(This post ends my public involvement in this dispute. Comments and trackbacks are accordingly closed. Should you have anything you wish to share with me on this issue, please do no hesitate to send an email – craig@theoria.ca)
Unfortunately one SEK has decided to continue what he takes to be a petty feud and rivalry between himself and I. Apparently I – writing here to a rather limited audience and, on occasion, to a larger audience at Long Sunday – have the power to police what he says. This is all the more fantastic given that the posts in which I ostensibly police his writing have absolutely nothing to do with him. One can therefore only assume that the so-called feud and rivalry is fueled by erroneous perceptions on his end.
It seems that SEK has seen it necessary to pursue the “feud” on his own blog – appropriately named Acephalous – where he knows I do not comment. (It seems that I have greater restraint than he.) In all fairness, this is SEK’s only option as I have banned him from commenting on my posts here and at Long Sunday.
SEK has seen fit to move beyond “rivalry” and disagreement to the point of engaging in slander across a number of other blogs, including his own. The crux of SEK’s claim is that I concocted an elaborate plot to trap him and Holbo by secretly and deviously modifying comments after the fact. SEK’s so-called “proof” is that a comment of mine, date April 11, 10:34 PM, was posted by “craig” and not “Craig.” (This is how silly it is – we’ll return to the “proof” later; let’s stick with the narrative for now.) SEK’s view is that upon noticing that John accidentally typed my name with a small-c at April 11, 10:48PM, I entered into TypePad’s administrative interface, fixed my own typo, and then called John on insulting me with by spelling my name with a small-c. (All comments appear in this thread.) On April 14, 10:37PM, SEK writes the following:
I love the contradictions here, as well as the blatant attempt to tar John by editing a comment. “Craig” signed the April 11th comment “craig” — says so right here in my cache — and John responded to it with courtesy: if someone wants to be called “craig” or “Scott Eric Kaufman” or “SEK,” it’s only polite to call them that. Now “jholbo” is guilty of insulting Craig via typography. I’m sure the masses will sympathize.
SEK is referring the comment I made at 10:34PM on April 11, as indicated by the “proof” he provides. The problem with SEK’s theory is that on April 11, 10:25PM, John wrote the following:
What you – and craig – are reaching for, which I don’t think is wise, is some justification for, as it were, a hermeneutics of suspicionlessness.
And then at April 11, 10:48PM, in response to my “edited” comment, John writes:
Fair enough, craig, but neither Scull nor Scott ever said it was a knock-out blow – or implied it either.
And, again at April 14, 4:45AM, John writes:
Just to be clear, craig: I was discussing the ‘it’s ok to dismiss without reading’ view and – with at least some evidence: to wit, your post – attributing it to you.
It isn’t until this point – after spelling my name with a small-c three times, but capitalizing everyone else’s name – that I sarcastically point out John’s error:
John – or should I say “john”? – I’ll remind you that I’ve repeatedly attempted to understand your position by repeatedly asking you to clarify your most basic terms. A request, I’d point out, that you’ve repeatedly refused. I’m happy to admit it: I am unable to treat your position with any charity as you have made it impossible. Your criticism would be much stronger if you weren’t prone to such two-faced behavior.
But, John (err.. john?), you are certainly correct: I am asserting normative interpretative criteria. Maybe not for blogs – afterall, reason has never pretended to prevail online – but most certainly for ostensibly “serious” critiques. And, indeed, it is an assertion.
This comment, apparently, is what set off SEK and led him to construct his all-too-elaborate conspiracy theory. As is quite apparent, I gently chided John Holbo for spelling my name with a small-c. SEK’s response was quite strange and absolutely unsupportable. Let’s review the evidence:
(1) SEK claims that it is standard practice for interlocutors to make use of the names by which comments are signed in their exchanges. Hence, strictly speaking by SEK’s standards, I was in the wrong for calling John, who commented as “jholbo,” by his first name. I’ll note in passing that John did not complain; I’ll therefore assume he does not mind being referred to by his first name. Thus, SEK’s claim is that John called me “craig” because I had signed a comment on April 11, 10:34PM as “craig” (this is, afterall, his proof).
(2) Such a claim is fine but for three reasons: (i) John made a comment spelling my name as “craig” prior to my comment at April 11, 10:34PM in which SEK provides as evidence; (ii) further, I had not yet made a comment in the thread when John first spelled my named as “craig,” thus making the first instance of my name “Craig” as it appears for the authorship of the post; (iii) additionally, if John is the careful, generous and charitable reader as claimed by SEK, then he would have noticed that no one at all spelled my name as “craig” in the thread.
(3) Given that SEK is willing to defend his position via an elaborate conspiracy theory, let me offer one in opposition: SEK fabricated the evidence through an easy cut-and-paste trick – he took two screen captures; one which had the comment in question and the other of which contained “john c. halasz” or “Rich Puchalsky.” The “c” from the late comment was cut and pasted into the former comment. In all, SEK’s fabricated evidence would have taken all of two minutes work and would be impossible to detect.
(4) The problem with SEK’s fabricated “proof” is that it mis-represents the sequence of events under question. That is, John Holbo had already spelled my name as “craig” prior to my participation in the thread and, hence, John Holbo, according to SEK’s own rules of etiquette, was already in the wrong. Thus, not only was my chiding justified, but SEK didn’t plan his conspiracy all that well.
(5) The only possible counter-claim that SEK could reasonably make was that I took the time to edit every single comment ensuring that my name appeared as “Craig” and not “craig” throughout the entire discussion. Given the different levels of investment, it stands to reason that I either really, really want to humiliate John Holbo on the most petty grounds, or SEK really, really wants to win what he sees as a feud and rivalry.
The question one reasonably wants to ask is: why does SEK have such an investment in a one-sided feud and fake rivalry that he would go to the point of fabricating “proof,” writing a number of posts about me on his blog, and writing even more comments.
One last bit: finding the situation perplexing and offensive, I contacted SEK. In response to my email, SEK believed a likely explanation (I had not yet re-read the comments in the detail given above): there was glitch on Typepad. Glitches are not uncommon – disappearing comments, comments held for moderation without explanation, and so on. At which point, I agreed to retract my ban on his participation in my threads at Long Sunday if he was willing to retract his accusation of falsification. SEK’s tone changed immediately and he went on the attack, producing the posts he made to Acephalous. Why does SEK privately admit another explanation, but publicly engage in repeated slander and accusation? What does he have to get out of this?
Of course, the explanation is quite obvious: SEK is willing to privately acknowledge that my name did not appear as “craig” because he is, fundamentally, an honest person. However, SEK is also fundamentally a competitive person, which explains why he publicly pursues what he knows is not the case. Unfortunately, his need to win what is an absolutely stupid and non-existent feud over-rides his better sense.
