 01, 2015 12:23 PM  

"Have you ever conducted an interview?"

You mean like the podcast interviews referenced on this site?

Anonymous Feh May 01, 2015 12:24 PM  

"Anything you ever said, ever" would be a more honest way of putting it.

Blogger Vox May 01, 2015 12:24 PM  

Would "your past work" have been better? Would you still have the same complaints if he had added that qualifier?

Slightly better, since I would have known he had an ambush in mind. But I still wouldn't have had any way to prepare for whatever topic he cherry-picked out of 500+ columns and 15,000+ blog posts. You don't seem to understand that an interview is supposed to be about something relevant and current, not anything that has ever happened in the person's life. What he did was ludicrously amateurish.

I'm generally considered to be a pretty good interviewer. Notice how all of my interviews are directly about the topic advertised and don't stray very far from it. Nor do they resemble prosecutions.

Blogger WATYF May 01, 2015 12:24 PM  

No. WATYF. Not even close.

Are you sure...?

Twitter: "thing is that before interview started @voxday eagerly encouraged asking about his "controversial" statements"

Transcript: "Vox Day: That's fine, and if you want to broach any controversial topic, I'm not afraid to address it."

Sounds pretty close to me.

As for the interview, it started with Gamergate (for, like, two seconds) and then went on to almost any topic imaginable so long as it was controversial and tangential to something Vox wrote online in the past.

From the transcript: "The kind of, like, entry door to our conversation will be #GamerGate, since that's kind of like where your name surfaced to us. But then I plan on talking to you more generally about your work and other stuff you've done too."

Again, that's pretty close.

"more generally" (i.e. broadly and on a number of topics) "about your work" (i.e. any work that he is doing or has done) "and other stuff you've done too" (i.e. even more broadly and generally about pretty much anything Vox has been involved in).

I'm failing to see how the transcript statement is damning in any way.

Do I think the interview was intellectually honest and professional? No. Do I think his transcript statement was an any way appreciably different from what happened (and what he said on twitter)? Also no.

WATYF

Blogger Bro. Longtail May 01, 2015 12:29 PM  

I didn't think that the interview was particularly challenging. I am a criminal lawyer and have seen (and hopefully conducted) much harsher cross-examinations. However, perhaps the level of harshness appears lower simply because of how well Theodore handled unexpected questions being thrown at him. I never thought he was in trouble, or a 'bad witness'. I thought he handled himself rather well and the interviewer's bitchiness came out at the end when asking obviously fallacious questions about Sandy Hook and what 'signs' mean.

I like that you're calling the interviewer out on his tactics and dishonesty, while at the same time affirming that you did well despite those tactics and dishonesty.

Blogger Vox May 01, 2015 12:29 PM  

I'm failing to see how the transcript statement is damning in any way.

I hope you are playing stupid. But if you're going to play stupid, I'll treat you as if you are stupid. There is a way things are done and there is a way things are not done. The reason media people ask you for interviews is BECAUSE YOU ARE IN THE FUCKING NEWS. So, have I been in the news lately, WATYF?

Blogger Russell May 01, 2015 12:30 PM  

@WATYF

1. "I'd love to discuss your views on gamergate and just more broadly how you general views inform your views on gamergate and the gaming industry."

So Pakman's already stated that GG is the focus and how Vox's general views affect his take on GG and the general gaming industry. That's the foundational framework. That's the stated intent of the interview, that's what Vox agreed to engage in.

2. "One line intro: Vox Day is the Lead Editor of Castalia House, a professional game designer who supports GamerGate, and a 2015 Hugo Award finalist in the Best Editor category."

That's what the show is supposed to be about. GG, Hugo, Editor, Games. Not old columns from who knows when about topics not in the media spotlight.

Now let's look at 'eager'

Pakman: "So what I'm thinking is that I've just been reading a ton of your stuff and doing research and all that. The kind of, like, entry door to our conversation will be #GamerGate, since that's kind of like where your name surfaced to us. But then I plan on talking to you more generally about your work and other stuff you've done too."

Vox: "That's fine, and if you want to broach any controversial topic, I'm not afraid to address it."

How can you construe being willing to being eager takes a leap I can't seem to do. And note, GG is mentioned again, Pakman doesn't clarify what he's been reading, all this is still couched in GG terms and subject matter.

I can't see this but being anything else than a hit piece designed to make Vox look like the big villain, another tell is the slipped out "Us", no where else does Pakman indicate he's got a team working with him. GG is what, seven months into it and just now "we" are hearing about Vox? Just as the Hugo controversy is heating up to new levels of hilarity and shrilling SJWs? Doubtful.

Another tell was Pakman's mumbling about agreeing with one of Vox's positions. It was supposed to be an interview, right? That hamfisted line of questioning only highlights that there was a degree of deception on the outset.

I'm getting popcorn.

Blogger Vox May 01, 2015 12:31 PM  

I like that you're calling the interviewer out on his tactics and dishonesty, while at the same time affirming that you did well despite those tactics and dishonesty.

I don't think I did well, actually. I could have, and should have, done a lot better. But I was leaving for a soccer game with our local rivals immediately afterwards and I had that on my mind.

We won 3-0, by the way. Although I fucked up not one, but two good chances.

Blogger Cataline Sergius May 01, 2015 12:32 PM  

The interview is interesting to watch. There were clearly places that he had ambushes in detail setup.

Vox as Native American. He snatched at it greedily. The same for Vox's anecdote about the baby and vaccine.

He clearly knew about those stories and was prepared for them.

There were also places where he clearly stumbled a bit because he threw out some bait that Vox didn't bite on.

Paraphrasing here so bear with me.

Chomp-chomp: All fifties states have laws against domestic sexual violence.

Vox: Uh...Okay.

Chomp-chomp: Ur...um....What do you mean; okay?


Clearly at just a bit at a lose there.

Blogger Daniel May 01, 2015 12:33 PM  

WATYF, have you ever conducted an interview?

Blogger WATYF May 01, 2015 12:34 PM  

The honest way of describing this - and there was no reason to not describe this except to make Vox look unprepared - would have been "discuss some of your controversial statements".

Sure, even clearer. So this guy is guilty of..... some but not enough adjectives?

Of course, Vox volunteered himself for discussion of controversial statements, so it's not like he can say he would have objected to doing so if in fact that's what Pak meant by "your work and stuff you've done".

WATYF

Blogger Markku May 01, 2015 12:37 PM  

You are so fucking dishonest, WATYF.

"Broach controversial topics" doesn't mean spend 90% of the time discussing some decade old statements.

Blogger Douglas Wardell May 01, 2015 12:37 PM  

It all would have been in bounds if he'd sent Vox a list of articles he was interested in addressing so that Vox could prepare. Failing that, he could have mentioned that he'd like to bring up some random, controversial articles which Vox wrote a long time ago without providing specifics and Vox could have either said ok, asked for more info or declined.

The pre-interview quote was not sufficient. It was definitely an ambush. I'm surprised Vox is giving him this much exposure though.

Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 12:37 PM  

Vox, I agree that "there is a way things are done" but that was an assumption on your part, that he would be following normal interview decorum. There is obviously no reason other than decency and integrity that he would have to adhere to that decorum.

I think what WATYF and others are confused about is that after all you have experienced and written about the SJWs, to say you were caught off guard because he was disingenuous and didn't follow traditional etiquette decorum, seems out of character for you.

After all, "SJWs always lie" is like your tagline.

Again, I think you should have called him on it during the interview.

Blogger Daniel May 01, 2015 12:38 PM  

He did do well despite the dishonesty, but you clearly have no clue about the "host/guest" relationship. Vox played within his duties as a guest, and never acted as anything but the guest.

But when the host whips it out and starts whizzing on the cupcakes, it is unlikely to be named the Event of the Season. Even if he accidentally waters his fern in the process and then hits an outlet, that doesn't count as a landscaping and a lightshow, either.

Blogger Tank May 01, 2015 12:38 PM  

VD comes off like a whining titty baby.

You were surprised by questions you weren't prepared for, and did not handle it that well.

Move on.

Whatever this is, it's not Alpha.

Blogger Vox May 01, 2015 12:38 PM  

So this guy is guilty of..... some but not enough adjectives?

