Dymphna at Gates of Vienna catches Pam Geller in another brazen misstatement of a fact -- namely that the blogger at the Bare Naked Islam blog was solicited by Gates of Vienna to add his or her signature to the Open Letter to Geller, but that he or she refused, and instead opted to support Pam Geller.
Pam Geller even supplies a direct quote (note for sloppy journalists: when you frame a phrase or sentence in quotation marks, it necessarily indicates a verbatim quote) from the blogger at Bare Naked Islam:
"Gates of Vienna asked me to sign his letter and I refused."
Dymphna emphatically denies that she or Baron Bodissey (joint owners of the Gates of Vienna blog) ever asked the blogger of the Bare Naked Islam blog to join the list of signatories to the Open Letter.
Either Pam Geller is lying, or Dymphna is lying, or the Bare Naked Islam blogger is lying.
Given that I don't know the latter from Eve, and given Geller's behavior in this situation and in past situations; I am left to trust Dymphna's word on this, as I have never seen any indications from her that she would lie -- let alone so emphatically.
And if it turns out that the Bare Naked Islam blogger is the liar, then Geller is still guilty of her typically shoddy reportage -- leaping to grasp at apparent facts to support her fleeting impressions before she has secured the evidence to back them up.
Or, one supposes, someone could have cleverly pretended to be "Gates of Vienna" (perhaps one of the loyal supporters of Spencer & Geller) and emailed the Bare Naked Islam blogger and fooled him or her. If so, this would make both the Bare Naked Islam blogger and Pam Geller fools -- and by now, obtusely stubborn ones at that.
Meanwhile, I posted a comment on the Bare Naked Islam blog three days ago asking about this, but it was never approved (at the time there were zero comments; since then at least 7 comments have appeared, but not mine).
Two days ago, I emailed the owner of that blog. No answer yet.
Apparently, Dymphna too has yet to receive word from the Bare Naked Islam blogger, since I have seen no update at Gates of Vienna.
Conclusion:
As Dymphna points out, this highly suspicious detail calls into question the veracity of any and all of the other signatories which Spencer & Geller have amassed in their petty and obtuse persistence on this simple matter.
Odd Postscript:
If that isn't enough, there is the curious composition of the blogroll at Bare Naked Islam: Using the Wayback Machine, I determined that while Bare Naked Islam's blogroll has Gates of Vienna on their blogroll now and has had it going back to March of 2010, they do not have Jihad Watch there now, and did not even have it as far back as November of 2010 -- although they did have it as of March of 2010. So, some time between March and November of 2010 they took Jihad Watch off -- and it remains off to this day. And yet, Atlas Shrugs has always been on their blogroll and remains there today.(Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine does not have a record of every day and even whole months are unrecorded.)
No comments:
Post a Comment