Our old pal Gribbit is back, and he's inventing history. In the middle of a post about some crazy leftist that he, naturally, thinks represents everyone who disagrees with him, he writes the following:
There a few leftists like you who did a blitz on me a few weeks ago trying to drum up traffic to their weak blogs. I know mine doesn't get much traffic, but I write for bigger blogs than they or you would ever hope to be. The same theme keeps coming up, the Al Franken school of debate. "Liar" "You're a liar" "Liar" but no proof.
He is of course referring to the exchange where I tested his honesty and he failed miserably (part one, part two and part three). The exchange showed that Gribbit is basically a one stop shop of ridiculous behavior, including flat out lying and the most obvious hypocrisy I think I've ever seen. The post I was responding to was about the ACLU and equal access to schools for non-curricular student clubs, and practically every thing he said was wrong. He claimed that the Good News Club case was an Equal Access Act case, and even after I showed him the text of that Act and the ruling in the case and explained why the EAA could not possibly have applied in that case, he still refused to admit he was wrong.
But the part of his post that cracks me up is his suggestion that I critiqued his absurdity to drum up traffic for my blog because he writes for "bigger blogs" than me. Especially since, at the time, he admitted that, in fact, my blog gets much more traffic than his. For crying out loud, look at this statcounter. He averages about 35 hits a day, or about what I get every 7 freaking minutes here. He gets as many hits in a week as I get in a slow hour here (and his sitemeter shows similar stats).
Of course, he also writes for StoptheACLU, and he did refer to the blogs he writes for, so let's check that one too. Well, as it turns out that's not so good either. Their sitemeter shows just over 1200 hits per day. Meanwhile, this blog averages about 6000 hits per day. Just to be fair, let's even add in the hits from the Wide Awakes Radio blog, which is the little online radio station of the StopTheACLU crowd. Their sitemeter says they get just over 500 hits a day. So at absolute best, combining all three blogs together (even though the content is virtually identical and the same people probably read them all), they still have less than 1/3 of the hits this blog gets. Yeah, Gribbit, I criticize you just to drive traffic toward here. In that delusional netherworld you seem to inhabit, I'm sure that makes perfect sense.
- Log in to post comments
"The exchange showed that Gribbit is basically a one stop shop of ridiculous behavior, including flat out lying and the most obvious hypocrisy I think I've ever seen."
Hypocrisy which remains on shining display in the post you just dissected -- Gribbit complains that this Deborah Frisch uses "threatening language" and advocates violence, evidently forgetting that he recently threatened to shatter the mandible of the blogger known as Captain Rational (who has since been promoted to major). And he bemoans the fact that Deborah Frisch was unlikely to approve his comment to her blog, cheerfully forgetting that he virtually always deletes comments from "moonbats," however civil. I expect that for his next trick, this poster child for the No Illiterate Left Behind Act will start calling people on their poor spelling and grammar.
"He averages about 35 hits a day, or about what I get every 7 freaking minutes here."
And if it weren't for him picking fights with a guy whose blog gets five hits a minute, he'd lose about 30 of those. That's really pathetic; lately I've been drawing about that many, and I only created it so I'd have a place to vent my spleen in private and, later, for the benefit of my dad and a couple of friends who appreciate high-octane scatologia.
Wait a minute, Ed. If you don't feature Gribbit to drive your traffic... why?
Of course, he's the only reason I ever visit.
Even the StoptheACLU gets a lot of hits from here. Even though I trust what you report, I just have to see the stupidity myself. I guess that is what makes us different from the faithful. We even check out what the people that we trust say.
I think you are full of yourself. You jumped to the egotistical conclusion that he was talking about you. I don't think he was. I'll find out.
If the primary mission of the Stop the ACLU crew is to generate unintelligible, poorly researched polemics condemning "moonbats," activist judges, communist-Americans, the "gay agenda," and most of all the left, its secondary mission is to amass traffic. Those far-right blogs all house absurd numbers of links in their blogrolls, and they're always carrying out "blogbursts" and similarly bandwidth-consuming endeavors. Perhaps they think that site traffic is directly proportional to credibility. I mean, hell, working a hit counter beats having to form cohesive, logical arguments and gathering background information on the subject being maligned.
What's also funny is that the righty bloggers seem to have a much higher incidence of those "gimme gimme gimme" donation buttons in their sidebars than lefty blogs. Which side is it that's on the damned dole?
Jay wrote:
My conclusion is neither egotistical nor "jumped to". It's quite a logical deduction, actually, based on two things. First, he describes the exchange between us accurately (it was about whether or not he had lied, and it was a few weeks ago). Second, because I can scarcely imagine that he could find a blogger that gets fewer hits than he does with whom he has had such an exchange. Now, he might try and claim now that he wasn't referring to that situation, but since he's already demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that he is truth impaired, that won't mean much. More likely, he'll say that he was really referring to meatbrain and Captain Rational, but that would still be rather dishonest because the main one arguing with him was me, not them. They simply jumped into the situation after I had posted a long critique of his false claims on the subject. It would still be dishonest to ignore the one big blogger who was actually arguing with him and instead focus on the other two smaller bloggers (who I suspect still get more hits than he does anyway) so that he can claim that it was all motivated by a desire to drive traffic. Of course, the very notion that someone whose blog gets a staggering 35 hits a day would accuse anyone of attacking him in order to get his readers to visit their blogs is pretty much delusional in the first place, don't you think?
kemibe wrote:
That's what I find so funny about STACLU - despite the staggering number of links they exchange with their own group of loonies, they still get very few hits. Hell, I probably drive more traffic to them than any other webpage, and that's just to make fun of them.
Beaming Visionary said...
Holy shizzle. I was right! Well, close enough. Gribbit is now complaining that people can't speak properly as a result of the same public school system that failed him dismally.
In the heart of the essay, the obligatory paranoid, unfounded braying:
This blowhard might make a little sense if he didn't have to say this about every fucking thing. People who didn't want books banned in Florida were trying to destroy America by producing liberal voters. People who oppose religious stangleholds on public entities are trying to destroy America by producing liberal voters. People who fail to claim their farts while riding in elevators are trying to destroy America by producing liberal voters. If Gribbit's ideas were on target, 95% of Americans would be Democrats. So why aren't they?