No, he is guilty of lying, of deceiving, of false attribution, and of lacking journalistic integrity.

Anonymous Steve May 01, 2015 12:38 PM  

I watched the entire interview. It was interesting, for a number of reasons:

* Pakman wasn't much interested in talking about GamerGate or gaming. He barely touched on it and it felt phoned in when he did.

* He mentioned the variation of average intelligence between races as if it was a crazy, out-there flat-earth theory, but seemed afraid to actually challenge it. How passive aggressive.

* Pakman was very interested in trying to trip up Vox with gotcha moments.

* Not sure if Pakman isn't very bright, or just intentionally not getting the point, but he was either or both at several points. Rather annoying for the viewer.

* Pakman isn't very good at interviewing. His technique was to throw out a lot of potentially contentious stuff he found by googling your name, and hope you'd say something outrageous. It was interview by scattershot, rather than scalpel. He had no idea how to drill down on the detail by asking relevant follow-up questions. The bit where he waffled on about his legal theories was just embarrassing. I don't think he knows what "common law" is.

* Pakman obviously wants to be on TV, and he certainly looks the part. His visual presentation is excellent and he is comfortable on camera. He's let down by being less articulate than your average beauty contestant, and for that reason I doubt he'll ever be drafted into the big leagues.

Blogger James Dixon May 01, 2015 12:38 PM  

> Yeah, I guess that fact that he focused on old Vox Day columns that no one can remember very well - even you - kinda indicates premeditation.

Since it's extremely unlikely he read the columns when they came out and would have to have researched them, yes.

Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 12:40 PM  

*traditional interview etiquette

not etiquette decorum

Blogger Markku May 01, 2015 12:40 PM  

to say you were caught off guard because he was disingenuous and didn't follow traditional etiquette decorum

This is exactly the point. To identify him as someone hostile and disingenuous, so that #GamerGate knows it, and blow his cover as a neutral observer.

It's not like he did anything illegal, or even anything that deserves a revenge. He just showed his true colors, and now it should be made known to everyone on our side.

Blogger Vox May 01, 2015 12:41 PM  

I think what WATYF and others are confused about is that after all you have experienced and written about the SJWs, to say you were caught off guard because he was disingenuous and didn't follow traditional etiquette decorum, seems out of character for you.

I had never heard of the guy before he tweeted me. I have done over 60 interviews from a wide variety of journalists and I have NEVER been ambushed completely off-topic like that. Even hard-core left journalists will tell you ahead of time that they intend to discuss X column, usually within 2-3 days of it being published.

Move on.

You're kidding, right? You must be new here.

Whatever this is, it's not Alpha.

I'm not Alpha.

Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 12:44 PM  

"* Pakman isn't very good at interviewing. His technique was to throw out a lot of potentially contentious stuff he found by googling your name, and hope you'd say something outrageous. It was interview by scattershot, rather than scalpel. "

Yeah it was a strange interview to say the least.

Anonymous DeepThought May 01, 2015 12:44 PM  

@WATYF

You are ignoring Vox's answer's. You than reiterate your position again using different wording and continue with your attack. Why even bother pretending your a midwit since you have have no ability to read and understand. Of course, I maybe wrong, you may not even ave bothered to read Vox's replys and just went headlong into your attack.

Morons rejoice! You have found your king. All Hail WATYF!

Blogger Russell May 01, 2015 12:45 PM  

@Cataline Sergius

Haha, yes. Vox blinks a few times and knocks the wind out of Pakman's sails with a dismissal.

It wasn't the answer Pakman expected, or wanted. He wanted Vox to dig in his heels and hopefully say something stupid.

Blogger bob k. mando May 01, 2015 12:46 PM  

and, as i've said before, record EVERYTHING when you're interacting with known or even potential SJWs. 60 minutes has been pulling crap like this for decades.

Anonymous Crude May 01, 2015 12:46 PM  

I admit, I was surprised Vox got caught offguard too. But hey, shit happens. The only reason I knew about Pakman was looking at his twitter after the Wu debacle, and it was just a big stream of the most angsty Cult of Gnu atheist shit.

Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 12:47 PM  

"I had never heard of the guy before he tweeted me. I have done over 60 interviews from a wide variety of journalists and I have NEVER been ambushed completely off-topic like that. Even hard-core left journalists will tell you ahead of time that they intend to discuss X column, usually within 2-3 days of it being published."

It was a bush-league attempt at a hit piece, no doubt.

The thing is, not only did you not get tripped up too badly, you handled it SO well that his argument that you knew what the plan was could actually convince people who don't know you and haven't seen you in action, and know how unflappable you are.

That's why I think it would have been best to call him out on it in the interview.

Blogger Daniel May 01, 2015 12:50 PM  

I think the mistake you are making Double E is the same one that John Ringo makes when thinking "SJB" is a better term than "SJW" - that this will be won at the semantic level, or even that semantics are relevant.

What you are missing is that while it is true that Vox could have "performed" better, it wouldn't change the importance of the transcript above, or the critique of Pakman. It is irrelevant to his failure as a journalist. The old story of "guest suffers hit job, hit job succeeds" is over. This is a new story "guest suspects hit job, suffers hit job...and hits the fucker back twice as hard" is the new one.

Stop complaining that counterpuncher took a shot to the glove: yes, that used to be the end of the fight (and before that it was over because the guest took a shot to the head, never knowing it was a fight to begin with), but not anymore. It is just the start.

Pakman should have known what Vox did to Me-So, and all that is coming next is fair game.

He fucked up. He trusted Vox to play the old game of "Guest or Patsie?"

But no, Pakman had to go an open up that dusty occult box on the shelf labeled "Truth or Die."

Waka waka indeed.

Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 12:51 PM  

"I admit, I was surprised Vox got caught offguard too. But hey, shit happens. The only reason I knew about Pakman was looking at his twitter after the Wu debacle, and it was just a big stream of the most angsty Cult of Gnu atheist shit."

The thing is, i'm sure Vox was ready to get attacked - he was simply prepared to get attacked about gamergate.

And Vox, I will say that while not calling him out during the interview was probably a mistake, recording the pre-interview does show that you expected there might be some kind of shenanigans.

Blogger bob k. mando May 01, 2015 12:52 PM  

oh, it also wouldn't be surprising if Pakman decides to accuse Vox of 'making this all up'.

Vox asserts x was stated pre-interview.

Pakman denies this was the way the convo went.

Vox provides transcript.

Pakman says that Vox is making it all up but you're just going to have to take David's word for it because he "wasn't recording the pre-interview".

Vox rebuts by ...

*wink*

Blogger Markku May 01, 2015 12:53 PM  

I think the mistake you are making Double E is the same one that John Ringo makes when thinking "SJB" is a better term than "SJW" - that this will be won at the semantic level, or even that semantics are relevant.

Exactly. SJW "others" them in the eyes of the normal person, and the effect is made even more powerful when they embrace the label.

The point is not to - at that point - say anything particularly negative about them. Just that they are at the fringe, and when they express their views, they should not be mistaken for the views of the normal person.

Anonymous Too-Soon-ami May 01, 2015 12:53 PM  

"How could there be transcript of something that happened before I pressed 'Record'?"

Blogger JAY WILL May 01, 2015 12:54 PM  

Why are you wasting your time addressing the WATYF freak? Pakman is a clickbait journalist. All that matters is increased subscription, increased money. Outrage sells, see all online media. Calling him out on his tactics only works if it hurts his bottom line. It may actually increase his bottom line if it means people "click" more, even out of hate/dislike/disagreement.

Set up a reasonable moderate media site that has an interest in objectively understanding and investigating the world around you. It will fail, you will fail. If you want the money "race" sells, "rape" sells. Evil right winger sells. Logic is boring, rationality is boring reason is boring, hate is fun, anger is fun etc etc.

Polarize to your hearts extent, invite the opposing sides in both haters and lovers, then watch the dollars roll in, pour yourself a glass of bubbly and enjoy!

Blogger Vox May 01, 2015 12:56 PM  

That's why I think it would have been best to call him out on it in the interview.

