Michele Malkin: Correction

Michele Malkin was not "Linked to A Male Stripper" as previous posted. Well, technically speaking, she was, but it was simply a purient juvenile fantasy I thought I had gotten past. ; )

Okay, not really - but it did turn out to be a misunderstanding facilitated by an IHWOAL - Internet Hack Without A Life ... real fat individual, I hear. And I doubt they are done. They have been reported to authorities before for worse behavior - including gaining personal information from posters on my site and making threatening phone calls, etc. Most likely they are using Internet cloaking services to conceal their identity and location.

Developing ... as they say.

Comments

[John]

Dan:
Did you get permission from NBC before posting the copyrighted video to your website? I thought not.
By all means, don't be an adult by simply replacing the video with a page saying too many people are eating up bandwidth downloading it (like any normal human being would do). No, act like an immature geek by substituting a raunchy video in a pathetic attempt to embarrass a nationally recognized and respected personality because you thought she was ignoring your complaint about not getting enough credit.
Is it any wonder why bloggers aren't taken seriously?

[Philip]

Dan,

Kudos for your recent actions versus Michelle Malkin. You send her an email with a link and she credits you by name. Annoyed that she is using you bandwidth and not giving you enough credit, you subject her readers to PORNOGRAPHY! You are a class act. See you in Hell.

[Patterico]

Dan,

If you want any chance at regaining your credibility, you need to either: 1) give Malkin a prompt and (at this point) abject apology; or 2) come up with a less cryptic and more convincing explanation than this. If you're trying to blame this on someone else, you got some major 'splainin' to do. This post doesn't come close.

And you may have noticed that people have not lost your previous post, so you can't pretend like it never happened.

[Ed Falkner]

Ok, Dan, so where's your apology? She did what you asked.

I will respectfully suggest that if you ever want *anyone* to link to you again, that you stop "developing" the story. Admit your error (or prove why Michelle's wrong for doing what you asked).

If I had a big deal website, I sure as blazes wouldn't link to you now. Why should anyone else, if this is what they can expect?

[Dan]

Does English work around here ... as in "developing." Amazing what floats up here. The fact is we were both duped by someone who masked my email and contacted her.

Heaven forbid I pull the post immediately, email and call MM to try to reach her, put up a brief informational explanation while determining what can be done about it ... while paying attention to world events at the same time.

[Dan]

And for heaven's sake - the video was not "pornography" by any standard. If you're saying that, you didn't even look at it. Good grief.

[Patterico]

Dan,

You may have deep-sixed the comment that repeated your ridiculous post -- but guess what? I have a copy. And I am going to post it in its entirety on my web site. And you can't send stuff on *my* web site down the memory hole. What is your explanation going to be for that?

Dude, seriously: I don't care whether a troll sent an e-mail under your name -- I'm still not understanding how that justified what you did. And your deletion of incriminating posts and comments isn't going to make the problem go away.

Once again: I suggest an *immediate* (and, as I said, very abject) apology to Malkin.

[Dan]

And as I said - respond to your email, for all I can tell you're just the very troll that started this all. So, why no return email ... hmmm?

[Patterico]

I just sent you one. And guess what? IT WAS SENT BEFORE YOU POSTED THAT COMMENT! SO OBVIOUSLY YOU WERE IGNORING IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH!

Isn't that the line you took with Malkin?

Dan, Dan, Dan. Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that your entire deep-sixed post is going to appear, in its entirety, on my site. How are you going to explain that as the work of trolls?

That's all I want to know.

[Patterico]

Let's cut right to the chase: are you also claiming that said troll is *also* responsible for the post that you sent down the memory hole -- but that I am going to reproduce on my site?

That's the part I don't get, dude.

[Dan]

Nice try ... but no cigar.

[Dan]

Still waiting on that email ... lines are open.

