Malkin Issues Retraction

I'm happy to note that blogger Michelle Malkin had the kindness to issue a retraction of elements of a post referring to me, though there's a fact or two in need of correction.

In her retraction she claims that I suggested a hacker was at the root of the problem and that's not at all accurate. She must read Patterico. That jargon was only being tossed around loosely in reference to someone who had sent her an email with the new file name of a re-named file I altered to break her directly linking a 2MB video file from my site without linking or mentioning my blog. See email from her to me down below.

I had assumed she changed from a post link to a direct link, meaning people could then view my video without being introduced to, or even made aware of my web log, as she thought it was by my request. It turns out she had direct linked the video twice, once on her own and once with the help of an anon email supplying her with the new file name.

Frankly, I didn't think she would have done that on her own because of this post by her in August:

TO CATCH A (BANDWIDTH) THIEF

Blogging lesson number 1: Hotlinking is bad. Do not do it. Even if (and especially if) you are "the highest-trafficed (sic) political weblog."

which referenced this post by another blogger who was hot-linked by Leftist blogger Daily Kos.

Siphoning My Bandwidth The Daily Kos Is A Cheapskate. And a Jerk.

Anyway, Michelle and I do seem to agree on two things 1) that there are more important things to be blogging about right now - and 2) it doesn't reflect well on one of us. I'll defer to readers and bloggers to decide for themselves which one that is, as opposed to casting judgment, as Michelle felt compelled to do.

A final note, of thirty or more bloggers who saw my email, to my knowledge Michelle is the only one of them to have linked it in the manner she did with no link to or acknowledgment of my blog. I'm glad we were able to clear up any confusion for readers and other blogs such as Wizbang and Patterico, linked above.

Should you wish to see this fabled "obscene" video, Undressing Saddam, which I believe is not obscene, let alone pornographic, but rather silly - it contains no nudity and it's always been sitting right here.

Relevant email and Michelle's retraction below.

From: "Michelle Malkin"
To: "Its Just Dan"
Subject: FORWARDING YOU
Date: Saturday, September 03, 2005 4:00 PM

This was my reply late last night to the guy who duped me...

>Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:28:14 -0400
>To: <killrighty@gmail.com>
>From: Michelle Malkin
>Subject: Re: Kanye West Link
>
>Strange. It worked before. Thanks very much!
>
>At 01:24 AM 9/3/2005, you wrote:
>>http://wwwriehlworldview.com/conservative/(edited link)/wnbc_telethon.wmv
>>
>
>Michelle Malkin
>Syndicated columnist/author
>www.michellemalkin.com
>malkin@comcast.net

Michelle's retraction - which includes a recent email from me to her:

10:20am 9/5 update: Dan Riehl has removed the post in which he accuses me of stealing his bandwidth. He also has written me the following e-mail complaining about the update I wrote above:

From: itsjustdan@comcast.net
To: malkin@comcast.net
Subject: 5pm 9/3 update: A footnote about
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:22:55 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180

Dear Michelle,

It's unfortunate that you continue to leave this [my 5 pm 9/3 update] up after I have pulled the post and have not engaged Patterico and Wizbang, who seem intent on stirring things up on your behalf. I have chosen to let this go, not because I am wrong, but because no one in the blogoshphere benefits from silly fighting.

When I suggested I was not "credited" correctly, it dealt only with the fact that the only post of yours I saw on this subject had a link directly to the video - feeding to your site and not even a generic link to my web log - stating simply "hat tip Dan Riehl" in text-only. It was credited in such a manner as to not even acknowledge the video was obtained and also posted on another blog.

As near as I can tell from what you then did, it was simply to change the link from one direct feed to another after someone emailed you that I had changed the file name. It was only after that, that I then switched the file to a wmv with Saddam Hussein photoshopped into a European TV commercial, which was neither "obscene", nor "pornography", by any generally accepted community standard.

Now, if you are content to have it misrepresented as otherwise by leaving things as they are - there's little I can do about that. But I would think you might have the decency to take down, or amend the erroneous parts of your update and leave the thing drop.

It would appear that not even discussing the matter is your chosen path as it has been 24 hours and you have not returned my phone call, or two emails. Fine. But I refuse to continue to be made out as the perpetrator of some silly misdeed, particularly when it is stated so inaccurately on your web log, Patterico's and wizbang, and the bottom-line fact is that what you did was extraordinary, to say the least; particularly as nearly thirty other individual bloggers have now managed to link the post without the same error after having received the same communication from me.

So, do we have to do this silly dance wherein I post to clear the record up publicly, or would you prefer to simply amend your update, or remove it and let the issue end?

Sincerely,

Dan Riehl
www.riehlworldview.com

PS: For the record it would be a wonderful gesture were you to contact Patterico and Wizbang and tell them this was a simple misunderstanding and ask them to let it drop. But, I assume that is a lot to ask, and, frankly, is likely moot, as no one seems to be paying much attention to them in this regard, anyway.

I'm glad Dan is no longer blaming a hacker who "masked an email as though it came from me." There was no hacker and no one sent me an e-mail pretending to be Dan.