Probably. But there is one thing that I think people are missing. I don't care. You know me. If he'd back down, admit that he laid a stupid trap, and apologize, I'd cheerfully move on. Sans that, well, here we go again....

I frankly find it astonishing at this point that people who disagree with me don't simply leave me alone to do what I do in peace. Even Amanda Marcotte finally managed to figure that out. Like I told Pakman himself in an email, if he'd emailed me and said: "I want to interview you about marital rape, race and IQ, and the Denver shootings", it would have puzzled me, but I would have said, "sure, why not?"

He was nearly as ignorant of me as I was of him. There was no need for the stupid ambush in the first place.

And Vox, I will say that while not calling him out during the interview was probably a mistake, recording the pre-interview does show that you expected there might be some kind of shenanigans.

That's just habit. I didn't give the matter a moment's thought.

Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 12:57 PM  

"I think the mistake you are making Double E is the same one that John Ringo makes when thinking "SJB" is a better term than "SJW" - that this will be won at the semantic level, or even that semantics are relevant."

I don't think so at all, I am just pointing out why some are perceiving it the way they are.

"What you are missing is that while it is true that Vox could have "performed" better, it wouldn't change the importance of the transcript above, or the critique of Pakman. It is irrelevant to his failure as a journalist."

I'm not missing that, I am in complete agreement with Vox about this issue. Pakman was obviously disingenuous and proctored a bad interview, regardless of how well Vox handled it.



Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 12:58 PM  

how do you bold text in the comments, can i use a simple HTML tag?

Blogger Markku May 01, 2015 12:58 PM  

Why are you wasting your time addressing the WATYF freak?

He is one of the Original Gangsters here, he just has been quiet for a while

Anonymous ? May 01, 2015 12:59 PM  

"No, he is guilty of lying, of deceiving, of false attribution, and of lacking journalistic integrity."

And the guy who's tagline is "SJWs always lie" didn't see it coming?

Oops.

Blogger Rigel Kent May 01, 2015 12:59 PM  

Here's my take on it, if Pakman had said "I want to interview you about you WND columns, marital rape, etc." that would be fair game. Even if he'd just said he wanted an interview without giving specifics, that would still be fair game. What makes what happened BS is that he played bait and switch.

That means he intentionally wanted to catch you off guard so he could get a gotcha moment. Fine. Now everyone that's paying attention knows what kind of person he is and can be on the look out for any games he tries to play in the future.

And if anybody is actually interested in those old columns and posts of yours, they can always go back and read them for themselves.

Anonymous DeepThought May 01, 2015 12:59 PM  

@ Vox

I know you enjoy going on these shows but these shows are designed to destroy conservatives and not find out what you think.

I just saw Bloomberg News attacking Ted Cruz's Hispanic heritage. Not just once but twice they attacked his heritage by trying to put doubt in people's minds about Ted Cruz's heritage. As a first generation America, this angered me to no end. Who the hell are liberal to tell me what Ted Cruz thinks?

Even though Ted Cruz's Granparents spoke no English and his parents were Cuban, he was attacked by a white guy. Liberals have no shame and morals. To expect honesty from them is like the scorpion and frog fable. No matter how much we wish for them to be honest, they can never change.

As Rush Limbaugh says, conservatives would boycott the liberal media.

Blogger D. Lane May 01, 2015 12:59 PM  

Rule 1: Always keep a record.

Rule 2: Always ask for clarifications.

From what I've gathered (skimmed the Twitter discussion and read this post), Packman was at best incompetent with regard to the interview, and unprofessional with the current situation. He's attempting to claim innocence by technicality, when, in reality, he either (a) ran a setup or (b) performed incredibly sloppy interview prep:

Packman: The kind of, like, entry door to our conversation will be #GamerGate, since that's kind of like where your name surfaced to us. But then I plan on talking to you more generally about your work and other stuff you've done too.

Vox:That's fine, and if you want to broach any controversial topic, I'm not afraid to address it.

Packman: Okay, sounds good.


Most people would rationally conclude from this that Vox holds some controversial view on video games and/or literature, as Vox is a game designer and author. Technically speaking, the language does not exclude entirely unrelated topics. But there is no more reason to expect Packman to question his views on race or marital rape than there is to expect Packman to probe Vox on his views concerning the cultural impact of Cheerios in New Zealand.

Packman's mistake is being wholly unprofessional with regard to the "backlash." He may have simply been sloppy. He may have even been deliberately misleading. Whatever the case, the professional thing to do is to admit to dropping the ball. Doubling down only further damages his credibility.

Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 1:02 PM  

I frankly find it astonishing at this point that people who disagree with me don't simply leave me alone to do what I do in peace. Even Amanda Marcotte finally managed to figure that out. Like I told Pakman himself in an email, if he'd emailed me and said: "I want to interview you about marital rape, race and IQ, and the Denver shootings", it would have puzzled me, but I would have said, "sure, why not?

Lol yeah. You could tell the reason he jumped around so many topics is he only had like one or two questions on each one. He expected you to implode into rage and nonsense after he simply broached the topics, and when you didn't and answered calmly and rationally he had to just bring up another controversial topic and start over.

Blogger Russell May 01, 2015 1:02 PM  

"how do you bold text in the comments, can i use a simple HTML tag?"
Yes

Anonymous Stilicho May 01, 2015 1:04 PM  

I am a criminal lawyer and have seen (and hopefully conducted) much harsher cross-examinations.

I have conducted hundreds of depositions, direct examinations, and cross-examinations as a civil attorney where there is even more latitude in the scope of the questioning, and I certainly have deliberately tried to catch witnesses off guard as a way of obtaining information. However, the concept of relevance limits how far afield one can go in such situations both because some areas of questioning a) have so little to do with the subject matter at hand and b) to prevent an unfair ambush.

Vox's mistake was to think that this interview would follow a similar pattern since his previous interviews generally did so. This is also indicative of Vox's personality since he is straightforward and honest about his disagreements with people and idea and he, even if subconsciously, might be predisposed to judge others by his own metrics. The SJW, however, would see nothing wrong with the interviewing tactics displayed by Pakman since the SJW operates from a baseline position of dishonesty and deceit and, therefore, assumes that everyone else does as well...so any dishonest or deceitful tactics are justified because the SJW "knows" that the opponent would act in the same manner that the SJW himself prefers.

Anonymous AlteredFate May 01, 2015 1:06 PM  

David Pakman is a hack and did a complete hatchet job as an interviewer. Vox obviously can't come prepared to discuss everything under the sun, and interviews are not suppose to sound like impromptu conversations.

Whatever happens the entertainment value of this blog is woefully below market value.

Anonymous Asatru Heathen May 01, 2015 1:07 PM  

WATYF

My wife is a writer, and from time to time she's interviewed people for the articles she writes.

It's standard practice to let people know, in reasonable detail, what you are planning to discuss. This is because the purpose of an interview (ideally) is to find out what someone's informed views on a particular subject are. And because we don't all have perfect recall, that means allowing them to refresh their memory of the subject to be discussed, _especially_ if it was some time ago.

The fact that Pakman didn't do this just demonstrates that, whatever his goals were, Vox's informed opinion was not one of them.

Anonymous Stilicho May 01, 2015 1:08 PM  

A tactic that is often effective in dealing with "ambush" questions is to question the interviewer in turn along the lines of "what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?" or similar questions to get the interviewer to expose his agenda in greater detail.

Blogger Salt May 01, 2015 1:11 PM  

Is David Pakman a Journalistic Fraud?

David Pakman runs a broadcast radio and TV show, and also hosts a YouTube news and commentary site. Known for being hard-hitting, Pakman thoroughly researches his guests. Before a guest appears on his program, Pakman solicits Twitter for feedback, essentially crowdsourcing his research. Pakman is so thorough that he recently had a guest on to talk about #GamerGate. Pakman confronted this guest with blog posts from over 10 years ago!

Some light reading, for the lulz.

Anonymous Steve May 01, 2015 1:16 PM  

Double E - Yeah it was a strange interview to say the least.

Yarp. Quite a wild and bumpy ride over the vastly different terrains of Gamergate, race, intelligence, rape, the Batman massacre, and vaccines.

I've never seen anything like it.