[Patterico]

Hotmail doesn't automatically save sent messages, so I can't give you the whole text. So I'll just repeat the substance of it here:

I have your deep-sixed post saved. I am working on a post that sorts it all out, and that will also republish that post in its entirety. I don't think you'll end up looking very good. I see your explanation that some troll sent an e-mail under your name, and can't begin to fathom how that justifies your behavior. So I'll ask you again: assuming that I reproduce your deleted post on my website, how are you going to explain that?

Let's have this discussion out in the open.

[Patterico]

And I'm not kidding. I'm giving you overnight to think about this, admit your error, and apologize. Otherwise, your bragging post about switching the video on Malkin goes live on my site.

[Dan]

AH, well you went from having a discussion to making a threat. It's your site, you're free to post whatever you wish.

[Patterico]

Is it a "threat" to say I am going to post something you published on your site? Usually I'm happy to have people link my posts.

Then again, I don't customarily put up posts that slander people, and then try to delete them as if they never happened.

Can't you see you've (expletive deleted up)? Can't you see you owe Malkin an apology? I mean, this isn't hard.

[stellartrack]

patterico,

Are you a legend in your own mind?

I wouldn't even waste the time to go to your site because of your childish threats. Who do you think you are? You cannot make anyone apologize for anything. I think Michelle is a big girl, and she and Dan can work this out.

They do not need you.

Go away your posts are boring.

[Dan]

"Can't you see you've (Patterico's expletive deleted)? Can't you see you owe Malkin an apology? I mean, this isn't hard."

I can see that we were both victimized by a troll and you seem far more interested in some pennance by me, than an honest explanation of events. I left Michele a phone message - emails - haven't heard a word from her - don't know if she was out tonight, or not. But here I see you enabling a troll who perpetrated a vicious hoax on two people. What's that about Patterico?

[Patterico]

I don't yet see the honest explanation of events that takes into account your post.

I'll reproduce it here, just to prove I have it. You'll delete it (again) of course, but you'll know I'm not lying when I say I have it.

(excessive comment content deleted)

Posted by: Patterico | Sep 3, 2005 7:00:09 PM

You are a (expletive deleted) head.... I will be fisking you until hell freezes over.

You sent the damn link (expletive re-posted by Patterico deleted).

Posted by: XXUpYours | Sep 3, 2005 7:01:20 PM

[yeah, right]

Maybe it's time for you to go back to Natalie Hollaway and leave news blogging to the adults

[Dan]

Geesh that's a long way to go for some links from Michele - why can't you let her and I sort it out, Patterico? Is it because she's female? Hmmm ... troubling, this behavior of yours. I'll clean up your comment if you don't mind. Post whatever you like on your web log, I dont mind at all ... but please don't clutter up my comments area with a post I acknowledged I pulled. Put it on your front page. It's your right.

[Patterico]

Okay, I'll post it now. Why wait overnight? It's clear you're not going to change your mind about this.

[hardyandtiny]

My opinion Malkin is not required to give credit to anyone but the original copyright holder. However, I don't see Malkin as being any less guilty in encouraging the use of an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted video clip.
As far as changing the link; I would have to see the inserted clip. There's a big difference between a joke and porno.

[Dan]

Maybe some should see the video befroe they judge it is "pornographic," it isn't It's been linked on this site for six months.

[Patterico]

Plenty of folks did see the video, coming here from Malkin's site. But it's not what they expected to see.

That the hacker's fault, Dan?

[Dan]

"coming here from Malkin's site"

No, they did not come here from Michelle's site - there was no need as the video was linked directly and streamed through to her site. The video on my site was never anything other than the NBC video, which my post of it described.

[hardyandtiny]

Okay I'm not getting this...someone "school me".

1. Riehl has a link and he sends it to other folks, some bloggers.

OK

2. Then Malkin doesn't link back to Riehl's site but instead just hotlinks to Riehl and hat tips him. This creates big bandwidth and no credit to Riehl, maybe...

