Sorry, this is petty, I know, but I can’t let this pass.
Here’s Althouse today: Presenting “We’re Having the Wrong Argument Over the Olympic Boxers/Questions about unfair advantage won’t just go away.” by Helen Lewis in The Atlantic for discussion, the retired law professor/blogress writes, “Please read the whole thing before commenting and restrict comments to the issue framed in the article, which I am not going to attempt to summarize. If you don’t know what 5ARD is, please don’t comment.”
Then it turned out that the article was behind a paywall, and you have to give The Atlantic a credit card to get your free trial subscription. “Oh, that’s a problem! Sorry,” says Althouse.
This garners (Ann hates the word “garner”) Althouse the second “Bite Me!” award of 2024. Ethics Alarms introduced the “Bite Me!” in 2023. It’s a distinction reserved for either an individual whose “response to being bullied, pressured and threatened into submissiveness is to say, “Do your worst. I believe in what I am doing, and I don’t grovel to mobs,” or as used several times in the course of 2023, the author of unethical conduct that demands the response, “Bite me!”
Ann falls in the second category.
Ethics Alarms 
Let me make sure I understand the post.
She said don’t comment unless you read the story and only comment on that, but I won’t summarize it.
That earned the first Bite Me! It is kind of lazy blogging.
Then, when it was shown that it was behind a paywall, she just brushed off the complaint.
That earned the second Bite Me!
Is that it? (Honestly, I am just trying to make sure I understand what is being said.)
-Jut
Second.
Third.
Well, I posted exactly what she said. To be strict, I see at least FOUR Bite Me!’s. Don’t tell me I can’t comment on an issue related to the article that isn’t specifically raised in the article. Don’t send me to piece I have to either pay for or give my credit card # to read but say you can’t be bothered summarizing it. Don’t say I have to “know what 5ARD is” (Now? After reading the whole article?) or I can’t comment. And when informed that you’ve sent people into a pay-wall with orders to get around it, don’t shrug it off.
Thanks for the clarification. I thought I knew what you were getting at, but, when in doubt, I try to make sure I understand before responding.
Jack: “Don’t tell me I can’t comment on an issue related to the article that isn’t specifically raised in the article.”
I agree. That is obnoxious. But you kind of do that too—only after the fact. I think you rebuffed a commenter that you believe went off on a Biden tangent. It may have been a tangent, but he quoted your reference to Biden. But, yes, she was more obnoxious than you.
Jack: “Don’t send me to piece I have to either pay for or give my credit card # to read but say you can’t be bothered summarizing it.”
Agreed. As I said above, lazy posting. You don’t do that. You put in the effort. When I send you stuff, I usually don’t put in a lot of effort to explain the issue (assuming you get it), but I might even be better than her.
Jack: “Don’t say I have to “know what 5ARD is” (Now? After reading the whole article?) or I can’t comment.”
yeah, that was pretty obnoxious. She presumed a portion of her commenters were ignorant and preemptively told them to go away. I did not know, but a quick google cleared that up. If she really cared, she could have posted a Wikipedia link.
Jack: “And when informed that you’ve sent people into a pay-wall with orders to get around it, don’t shrug it off.”
I am sort of ambivalent here. It looks like a shrug off, but it could also be interpreted as an “ooopsie.” There was at least one comment that inferred what the article might mean and she responded to that, saying the interpretation was incorrect. I don’t think she elaborated though. (Why not? You know they can’t read it! Quit playing What’s in my Pocket!)
-Jut
“But you kind of do that too…”
Guilty as charged! It depends on if I think the tangent is productive and valid or just a way to derail discussion. I guess the rule here is, go ahead, but if you don’t comment on the issue at hand, make sure what you do comment on is useful, interesting, accurate, or entertaining.
The “tangents” Jack snarls at are usually moronic talking points dropped into the comments like something dropped into a punch bowl.
Thanks for the clarification. I guess I’m inclined to give bloggers more leeway. It’s their show. I particularly dislike when smarmy commenters tell Jack what he should or shouldn’t write about. Sheesh. Write your own damned blog then. “You shouldn’t write about X” is to me a telltale indicator of a professional DNC-hired social media monitor.
sure, but, here, she did not even write about what she was writing about.
she just pasted a link and said, “talk about this argument, which I am not even going to summarize or take a position on.”
-Jut
Well, she is a retired law professor and used to write test questions for a living.
Personally, if I were a fellow blogger, I’d be more inclined to say to her, “Come on, Ann, you can do better.”