Anonymous Curtis May 01, 2015 1:24 PM  

He wasn't interested in doing a interview. He was interested in showing Vox up. Collecting points in gotcha for future reference. To, in an attempt, muddle the air with future, and the forever, "But, but, but, didn't you say?" To fill their quivers with arrows.

Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 1:26 PM  

Yarp. Quite a wild and bumpy ride over the vastly different terrains of Gamergate, race, intelligence, rape, the Batman massacre, and vaccines.

I've never seen anything like it.


It became apparent pretty quickly that his point was not to actually discuss any individual topic, that's why he didn't stay on them very long and jumped around.

He was just trying to find one that would 'stick' and 'expose' Vox for the badthinker he knew him to be from his 'thorough research" .

OpenID pancakeloach May 01, 2015 1:28 PM  

I expected Pakman to ask about Vox's controversial statements on ideas that result in SJW accusations of racism or misogyny even before watching the interview - since those epithets are thrown around in the GG/Hugo context. Vaccines and false flags are incredibly far off-topic as well as totally irrelevant to any of the current issues "in the news." And I was expecting Pakman to actually ask about Vox's current work, in game design, publishing, and writing the next Selenoth novel at some point.

Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 1:31 PM  

Yarp. Quite a wild and bumpy ride over the vastly different terrains of Gamergate, race, intelligence, rape, the Batman massacre, and vaccines.

I've never seen anything like it.


It became apparent pretty quickly that his point was not to actually discuss any individual topic, that's why he didn't stay on them very long and jumped around.

He was just trying to find one that would 'stick' and 'expose' Vox for the badthinker he knew him to be from his 'thorough research" .

OpenID cailcorishev May 01, 2015 1:35 PM  

Do I think the interview was intellectually honest and professional? No. Do I think his transcript statement was an any way appreciably different from what happened (and what he said on twitter)? Also no.

So you find him guilty of dishonesty and unprofessionalism, but not guilty of entrapment by reason of technicality. Then why defend him on that point? Just to practice your pedantry skills?

Blogger Bro. Longtail May 01, 2015 1:37 PM  

"I don't think I did well, actually. I could have, and should have, done a lot better. But I was leaving for a soccer game with our local rivals immediately afterwards and I had that on my mind."

Yes, I could have expanded on that by saying, "I thought you did well, given that you were not expecting the questions that were being asked. Plus, I thought you did well, given your relative lack of experience in video media." A few posts ago, I graded you with a 'B'. Certainly not an 'A' but certainly not a disaster either.

Some people are grading you purely on your answers. I can understand that - the bitterness of life is that only results 'matter'. However, recall that witnesses in a trial are always coached by their lawyers prior to their appearance. I don't think it's fair to grade you by that metric since you were not prepped and were lied to regarding the questions you were going to be asked. It's like appearing in court expecting to be asked about the time you allegedly robbed a liquor store, only to find them asking questions that accuse you of garrotting your neighbour's dog.

If you'd been prepped and knew exactly what you were going to be asked about, I would give you a 'C-'. But because you were misled yet still handled yourself, I give you a 'B'. Obviously, this is entirely subjective, but I think you did better than you give yourself credit, while of course, making allowance for the fact that we can always do better.

Bottom line, Theodore, is that I still came away being proud of you. Not that that matters to you, but it matters to me, because I place a lot of stock in you and your opinions. I feel you've earned it.

Blogger Guitar Man May 01, 2015 1:38 PM  

Someone else mentioned it earlier, but this could serve to ruin Pakman's career in journalism (his fleeting Youtube career at that). Who in their right mind is going to agree to be interviewed by him when he has proven himself to be nothing more than a sensationalist hack that is set out on ambushing the people he interviews? He's a clickbait artist, and I guess that'll gather some hits on his channel, but that can only run for so long before it gets old.

Blogger Bro. Longtail May 01, 2015 1:45 PM  

"I have conducted hundreds of depositions, direct examinations, and cross-examinations as a civil attorney where there is even more latitude in the scope of the questioning, and I certainly have deliberately tried to catch witnesses off guard as a way of obtaining information. However, the concept of relevance limits how far afield one can go in such situations both because some areas of questioning a) have so little to do with the subject matter at hand and b) to prevent an unfair ambush."

Stilicho, I can find no fault in what you said here, or in the (unquoted) paragraph that followed it. I would only offer that I think Vox's 'mistake' is simply one to chalk up to a learning experience, rather than an actual fault. At worst, it seems that Vox was perhaps a bit naive (never something I would normal associate with Theodore) for thinking that his interviewer was a) not an opponent to be defeated and b) that this opponent would abide by a Christian sense of fair play.

As such, it took him awhile to realise that he had walked into hostile territory. For a guy who thrives on conflict, Theodore was slightly caught out, having been led to believe that this was a friendly interview.

That's just my take on it.

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 01, 2015 1:46 PM  

Daniel-But when the host whips it out and starts whizzing on the cupcakes, it is unlikely to be named the Event of the Season. Even if he accidentally waters his fern in the process and then hits an outlet, that doesn't count as a landscaping and a lightshow, either.

I was not going to admit to going to a party at PAKMANs house. Where you the red headed Danny at the party?

Anonymous Forrest Bishop May 01, 2015 1:46 PM  

A little research on Pakman-
He puts out an awful lot of videos, like EIGHT per day the past three days!
https://www.youtube.com/user/MidweekPolitics/videos

He works pretty hard at it and can't be making much, if any, money. Might be a funding source in the background.
The average views are a few thousand each (~4,000 to guess at the mean) and that does not seem to increase over time. That's about garage-band level on youtube.
The Vox Day interview sticks out like a spike, at 21,000.
But he has 140,000 subscribers? Huh? Aren't the number of subscribers usually a fraction of the viewer numbers? Maybe these are purchased subscribers used to fluff up the profile?

The headlines he uses are standard-issue, SWJ smear tactics, similar to tabloids, so the VD interview wasn't anything unusual in that respect.
The confrontational, argumentative, ambush style is also standard; it's part of his technique.
The subjects he picks are mostly SWJ hobby horses, which a few breaking-news and oddball items. There are several other #gamergate interviews.

Blogger Noah B May 01, 2015 2:00 PM  

The SJW, however, would see nothing wrong with the interviewing tactics displayed by Pakman since the SJW operates from a baseline position of dishonesty and deceit and, therefore, assumes that everyone else does as well...so any dishonest or deceitful tactics are justified because the SJW "knows" that the opponent would act in the same manner that the SJW himself prefers.

SJWs see nothing wrong with using these tactics against their enemies. I feel absolutely confident that if you used similar tactics against them, they would be outraged. Just like Hugo bloc voting was perfectly fine until we did it.

Blogger D. Lane May 01, 2015 2:00 PM  

Pakman's monthly figures (as estimated by Social Blade)

When run against the numbers SB reports for more prominent YouTube channels, Packman is anywhere between 1/10th and less than 1/20th as successful. He appears to be pulling enough views to make it profitable, but certainly not enough to take outside backing out of the question.

Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 2:08 PM  

He works pretty hard at it and can't be making much, if any, money. Might be a funding source in the background.


His channel shows a total of 90 million views since 2009. My main channel has received 5 million in the same time frame which has brought me over $20,000 in ad revenue. Assuming his videos are performing as well as mine, that's a potential $360,000 over that time frame, not counting any additional revenue sources.


The Vox Day interview sticks out like a spike, at 21,000.
But he has 140,000 subscribers? Huh? Aren't the number of subscribers usually a fraction of the viewer numbers? Maybe these are purchased subscribers used to fluff up the profile?


There isn't a way I know of to buy youtube subscribers, and it wouldn't help you if there was. It is very typical for the average video to receive only a fraction of your subscribers in view count.

Blogger Noah B May 01, 2015 2:11 PM  

Vox, certainly the interview could have been handled better, but I don't think it went badly and overall it's much better that you did it than if you had declined.

Pakman turned what was offered as an interview into a debate, and he lied. His lack of honesty is becoming much more widely known as a result of this, and he is showing himself to be a moron. That vastly outweighs any minor tactical mistakes you may have made.

Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 2:13 PM  

Pakman turned what was offered as an interview into a debate, and he lied.