OK

3. Supposedly Riehl changes the link he sent to Malkin.
But doesn't that change the link for everyone? And doesn't the link also have to change at his site?

I am missing something ? what?

[Cindi in PA]

There's a big difference between a joke and porno.

Posted by: hardyandtiny | Sep 4, 2005 4:16:54 AM

The video was linked here at RWV back in May,it was a joke, not porn.

Hardy, saw your post on that creep Marttins (SP?)
site, it was pretty funny :)

[hardyandtinyh]

That's an important point. It was NOT PORN!

[Patterico]

hardyandtiny,

It's simple. Riehl sends an e-mail to Malkin which contains a link directly to the video. Whaddya know, she uses it. Riehl thinks she shouldn't have used the link HE SENT HER, so he changes the link. One of her readers writes her to tell her the link is broken and gives her a different link. So she does. Then he changes that link to the Saddam stripper video. Then he brags about doing that, in a post that describes exactly what he did and why he did it.

Then he thinks better of it and removes that post, and concocts some unconvincing explanation that depends upon a hacker masking an e-mail as him.

[usmcmom]

One of her readers writes her to tell her the link is broken and gives her a different link. So she does. Then he changes that link to the Saddam stripper video. Then he brags about doing that, in a post that describes exactly what he did and why he did it.

Posted by: Patterico | Sep 4, 2005 11:24:33 AM

Who is the "he" in "then he changes the link to the Saddam stripper video?" I'm not sure I'm following you guys.

[galloway]

This just the most stupid bunch of nonsense I have ever seen, heard or read. I'm going to go search my closets for clothes, shoes, blankets, etc...and head down to the Astrodome. Maybe all parties involved in this could also find something better to do.

[Patterico]

Who is the "he" in "then he changes the link to the Saddam stripper video?" I'm not sure I'm following you guys.

The "he" is Riehl. Even he admits this, though he's not very up-front about it -- because deep down, he knows it wasn't the right thing to do.

[Patterico]

This just the most stupid bunch of nonsense I have ever seen, heard or read. I'm going to go search my closets for clothes, shoes, blankets, etc...and head down to the Astrodome. Maybe all parties involved in this could also find something better to do.

You sound an awful lot like Dan, who got on his high horse about how I shouldn't be "obsessed" about this, but should instead concern myself with the real events of the day. You know, like Natalee Holloway.

galloway, if you live near New Orleans (I don't), and you really think you can do something to help, why aren't you already there? Why are you wasting time reading blog posts?

[Cindi in PA]

This just the most stupid bunch of nonsense I have ever seen, heard or read. I'm going to go search my closets for clothes, shoes, blankets, etc...and head down to the Astrodome. Maybe all parties involved in this could also find something better to do.
Posted by: galloway | Sep 4, 2005 12:04:52 PM

galloway, if you live near New Orleans (I don't), and you really think you can do something to help, why aren't you already there? Why are you wasting time reading blog posts?

Posted by: Patterico | Sep 4, 2005 12:33:24 PM

Hmmmmmmmm, nobody informed me they moved the Astrodome from Houston to NO. Damn, I hate being out of the loop!

[Patterico]

You got me. I made a mistake. I guess Riehl's dodges and seeming lies are okey-dokey now.

I don't live near Houston either.

[jan]

oh good grief, i didn't realize i stubbled into a nest of fire ants. i was wondering where the posters are, this gives a black eye to bloggers. i'll post elsewhere, goodnight.

[hardyandtinyh]

So a reader writes to her and tells her the link is broken but actually the link is not broken?

[galloway]

Patterico-

Actually I received an email about this...guess I had that ol' rubbernecker reaction...had to come see the train wreck.

Sorry...couldn't respond in a more timely manner...I really did have other things to do.

btw...grow up.

[hardyandtinyh]

I think I see what happened now. Everyone who linked directly to the video was screwed because the link on Reihl's site was changed. Those who linked to his page were not effected by the changed link.
I wonder why Malkin is calling it porn if it's not porn.
I find it odd that all of the other people Reihl e-mailed linked to his page but only Malkin linked to the video. Oh well.....