I accept Dan's statement that the video was not pornographic. I retract that part of my post (see edit above). I do not retract anything else I wrote, including my statement that the video was obscene. (Perhaps it is not considered obscene in Europe, but I can assure you that many of my readers considered it obscene.)

For the record, I want to reiterate that I used a link that Dan sent me; I credited Dan by name; and I sent him an e-mail thanking him. In retrospect, I now wish I had provided a link to Dan's blog as well. Nevertheless, I do not think Dan's subsequent behavior--changing the file to a raunchy video, publicly accusing me of stealing his bandwidth, blaming everything on a hacker, and pretending that someone e-mailed me in his name--reflects well on him.

Now, I trust we both agree that there are far more important things happening in the world right now.

Comments

[jolari]

patterico eating crow for breakfast-way to go Dan

[Isabell]

What will happen in the next episode of "crazy bloggers world?"

[Patterico]

How am I eating crow? The *only* retraction by Malkin is of her description of the video as pornographic -- something I never claimed in my post on the issue, though Riehl falsely implied that I did.

The real retraction here is from Riehl, who falsely stated yesterday that he was the victim of a hacker who sent an e-mail to Malkin masked as Riehl. We now know that didn't happen. Instead, Riehl himself was the one who originally sent Malkin a direct link to his video (as well as a direct link to his post), and got pissy and changed it when she used the link to the video -- a link that HE HAD SENT TO HER. Then someone *not* masking themselves as Riehl (namely, a person who called himself John Stringer) sent an e-mail to Malkin telling her the link was broken -- which it was, because Riehl had broken it, in his pique over the hotlinking HE HAD INVITED by sending her the direct link, and the perceived insufficient credit (despite a hat tip).

All Malkin's "retraction" does is to reinforce my description of what happened, and reinforce my view of Riehl as a dishonest putz.

[Cindi in PA]

Thanks Dan, glad you could clear this up with Michelle. Now...........on with the rest of the world

[Isabell]

Paterico, do you have any idea how nuts you sound obsessing over anyone the way you have Dan. WTF is wrong with you? Are you some kind of moron? If you don't like him great who cares! Don't like him and carry on. No one gives a rats arse about what happened. The only thing you are proving is that you are a freaking idiot. Just move along with your life. You are better off without Dan if you think he is so horrible. Forget he is alive, then you won't have to deal with his evil doings at all. Just a thought, but I am not crazy so I don't know if this applies.

[Mr. Snitch!]

I think "raunchy" is a much more apt description than "pornographic" for the video in question. Thank God we cleared THAT up.

[R Nelson]

Sorry for my ignorance but who is Michelle Malkin?
Whoever she is if that's her idea of obscene, there's a job waiting for her at Wallmart or 7-11.

[New Creature]

I love This Blog, and have loads of respect for Dan Riehl, and don't really care about all this bugabuloo. But, I considered the video in very poor taste. "Raunchy" is a great word. Especially if you were exposed to it looking for something else entirely.

[isabell]

Honestly people, even if it were a hard core porn video I think we as adults can handle it just fine. If it is not what you expected or wanted to see then just click the X in the right corner and carry on.

[Patterico]

I don't appreciate someone who has been dishonest suggesting that I have been. Riehl pulled his post bragging about the video because it was inconsistent with a false explanation he had e-mailed to me and Malkin. Also, he has gone around blaming this whole thing on a computer hacker/troll who supposedly sent an e-mail to Malkin masked as Riehl. That never happened. Now, I am supposedly in for a helping of crow, dished up by a guy who goes around telling lies, insulting me, and accusing me of saying things I haven't said. I'm not going to take it lying down.

[mexiwife]

patterico, then write it on your own blog. this is not even important! Get over it and Isabel is right? You really are obsessing. Wow, don't you have anything better to do?

[Patterico]

patterico, then write it on your own blog.

That's what I'm going to do. I *do* have better things to do with my time, but dishonest bloggers are a worthy topic.

[Isabell]

I have nothing better to do today than get caught up in something that has nothing to do with me so here I go again.
Patterica I'm sure you are a great person with plenty of positive things to add to blogs. We all know that some people don't like Dan. I for one like to form my own opinion of someone. Just because you took up the you know what doesn't mean he will do the same to me. Just joking but really I think there are few people who care if you are a liar. You could speak nothing but truth and I couldn't care less. Who are you anyways? I am sure most everyone is wondering that same thing. Don't answer because truly I don't care which leads me to my point. Who the hell cares? Either you suck or you don't. Doesn't change anything for anyone besides yourself so you should just keep it to yourself.

[usmcmom]

Sorry for my ignorance but who is Michelle Malkin?
Whoever she is if that's her idea of obscene, there's a job waiting for her at Wallmart or 7-11.

Posted by: R Nelson | Sep 5, 2005 2:30:30 PM

She's an excellent blogger, author, and guest on many new shows on Fox Channel. Chris Matthews went totally off on her one time, hysterical interview actually. I'm just glad she and Dan have restored positive communication between themselves b/c IMO they are both great at what they do on the blogsphere. Thanks Dan.