Bingo. This is the key point that needs to me made and has been glossed over so far.

Anonymous Sevron May 01, 2015 2:13 PM  

So he makes somewhere between $10k and $160k a year? What kind of worthless bullsht estimate is that? 99% of Americans fall in that range.

Anonymous Curious but not an SJW May 01, 2015 2:13 PM  

I like that fact that there might be a part II.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop May 01, 2015 2:18 PM  

D. Lane- thanks for that Social Blade link!! My analysis above is partly misleading. Average views are more like 9,298 per video, but he makes up for that in the number of videos. Average views per day is more like 100,000, spread across 9,675 videos (!).

Blogger Vox May 01, 2015 2:19 PM  

Puff ain't here no more. He is an ex-Puff.

Anonymous Geoff May 01, 2015 2:20 PM  

"Pakman turned what was offered as an interview into a debate, and he lied."

I thought it was more a cross-examination than a debate, but your point is well taken.

Blogger D. Lane May 01, 2015 2:22 PM  

So he makes somewhere between $10k and $160k a year? What kind of worthless bullsht estimate is that? 99% of Americans fall in that range.

Google (as far as I know) doesn't publish reliable stats for YouTube channel/user revenues. That's something that has to come directly from content creators. The useful stats are the non-financials, as from those you can estimate more reliable revenue figures using the known revenues of other channels (as Double E has done).

Anonymous FP May 01, 2015 2:24 PM  

Pakman just interviewed Sargon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmPMxegAlMs

Blogger wrf3 May 01, 2015 2:26 PM  

BigGaySteve: Where you the red headed Danny at the party?

Well, that was the trigger for an unexpected flashback. First year physics class, early 70's, during the streaking craze at UVa (yes, I'm now ashamed to admit this affiliation). Auditorium seating for about 300 students, two stairs between three columns of chairs. Guy wearing only a ski mask runs up the left side stairs and out the doors at the rear. We all knew who it was because he was the only redhead absent from the class that day.

The professor remarked, "I wish more co-eds did that" and returned to teaching.

Blogger Ken May 01, 2015 2:28 PM  

[deep belly laugh] I almost feel sorry for the kid. By the time Vox is through with him, Pakman will be wishing for one of Kratman's crucifixions instead.

Blogger D. Lane May 01, 2015 2:30 PM  

Average views are more like 9,298 per video, but he makes up for that in the number of videos.

I caught the nuance of your original statement. Even as a volume pusher, though, Packman isn't that remarkable. 90m views over a period of 6 years puts him firmly in competition with the middle ranks of lesser known channels.

Blogger Daniel May 01, 2015 2:33 PM  

Where you the red headed Danny at the party?

If you mean in the "step-child" sense of the word, possibly. That tends to be how I do parties. If you mean a Danny with actual red hair, you've got me mixed up with Bonaduce. Happens all the time.

Blogger Noah B May 01, 2015 2:41 PM  

Speaking of red -- Happy May Day everybody

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 01, 2015 2:43 PM  

Pakman turned what was offered as an interview into a debate, and he lied. His lack of honesty is becoming much more widely known as a result of this, and he is showing himself to be a moron. That vastly outweighs any minor tactical mistakes you may have made.

In other words, he acted pretty much exactly the same way any other liberal journalist or talk show host does anytime an even vaguely conservative guest is on?

I can kind of see WATYF's point; not to defend Pakman, but to suggest that Vox should have expected it.

Blogger JartStar May 01, 2015 2:47 PM  

Pakman turned what was offered as an interview into a debate, and he lied. His lack of honesty is becoming much more widely known as a result of this, and he is showing himself to be a moron. That vastly outweighs any minor tactical mistakes you may have made.

This is the takeaway. His dishonesty is being made public by Vox and now others on twitter. Even a porn star is calling him out now.

Twitter of all things is become an important tool to use against SJWs and in the culture war as it is very difficult if not impossible to get away with lying on Twitter, let alone anywhere online. That's why GG has been so successful, their own words can be used against them.

Rule # 1 of the internet:

Never post anything online you don't want your family, boss, and employer to see and read.

Rule # 2

The internet is forever

Since SJWs are constantly lying their webs eventually close in on them.

Anonymous Crude May 01, 2015 3:04 PM  

I can kind of see WATYF's point; not to defend Pakman, but to suggest that Vox should have expected it.

I think there's one caveat here. For most people, Vox included, who the fuck is Pakman? We're not exactly dealing with Brian Williams here. It's like being interviewed by PackersFan1983 for most people.

SJWs always lie, true. But if you don't even know a person asking to interview you about GG, you don't know they're a SJW. 'Check out who wants to talk about you first' is a good rule, but it's a different rule from 'SJWs always lie'.

Blogger 223366 May 01, 2015 3:10 PM  

At 18:15 in the Sargon interview Pakman starts defending his clickbait title of the Gamergate interview with Vox, i.e. "Vox Day says some races smarter than others, and that gay is a birth defect."

Besides the fact that both observations are clearly defensible, this was the title for an interview Vox had been told was going to be about...Gamergate?

The video is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmPMxegAlMs

Blogger SirHamster May 01, 2015 3:12 PM  

I like that fact that there might be a part II.

I take the title as a promise.

Related:
Tank: Move on.
VD: You're kidding, right? You must be new here.


I'm grabbing popcorn for whatever's coming next.

Blogger Russell May 01, 2015 3:20 PM  

SJWs always lie.

Corollary : SJWs double down when caught in a lie.

Blogger Sam Hall May 01, 2015 3:22 PM  

Vox
Seems to me that he went after you on all the old stuff because he couldn't "get" you on #gamergate or the Hugos.

Blogger Brad Andrews May 01, 2015 3:28 PM  

This stuff may be expected, but it should always be confronted. That is the only way things will ever change.

I would ask as a side note if most people really know that editors pick headlines, not writers? That may not be as common knowledge as is expected. I know it and could easily have forgot when talking to someone about something they wrote.

Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 3:35 PM  

I would ask as a side note if most people really know that editors pick headlines, not writers? That may not be as common knowledge as is expected. I know it and could easily have forgot when talking to someone about something they wrote.

It's news to me

Blogger D. Lane May 01, 2015 3:40 PM  

At 18:15 in the Sargon interview Pakman starts defending his clickbait title of the Gamergate interview with Vox

If you want to call that a defense.

Blogger rcocean May 01, 2015 3:52 PM  

"I would ask as a side note if most people really know that editors pick headlines, not writers? "

If Pakman was unsure about who wrote the headline he should have asked. If he thought writers do, he's an idiot and should go back to Journalism 101. So that's the choice, idiot or ignoramus.

Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 3:57 PM  

If you want to call that a defense.

I don't.

his complete inability to understand that you can be disingenuous without necessarily being technically untruthful is revealing. What a weasel.

Yes you can completely mis-characterize something without technically lying .

If they titled the movie Ben Hur as "Chariot Death race" that would be click bait, and a mis-charachterization

Pakman: "but but, the movie DID have chariot races!!"

Anonymous MendoScot May 01, 2015 4:04 PM  

Pakman just interviewed Sargon:

12 minutes, then the ambush. Gamergates are ant-feminist.

"What I'm saying is..."

...this is no longer an interview.

19 min... "Let's explore that..."

19:30 VoxDay!!!! Oh noes.

Sargon calls him out for clickbait.

Pakman admits to being a media whore.

"Have I been fair to you in this interview?"

Oh, the butthurt...

Blogger Russell May 01, 2015 4:08 PM  

Pakman just interviewed Sargon

Oh, the salt!

Pakman is Gamma. Watch him squirm and beg to be vindicated.

Blogger Danby May 01, 2015 4:10 PM  

"You see, David, GamerGate is all about ethics in journalism. Like how you asked me for an interview about games and GamerGate, and instead came in here obviously trying to frame a gotcha question that can be used to disqualify me. Instead of asking me about the topic you proposed, you're asking me to defend columns written decades ago that I don't even remember. An honest journalist, a pro, would have told me what he wanted to talk about instead of laying an ambush. This interview is exactly the problem that GamerGate is trying to address."

Blogger Markku May 01, 2015 4:11 PM  

Or do you claim to speak for everyone?