[Patterico]

Dense Boy:

"So a reader writes to her and tells her the link is broken but actually the link is not broken?"

Uh, no. Actually, the link is broken, because Riehl broke it.

You're just not following any of this, are you?

"btw...grow up"

If you're not Riehl, shut the fuck up and get to the Astrodome and help someone, dickweed.

Hardy and Tiny Dick:

I find it odd that Riehl e-mailed Malkin the link and then bitched and moaned when she used it.

[galloway]

Patterico

No one CARES...don't ya get it? Not even Michelle Malkin. So quit spinning your wheels and go crawl back under your rock. I'm embarrassed for you and I don't even know you.

[hardyandtiny]

Patterico, "dickweed'? You're questioning credibility and you use the term "dickweed"? I have not insulted you. What's with your immature comments? I thought we were having a simple discussion about what happened.

Obviously at some point the link changed on Riehl's site and those who hotlinked it directly ended up with a different video. I don't believe Riehl sent out a different original e-mail to Malkin which caused only her to hotlink the clip. She received the same e-mail as everyone else but decided to hotlink the clip rather than link to his page.
Of course Malkin is not guilty of anything. And even IF Riehl did change the link, let's get it straight; he didn't send out pornography. It was humour, a joke, some of her readers were subjected to a joke. So what?

[usmcmom]

IMO I like when Malkin links only to a specific page or video of another website, b/c it makes it easier for me (the reader) to keep the flow of information together. Otherwise, when you are linked to another site and then have to navigate that other site to find the specific article, it just makes you lose the flow of your investigation. But it seems to me, from the times that I have linked to other sites, from Malkin she always hat tips or gives the full address and then I favorite it if the site is informative and easy to navigate. I Love RWV b/c it is so EASY to navigate and to post comments. Thanks for your site Dan, and hope you and Michelle continue postive communications. She's my first blog I hit every morning and since Natalee's story, your my second.

[Patterico]

"Patterico, "dickweed'? You're questioning credibility and you use the term "dickweed"? I have not insulted you. What's with your immature comments? I thought we were having a simple discussion about what happened."

Actually, hardyandtiny, I was responding to galloway's "grow up" comment -- each comment of mine is a repsonse to the quoted material above it. Galloway is the one who made a big deal out of how he was headed down to the Astrodome because he has better things to do than discuss this. Then, lo and behold, he's still here carping about this. If he's not lying and he really has the proximity and time to help out in Houston, then he is indeed a dickweed for continuing to yap on this blog, and he should indeed shut the fuck up and get there. None of that is directed at you, however.

I'm getting a little frustrated with people like you pretending that I have said Riehl changed the video to porn. Malkin said that (no doubt based on descriptions from her readers) and has since retracted it. I never said that, though Dan has claimed I did.

[galloway]

Patterico

galloway is a girl...thank you very much.

And as I mentioned, I received the link to this forum in an email... as I was checking my email. But I don't really need to answer to you for my time now do I.

And to show you how 'smart' you are...re-read my original post. Here...I'll provide it for you:

'This just the most stupid bunch of nonsense I have ever seen, heard or read. I'm going to go search my closets for clothes, shoes, blankets, etc...and head down to the Astrodome. Maybe all 'parties involved' [meaning rwv/mm] in this could also find something better to do.'

Now... assume I wasn't talking about YOU when I was commenting on the stupidity of this disagreement between rwv and mm. (Lord ... SOME people DO think everything is about THEM, don't they.) Now after you have done that and if you haven't thrown a rod trying to figure it out...you should feel extremely embarrassed for accosting me.

[Isabell]

Patterico are you some kind of an idiot? Quit minding other peoples business. I think you are trying to stir up visits to your site. Just know that if you do get extra visits over this it is only because of Dan. You should probably send him a thank you in advance.