Rule #1 of Blogging: Debate the Issues, not the Persons
As everybody who has more than one friend knows, sometimes one’s friends get into a fight with each other. The third friend, you , find yourself caught up in the middle. Well, there is something similar going on right now: there are two bloggers who I greatly respect (although I disagree with both on just about every issue one can think of) who are having some kind of blogwar. One is Ron Chusid , the other one is Pamela Leavey.
Ron was, once, a contributor to The Democratic Daily which he left because he did not want to be associated some opinions expressed there (by commenters and co-bloggers). This is, of course, perfectly fine.
What is not fine is that, after leaving TDD, Ron chooses to go after Pamela on quite a regular basis. I understand Ron’s anger, or frustration at least, but it seems to me that two people who are great bloggers, who are both progressives, and who are both very reasonable human beings, should be able to debate issues , not characters.
In this particular case, this is especially true because both individuals are good natured, reasonable, and intelligent.
I know that I often disagree with Pamela (and with Ron) but I would like to ask both to stop attacking each other. Am I something like a judge? No, of course not.
I am merely a blogger and a blogreader . I visit and read both blogs involved and it greatly decreases the pleasure of reading their blogs if they are fighting. There is more going on than meets the eye, probably, but still - I would encourage both to treat each other with respect.
Personally, I am not very fond of blogwars (although I respond to idiotic criticism every now and then) and I think that the far majority of readers aren’t either (nor do they care).
So - my question: can’t we all just get along?
Michael,
Please don’t be taken in by Pamela’s claims. Pamela has been regularly attacking me–which leads to my reactions to her.
I left The Democratic Daily as a consequene of Pamela’s support for anti-Semitism which came up when she tried to block my criticism of Mell Gibson, as well as following repeated attacks from her.
I have made it clear to her that I planned go ignore her if she would cease her attacks. It has been Pamela who has repeatedly launched attacks on me, and then puts on her “poor innocent me” act when called on it.
Ron (and Pamela), come on man, just leave it at this. You’re a great blogger, you’re above this (same goes for her). Check out her post at TDD - is that worth it? Of course not.
I am not misled by anyone, I’m just saying lets act normal / with respect to each other.
I for one am getting sick and tired of all those silly blogwars lately.
As I said, its all in Pamela’s hands. I know she puts on a real song and dance, but the fact of the matter is that unless put down from time to time, Pamela will increasingly slander me on her blog and to mutual acquaintances. If Pamela ignores me, I ignore her. I’ve also learned from hard experience that it is best not to ignore her once she gets started. She will only get worse until I slam her down a couple of times and shut her up for a while. Unfortunately after a while she .reverts back to her old pattern.
Today’s post served two functions. It both served as further warning to Pamela that I will not put up with anything further from her, as well as to make a point. Conservative blogs were quoting some of the support for conspiracy theories which has been far too common at The Democratic Daily. Unfortunately they used Pamela’s early connection to the Kerry campaign to insinuate that this represents the beliefs of all liberals and Democrats.
I regularly have posts on debates in the blogosphere. It was particularly pertinent to comment on this debate between The Democratic Daily and a few conservative blogs when I have considerable background knowledge which was pertinent to this issue.
Michael
You’re a real gentleman for calling attention to this and attempting the “can’t we all just get along” model which is one that I always agree with. Many times in the past I have said to Ron, let’s just “agree to disagree,” but as we see from this comment here from Ron on your blog, he prefers this method:
“She will only get worse until I slam her down a couple of times and shut her up for a while.”
Of course, Ron posted about me today while I had been ignoring him, so that refutes his claim above.
Thanks for trying Michael.
Ron, as far as I know, Pamela didn’t attack you - at least not the last couple of days. As I said, just let it rest man, it isn’t worth it.
You have a fine blog, Pamela has a fine blog. Both of you appeal to different people. Both have your place in the blogosphere.
Incredible that a 22 year old has to be the adult.
Michael,
I agree it is best to let it rest, but I wish you wouldn’t assume your limited knowlege of the affairs. You write, “Ron, as far as I know, Pamela didn’t attack you - at least not the last couple of days. As I said, just let it rest man, it isn’t worth it.”
The fact is that you don’t know of all the attacks, back stabbing, and slander I have put up with from Pamela.
This will be put to rest when Pamela ceases her attacks. Other than a handful of people still fooled by her, most involved fully understand what she is about and don’t fall for her song and dance act.
It’s also a shame that it took a conservative blog to beat out your moderate blog in taking a more realistic view of my post:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188256.php
I am a conservative liberal, not a ‘moderate.’ Perhaps you should do some research.
Secondly: I am glad for you that you believe that The Jawa Report was “more realistic.” It seems to you that your problem is that you cannot deal with people not agreeing with you… 100%.
Thirdly, I politely ask you to back off.
I’m not Pamela: I suggest you treat me with respect.