Of course. He's the LEADER of GamerGate.

Blogger Russell May 01, 2015 4:12 PM  

The interview devolves into Pakman, the interviewer, trying to justify his actions to the interviewee!

I wouldn't be able to make this stuff up and have it sound believable.

Blogger D. Lane May 01, 2015 4:15 PM  

his complete inability to understand that you can be disingenuous without necessarily being technically untruthful is revealing. What a weasel.

Indeed. I was somewhat surprised Sargon didn't blow him right out of the water during that segment.

Blogger Vox May 01, 2015 4:31 PM  

I would ask as a side note if most people really know that editors pick headlines, not writers?

All media professionals do. Draw your own conclusions....

OpenID thenoisyrogue May 01, 2015 5:07 PM  

Vox,

Speaking as your most loyal supporter, you were somewhat of an amateur during the interview, as was Roosh when he got done on the Dr Oz program the other day. You guys both preach that SJWs always lie and yet you both took them on their word and at face value at that. You could have easily blocked him and demanded he question you on the agreed interview topic. But you live and learn and I'm sure next time will be better. You're feral on your blog in a genteel manner. You need to be the same when being interviewed.

Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 5:13 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Double E May 01, 2015 5:16 PM  

All media professionals do. Draw your own conclusions....

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/OohBurn.gif

Anonymous Didas Kalos May 01, 2015 5:21 PM  

PackMan; Hey Vox, I would like to title our 'interview' that it's going to focus on GG, the Hugos, and maybe some current events. But what I really want to focus on is marital rape, and bring up some obscure articles you wrote 6-10 years ago. OK? = Honest. But we know SJWs always........

Blogger Daniel May 01, 2015 5:23 PM  

Last time, people - this was a transitory video interview, not a written thing.

Shelf life - One day.

It wouldn't have mattered if Vox had savaged him with all the pre-planned quotes that you have taken days to come up with - the next steps would have been the exact same: expose the liar for lying. We are on next steps now. Next time, it is fine and good if Vox gets ambushed again and gives the exact same muddled but true answers.

The important part is to collect the ambushes, take those hits, and then train the audience of the ambushers to peek behind the curtain.

Completely monstrous behavior has been forgiven and hidden in plain sight for too long, all because it is done on camera.

Now, the subjects have the means to absolutely crucify those who do it. Pakman made it too easy. If anything, Vox should have done worse, just to give Pakman more rope.

Many are not seeing it, yet, but you will.

Don't expect perfection from the wise man. Expect wisdom.

The aspberger's...it burns.

Anonymous MendoScot May 01, 2015 5:29 PM  

Now here is an interview where Pakman doesn't interrupt, so we can presume that he is completely in agreement. The First Amendment is about freedom from religion.

And no, you don't have freedom to say what you will, unless it was approved.

And there exists the right not to be offended.

Oh, and Christians refusing to serve Muslims! nothing about Muslims refusing to serve homosexuals.

At 11 min and following, you have no rights because establishment clause. Look at his face. He knows how it will be interpreted.

Blogger Daniel May 01, 2015 5:29 PM  

you were somewhat of an amateur during the interview,

This is a feature, not a bug. Guests of interviewers who look like professional guests, who play the game and come off like politicians will never be able to expose the Smarm Swarm for the hive of whoredom, degradation and self-abuse that it is.

Amateur, human, normal - that's what you want to fake if it doesn't come naturally. The rules of the 1960 televised presidential debate are dead. It is dead for the same reason that only retarded Baby Boomers still "watch the news." The honest amateur with a scalpel and the will to win is in a position that he never would have been in Nixon's day.

What part of LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE! Have you not noticed?

Blogger Noah B May 01, 2015 5:35 PM  

Look at it this way -- Pakman jumped into the shark tank, and when he did, it caught us by surprise.

But now he's in the shark tank.

Blogger Vox May 01, 2015 5:40 PM  

You guys both preach that SJWs always lie and yet you both took them on their word and at face value at that.

What part of "I knew nothing about David Pakman" do you not understand? I was vaguely under the impression that he was neutral to pro-GG. I had no idea he was an SJW.

As for being an amateur, I got a guy who completely ambushed me to publicly admit on camera that he has sex without consent. How many pros have you ever seen turn around an interview to that extent?

Blogger Markku May 01, 2015 6:01 PM  

Some of you seem to be under the impression that Vox considers this to have been some major disaster, that leaves a dangerous record where he then needs to do desperate damage control.

No, this was an unpolished performance. Something that would normally just get shrugged off. Only, it just so happens that it provides an opportunity to expose Pakman as an SJW so that the next guy knows to walk in fully prepared.

Anonymous Sevron May 01, 2015 6:08 PM  

Sargon pointed out that, for people who aren't open to dialogue, ridicule is all they deserve, when Packman tried to nail him for calling Matt Binder a fucking idiot. He gets the rhetoric/dialectic thing. Although Sargon said he has no idea who Vox is, he has a firm grasp of what's going on.

I'm kind of nervous he revealed his name though. Vox, err, Theodore Beale is fine, but Sargon has in the past talked about not having a lot of money and having an employer. Hope he doesn't get SJW-mobbed.

Anonymous MendoScot May 01, 2015 6:17 PM  

What part of "I knew nothing about David Pakman" do you not understand? I was vaguely under the impression that he was neutral to pro-GG. I had no idea he was an SJW.

This.

He was very quick to position himself in the middle, but his frame is breaking.

Anonymous notaddingup May 01, 2015 6:25 PM  

This smells pretty badly of post defeat spin doctoring. if you didn't know who he was you should've looked him up, and if an amateur "journalist" on YouTube can score this well, how do you think you would do against someone who was better prepared and had more experience. As one commenter noted, it wasn't a particularly hostile interview. As for your "work", that would include the body of controversial statements you've made not just your current engagements, any politician understands that.

Blogger thimscool May 01, 2015 6:26 PM  

Definitely unprofessional on his part, and rude. He should apologize publicly and offer the opportunity to apologize and initiate another (proper) interview. I'd hope that you'd accept, but I have little hope that he'll see the wisdom of this approach.

You did very well in my opinion, in spite of the ambush. I suppose that he thought that the story for his listeners, as concerns Vox Day and RP, is the nature of your views that folks reflexively label as rshd, rather than hearing you out. Of course he should have disclosed and proposed this idea, but instead he messed up.

Still, it was interesting, and you did well. he was ham-handed, but at least capable of providing you an appropriate dialog to tease out your ideas in a way that the SJW's and their long suffering friends and families can more easily evaluate for themselves. You did well, and yes, you could do even better. But he could do a lot better and it would start with an apology.

Blogger Noah B May 01, 2015 6:29 PM  

Pakman accuses NRA of lying about bystander being protected by armed business owner in Baltimore riots.

He is intentionally vague here and does not identify this "very small group of people" that, according to him, the NRA believes should not have guns and are the reason to own guns. Probably because he's lying.

Blogger JAY WILL May 01, 2015 6:40 PM  

Is WAYTF real? I have my doubts ;)

Blogger Markku May 01, 2015 6:47 PM  

He is definitely real. I already associated some vague memories of dishonesty to that name, though I have no recollection of what the topics might have been. But if my memory serves me right, he is someone who isn't really fully for us or against us. Kind of like Porky.

Anonymous Hoss May 01, 2015 7:01 PM  

"While you were roofying in Japan, did you see any evidence that would suggest a Japanese invasion of the US west coast during WW2 would have succeeded?"

Didn't you see 1942. Duh.

Blogger Vox May 01, 2015 7:02 PM  

This smells pretty badly of post defeat spin doctoring. if you didn't know who he was you should've looked him up, and if an amateur "journalist" on YouTube can score this well, how do you think you would do against someone who was better prepared and had more experience.

Post-defeat? It was a fucking interview, you moron! There are not supposed to be "winners" and "losers" of an INTERVIEW. The only reason Pakman was able to do this was because he IS an amateur. No professional would attempt to pull that kind of shit. They play the gotcha game, but they tell you that they're going to be addressing X, Y, and Z. I've done scores of these interviews. No one has ever dredged up an old off-topic quote, much less used an old, off-topic quote BY SOMEONE ELSE to impugn my integrity.