[Patterico]

I think Michelle is being too classy to point out explicitly that Riehl has lied in his description of this whole affair. But it's there if you read her whole update.

[ManWith2Dogs]

Malkin stole bandwidth without creditting Riehl. According to Dan, no other bloggers did that. Isn't that the "big picture" issue? Will Patterico blog on that? Malkin's hypocrisy is demonstrated in her August 8th post. She admitted the error. IMO the "big picture" issue is what should be commented on, that is: "Bloggers Steal Bandwidth Without Proper Credit." What up Pattereico?

[Patterico]

My new post on the issue sets forth in detail what I believe happened -- including her decision to directly link to the video, using a link that Dan had sent her:

http://patterico.com/2005/09/05/3549/riehl-dishonesty/

If you read my post in full, it should answer all your questions, including why I am still blogging about this: Dan has been dishonest, yet he has the gall to say that I have been.

[Isabell]

I read the post in full. What I am not sure about is where Patterico has anything to do with this. Maybe I am missing something or some pertinent event. From what I see it is between two people and why not just leave it that way. Besides why burn bridges over silly things. It is just as bad to be someone who likes to stir sh* as it is to be known as a liar.

[Patterico]

I left comments about it early on and Dan e-mailed me (copying Malkin) with a false explanation. When I didn't respond quickly enough, he insinuated that I might be the "troll" he was blaming this all on; accused me of a being a traffic whore; etc., etc. I'm just someone else he lied to.

Sorry if you think it's "stirring shit" to rise to the defense of someone who has been lied to and about. I don't.

[George T.]

RE:
I'm not going to take it lying down.

Posted by: Patterico | Sep 5, 2005 3:59:05 PM

You might enjoy it that way.

[Patterico]

Maybe, but not from Dan.

[Xrlq]

Isabell:

Just joking but really I think there are few people who care if you are a liar. You could speak nothing but truth and I couldn't care less. Who are you anyways? I am sure most everyone is wondering that same thing. Don't answer because truly I don't care which leads me to my point. Who the hell cares?

Oh, I don't know, how about anybody who relies on blogs as a source of information, or for any other purpose other than to amuse oneself over the fact that some idiot with a computer actually thinks X instead of Y. Then again, if you think a blogger is lying, his blog isn't even good for that - maybe he really believes Y after all, but just said X to get a rise out of you. Seriously, if a blogger isn't honest then what the hell purpose is there for reading stuff he likely doesn't even believe himself?

ManWith2Dogs:

Malkin stole bandwidth without creditting Riehl. According to Dan, no other bloggers did that. Isn't that the "big picture" issue?

It would be, if it were true. Then again, I guess we've already established that truth is not a major consideration in discussions on this blog, so there are.

[George T.]

See, unless it all is stated in Rules that are made and approved by Congress or a properly named organization of International Internet Rules, there will always be mistakes made.
The fun part is the making up.
Goal: Low blood pressure...
Good luck!

[Patterico]

Dan hasn't made up with Michelle, if you read her post carefully. Same obviously goes for me.

[Patterico]

That's because the biggest mistake he made was lying.

[stellartrack]

read the post in full. What I am not sure about is where Patterico has anything to do with this. Maybe I am missing something or some pertinent event. From what I see it is between two people and why not just leave it that way. Besides why burn bridges over silly things. It is just as bad to be someone who likes to stir sh* as it is to be known as a liar.
Posted by: Isabell | Sep 5, 2005 6:51:19 PM

Isabell, it is called OCD. I can bet you that for the past 3 days he has refreshed his browswer 500 times. Notice how quickly he posted after Dan did today after Michelle's email. He just doesn't realize NO ONE CARES about what he has to say, and if they do, they can read his site, instead of his constant rambling's here.

Honestly "The lady doth protest too much me thinks", and he loves RIEHL WORLD VIEW.

[*flo*]

So when is the next Blogsphere Convention? Maybe some of you can discuss putting together a network, as in ABC, CBS, NBC, this would be an interesting task...

[Isabell]

Posted by: Xrlq | Sep 5, 2005 7:40:54 PM

You will always run the risk of things being not true that are reported on blogs, tv, newspapers etc. That is just the way it is which is why you need remember practically nothing is set in stone. When you hear things just consider them instead of living or dying on what a blogger or a journalist has to say. I don't need to hear anyone is a liar. I am not some fool. I know the possibility that anyone is a liar. I am reading this blog because I choose too. Anyone who tries to intentionally discourage people from doing so has selfish and mal intentions. If it weren't so there would be no need to "shed the light" on someone because it does that on its own. Do you Patterico think you are smarter than the rest of world? You may be the only person who can see the truth so you must help us all or we will forever be damned in the horrible lies and deceit known as the riehl world. Please, reexamine your intentions and in the meantime I will decide for myself

[Josh]

Dan is 100% full of crap. Real story here, http://www.killrighty.net/index.php?PHPSESSID=9c3d02ac6520c3f0593c2af75cd2687d&s=not+a+hacker