Seriously, how do you expect me to remember every word from all 15,000+ posts and 500+ columns well enough to withstand cross-examination on them?

As for your "work", that would include the body of controversial statements you've made not just your current engagements, any politician understands that.

That's ridiculous. This blog is no more "my work" than you talking to someone in the street is. And, again, I DIDN'T EVEN MAKE one of the four "controversial" statements I was accused of making. Furthermore, THEY WEREN'T CONTROVERSIAL. No one ever said boo about them. Pakman was trying to create controversy, he wasn't reporting on it.

Blogger Noah B May 01, 2015 7:13 PM  

From Pakman's Wikipedia page: "While the topic of the TDPS audience believing Pakman is gay regularly comes up on broadcasts,[19] Pakman is heterosexual and considers himself a straight ally of the LGBT rights movement."

And yes, it was like that when I found it.

Anonymous Down Home Town May 01, 2015 7:23 PM  

So what? A few ambush questions made for an interesting interview. Even though Vox didn't come across very well in the interview at times I still feel he should be a semi regular guest on Pakman's show. It at least wouldn't be dull unlike a lot of Pakman's other interviews.

Blogger Markku May 01, 2015 7:26 PM  

Exactly. If Pakman came back and said "ok, you got me. It wasn't an interview, it was an interrogation. So, want to do another interrogation?" then I think Vox should, and would answer yes.

OpenID thenoisyrogue May 01, 2015 7:32 PM  

"... What part of "I knew nothing about David Pakman" do you not understand? I was vaguely under the impression that he was neutral to pro-GG. I had no idea he was an SJW.

As for being an amateur, I got a guy who completely ambushed me to publicly admit on camera that he has sex without consent. How many pros have you ever seen turn around an interview to that extent?"

David Pakman had his own clear agenda and desired outcomes going into this interview and he did what he could to achieve that. What were your desired outcomes? I doubt they were to get Pakman to declare he engages in sex without consent. As far as i can tell your desired outcome from the interview was to talk about your work. The problem with your approach was that this was entirely dependent on Pakman coming to the party for you. In other words, he had the power. On top of that you seemed to do next to no investigation on the man and took him at face value for what he was claiming.

The fact that Pakman wanted to interview you about your work at all should have sent alarm bells ringing. How many interviewers do you have lining up to ask you about your work? How big is the audience for that compared to, lets say, the audience to see Vox Day get skewered by his opposition.

So learn from this and do your homework next time and go into an interview with your own outcomes clear and a precise plan on how you intend to achieve them. Banging on about Pakman now just reeks of sour grapes.

Blogger Markku May 01, 2015 7:32 PM  

What many also doesn't understand is that Vox doesn't want to be our leader, nor do the regulars want him to be our leader because that would be a futile quest.

It's more like he owns our favorite tavern. And when he gets in the ring, we are equally entertained by seeing him pummel the opponent, as we are to see the opponent pummel him.

If Vox loses, it is nothing to us. It's just lulz.

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 01, 2015 7:48 PM  

@Markku
"Vox doesn't want to be our leader"

Yet he chooses the name "Vox Dei"?

Blogger D. Lane May 01, 2015 7:50 PM  

As for your "work", that would include the body of controversial statements you've made not just your current engagements, any politician understands that.

Actually, any politician would understand to dismiss or totally ignore a question related to "controversial" comments.

So you're what, accusing Vox of being a bad politician?

Blogger Markku May 01, 2015 7:58 PM  

Yet he chooses the name "Vox Dei"?

Yes. I would explain the joke, but Vox is known to delete all messages explaining the joke because he wants people to figure it out themselves.

Blogger Russell May 01, 2015 8:38 PM  

Yet he chooses the name "Vox Dei"?

The class of trolls have dropped off lately. Do we have a minion in charge of rounding up better trolls for our amusement? Maybe that should be on the agenda for the next meeting.

Blogger Markku May 01, 2015 8:43 PM  

Need skilled trolls. Entry-level abuse guaranteed, generous abuse bonus for excellence in trolling.

Blogger kh123 May 01, 2015 9:11 PM  

Still trying to remember where exactly our host asked for armchair feedback on how he could've handled a live interview better, no experience necessary. How many will go public, go at it alone, take an invitation at face value until proven otherwise, have the mental agility to field a hit piece on the fly, and the patience to not only sit it through but dissect it after the fact.

Damned if you do with some folks, especially those closer to camp sitting on their asses while the campaign's on.

Anonymous notaddingup May 01, 2015 9:13 PM  

"There are not supposed to be "winners" and "losers" of an INTERVIEW."

But aren't you saying Pak man is an sjw and that they always deceive? So were you naive then? Shouldn't you have foreseen the attempt to pin you down on those statements? It just doesn't seem like you came off as you usually do against debaters here, and "thinking about soccer" isn't a legitimate excuse, so it's in that sense that I would call it a defeat.

Blogger kh123 May 01, 2015 9:14 PM  

..Is not to say I'm active on any of this. But for f*ck sakes, some people need to get out of the way and have the patience to accept that A) there is a plan, and B) it will run its course.

Anonymous notaddingup May 01, 2015 9:17 PM  

"Actually, any politician would understand to dismiss or totally ignore a question related to "controversial" comments."

But Vox stands by those statements right? So he should be prepared to defend them, any good debater would be.

Blogger kh123 May 01, 2015 9:18 PM  

...What was that again about SJWs always assuming that everyone lies as they do, therefore their running MO for their fragile, snowflake selves is "Trust no one", etc.

Not everyone operates on the Stalin wavelength.

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 01, 2015 9:19 PM  

"very small group of people" that, according to him, the NRA believes should not have guns and are the reason to own guns."
Felons are not a small group of people, even Eric "race card" Holder admitted that 1 out of 3 voting age black males are felons when he fought the Felon No Vote law in Florida

"Pakman is heterosexual and considers himself a straight ally of the LGBT rights movement."
I have a tower in Paris and a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. JK actually he is Lehna Dunham's dog/jewish boyfriend furry

Anonymous zen0 May 01, 2015 9:22 PM  

@ notaddingup

It just doesn't seem like you came off as you usually do against debaters here,

What part of" it was an interview" escapes you?

Blogger Vox May 01, 2015 9:24 PM  

The fact that Pakman wanted to interview you about your work at all should have sent alarm bells ringing. How many interviewers do you have lining up to ask you about your work?

Two this week. There is a link to last night's interview with Dungeon Crawl Radio right above this post.

But aren't you saying Pak man is an sjw and that they always deceive?

What sort of complete moron are you? I already told you I didn't know who David Pakman was, I knew nothing about him, no more than I knew about Dungeon Crawler Radio or the UK show that asked me for an interview today.

It's not that fucking hard. Stop trying to spin your stupid narrative. It's false.

Anonymous JRL May 01, 2015 9:24 PM  

Just watched the show and enjoyed it. Vox it would be cool if you and an opponent had an occasional show like this...maybe sometimes wide-ranging, sometimes focused in on certain questions. Interdisciplinary...polymathic.





Blogger Vox May 01, 2015 9:26 PM  

"But Vox stands by those statements right? So he should be prepared to defend them, any good debater would be."

I should be prepared to defend all 15,000+ posts and 500+ columns, without warning, at any time? Tell me one good debater who is prepared to do that. Good debaters prepare for two or three topics... because they are told what those topics will be.

If they're lied to about the topics, they're probably not going to be very well prepared, are they?

Blogger thimscool May 01, 2015 9:33 PM  

notaddingup, doesn't it chafe to don that scaly suit?

"You should have known I would lie to you, dumbass... this ain't chess club."

Blogger LP 999/Eliza May 01, 2015 9:38 PM  

Overall it was still a fine interview, there was nothing to re-do or add or omit.

I was listening for key terms and noting such in my initial comment. I thought DP had a bit of an agenda and/or was going off topic. I did not want to hear about the non issue of rape, but instead about gaming.

Part 2 or continued coverage of this matter will be highly interesting.

If ilk or Vox reviews his interviews I wonder how those guests were treated, was everything fair game for their interviews too?

Blogger LP 999/Eliza May 01, 2015 9:41 PM  

Markku; "Need skilled trolls. Entry-level abuse guaranteed, generous abuse bonus for excellence in trolling."

Best comment.

Blogger Expendable Faceless Minion May 01, 2015 9:46 PM  

@Vox
"I got a guy who completely ambushed me to publicly admit on camera that he has sex without consent."

No Vox, you're being modest. You got an SJW in the process of ambushing you to:
1. Admit he had sex without consent on his own camera
2. Leave it in the post-edited video
3. Post the damning confession video on YOUTUBE with a click-bait title.
4. Post it to his own account to remove ANY doubt as to its veracity.


And you say
"I don't think I did well, actually. I could have, and should have, done a lot better."

You get an A+ from me, Vox. RB is all about showing them to be hypocrites who believe rules are for other people. You succeeded brilliantly and I salute you.

Anonymous FP May 01, 2015 9:53 PM  

"I'm kind of nervous he revealed his name though. Vox, err, Theodore Beale is fine, but Sargon has in the past talked about not having a lot of money and having an employer. Hope he doesn't get SJW-mobbed."

He got doxed last fall by "third party trolls". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOioaFpZ3tU

He showed his face in a video recently with his new son. The SJW would be fools to go after him at this point.

Anonymous SpartanJoe May 01, 2015 9:58 PM  

"If I were David, I'd be seriously considering apologizing, and then taking a two week vacation from the Net."

If I were Vox Day I'd be seriously considering stopping my little girl whining. Holy shit, the little spud can dish it out but can't take it. And after saying he's happy to talk about his controversial writings, he whines when he is asked about his controversial writings. What a child!

Blogger bob k. mando May 01, 2015 10:04 PM  

see? i told you all.

it doesn't matter how incompetent they demonstrate themselves to be.

what MATTERS is that they signal to each other that they belong to the warren.

and, of course, that you do not.

Blogger Russell May 01, 2015 10:06 PM  

Is there a troll playbook being passed around?

Can we make suggestions? A few edits, perhaps? Add new material?

Dear trolls, do you see SpartanJoe's comment? When the Dread Ilk read stuff like that, he might as well hang a sign around his neck saying "Too Short For Ride"

We get concerned, you see, wondering if the caretaker of said troll is being left unsupervised and could harm itself accidentally. And you don't want to worry the Dread Ilk, do you? I mean, what kind of monster are you?

Educated yourselves. The next troll you save might be yourself.

Anonymous zen0 May 01, 2015 10:09 PM  

@ SpartanJoe

And after saying he's happy to talk about his controversial writings,..

Can you quote the relevant part in the post? I can't find it. Nothing mentions "writings".

Anonymous SpartanJoe May 01, 2015 10:29 PM  

Whiners always whine! It's what the do. So boo fucking hoo.

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 01, 2015 10:33 PM  

@Russell
If anything other than maudlin groupthink occurs here, must it necessarily be trolling?

Why must everything exist only in binary? If we don't praise Vox Dei, then we must obviously be trolling him?

Blogger kh123 May 01, 2015 10:40 PM  

"It's what the do."

This needs to be done up in Old English font on a golden plaque right below the portico to Hamburger University.

Anonymous zen0 May 01, 2015 10:42 PM  

@ SpartanJoe

Whiners always whine! It's what the do. So boo fucking hoo.

Not into dialectic I see. Can't supply a substantive answer based on factual material.
Most interesting.
Some Spartan you turned out to be.

Anonymous notaddingup May 01, 2015 10:43 PM  

"I should be prepared to defend all 15,000+ posts and 500+ columns, without warning, at any time?"

But he didn't ask you about a completely obscure buried statement in post 11563 of 15000, he stuck to some of your more well known contentions. And why the vitriol?

Blogger kh123 May 01, 2015 10:43 PM  

I think it was Karl Marx that popularized synthesis. Two f*cking centuries ago.

Blogger bob k. mando May 01, 2015 10:44 PM  

Owen T. Oloren May 01, 2015 10:33 PM
Why must everything exist only in binary? If we don't praise Vox Dei, then we must obviously be trolling him?



i, and many others here, disagree with him all the time you fucking twit.

WE just don't lie about what we're intending to talk about when we take up the debate.

Blogger kh123 May 01, 2015 10:46 PM  

Quick question, Andrew: Is the wheelchair able to pull brodies out on the front lawn, or is it more like the setup in Silver Bullet where it's only good on long paved straightaways.

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 01, 2015 10:49 PM  

@Bob K. Mando

This is my first visit here, so I haven't as yet cataloged all your postings.

But in this thread, I've posted twice. The first time I was called a troll, and the 2nd time I was called a f*cking twit.

You may or may not be a liar, because the evidence simply isn't there. But you are definitely hostile.

Blogger Russell May 01, 2015 10:50 PM  

From Owen:
"Why must everything exist only in binary? If we don't praise Vox Dei, then we must obviously be trolling him?"

See this? Too short for the ride. It's poor rhetoric, poor understanding, poor spelling.

Let's see if we can improve this, with a quote from Wendell the manatee.

"Meeeeeeewhooooooooo Floooooooooooo Hooooooooooooooon!"

That's fine trolling right there. Succinct, insults with flair, and shows a remarkable understanding of the subtleties of English history.

And Wendell doesn't have opposable thumbs!

So, Owen, do you think you can at least match a semi-aquatic mammal?

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 01, 2015 10:57 PM  

@Russell
You seriously mistake me for a troll? And think that your manatee (who lacks parsimony) is clever? I guess I'm in your territory, and others here will have your back if you need it....

Blogger Russell May 01, 2015 11:06 PM  

@Owen.
In three posts, you've dialed yourself in nicely. Thank you.

"Liberal 1: Attack, attack. ATTACK!
Liberal 2: Attack attack, attack attack!
Conservative: Defend.
Liberal 1: How rude.
Liberal 2: Indeed, how rude."

Owen, in all seriousness, you haven't been able to spell our host's name correctly. You've tossed a barb to see if it struck, the barb was based on your misunderstanding, and even after that was brought to your attention, you still fail to understand.

Wendell, of course, is a device used to see how familiar you are with the SP/RP culture.

My territory? Hardly. Have my back? You know nothing of the Dread Ilk. I'll stand or fall on my own, and if I fall, the Ilk will laugh, mockingly.

They might even strip me of my Faceless Minion Number.

It's a hard world, Owen. A hard world.

Anonymous notaddingup May 01, 2015 11:07 PM  

Oh yes, on the signs of a conspiracy issue, you attempted to defend the statement, now you say it was put in by an editor. It's a contradiction. Either you don't agree with the statement, in which case why defend it, or you do, in which case it doesn't matter much who wrote it. now it just looks like you don't know what you believe and you're trying to cover it up with a non sequitur.

Anonymous clk May 01, 2015 11:08 PM  

VD says

"That's ridiculous. This blog is no more "my work" than you talking to someone in the street is".

Yet here is the statement "ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED..."

Of course this is your work ... the website statistics prove it... there are more people reading here than have read all your books, played all your games or listed to all your music combined . +15000 posts and +500 columns is your work.

"Furthermore, THEY WEREN'T CONTROVERSIAL. No one ever said boo about them"

Do you really expect any of us that have been here longer than a month (and I been here before blogspot) ... Your modus operandi is controversy ... from day one... its what you do ..To claim that because nobody said boo about this stuff back means it wasn't controversial is false logic. Nobody knew who you were back then except as a crazy libertarian with a mohawk, a flaming sword and no fear of offending ....Many of us come here to hear the next controversial thing that VD will say ... you know this, your nurture this, this is your market segment..

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 01, 2015 11:15 PM  

Familiarity with SP/RP culture? Absolutely zero. Although to be honest, it is the Hugo controversy that has brought me here. I'm curious to see the "us vs them" lines of thinking, as that's quite foreign to me. I see it as a paradox, as here are a number of quite intelligent people. Intelligent, but quite cantankerous, apparently.

And yes, Vox Dei was a barb, I'd have to admit. But he's certainly anglicising the Latin for his pseudonym, right?

1 – 200 of 240 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts