Blogtard of the Day: Andrea Harris
This bitch needs to be institutionalized. She’s not funny, she’s not snarky, she’s not clever, she’s just an entity in which arrogance, stupidity and conceit are all struggling to gain the upper hand. Someone, please put her out of our misery. [UPDATE: No, strawtards, that doesn't mean it's OK to murder her, bust her kneecaps, taunt her cat, or take any other actions against her beyond scrubbing off any "victory soap" that may have left an unseemly film on your blogroll.]
UPDATE: Oh, joy. Apparently, in Harris-land, posting a picture of a cop kicking somebody off the Internet is considered a threat. While this half-cocked nut has no problem totally unloading first on Patterico, who she brilliantly referred to as “Patticakes” for suggesting that Marines should exercise a bit more self-control than she herself appears to be capable of, and then on Allah, for sort-of defending him. Both attacks were vicious and were completely unprovoked, and Harris doesn’t exhibit any signs of remorse over either. Yet, now that someone has attacked her in a forum that she doesn’t own and who she can’t shut up at will, well, that’s going too far. Suddenly the bitch on wheels is a delicate little flower who is crying about having been “threatened,” and asking her sycophant/commenters which authorities to report me to. The sweetheart has already received two comments. One wisely recommends flushing her report down the toilet as a report to the porcelain god, the only one who probably would care what or if she thinks anyway. The other comment was deleted and the commenter banned on the grounds that the comment was “nasty.” Here’s an example of a comment Andrea apparently does not consider to be nasty:
Gee, looks like all the “Oh noes, Allah quit blogging! Come back Allah you totally rock!” has gone to your fucking head. YOU brought up a totally unrelated subject (“Gee, what if General Mattis had insulted Iraqis who voted instead of remarked that it was fun to kill the terrorists who were trying to keep them from voting?” which has nothing, nada, rien, niente, NOTHING to do with the subject, and certainly nothing to do with the YES BULLSHIT “hearts and minds campaign” because for one thing, the vote was for IRAQ, not us, you don’t tell a dying man who refuses medicine that will cure him that it’s your fault because the shot wasn’t going to be administered by an attractive nurse). YOU brought up the straw man. YOU did it. NOT me. YOU did it. Not me. YOU DID IT. NOT ME. YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. NOT ME. DON’T YOU FUCKING TRY TO BULLSHIT ME.
The “straw man” in question consisted of showing the outrageous results that would obtain if Andrea’s idiotic statement that “that ‘hearts and minds’ bullshit is just — bullshit” were taken to its logical conclusion. Her objection, apparently, was that her idiotic statement was intended to be believed at face value, not applied with any consistency. I do not believe that “straw man” means what this old shrew thinks it means.
I fucking let you comment here, on my own site, out of my goddamn charity.
Oh, joy. Now every blog that allows comments is a fucking charity. Where’s my 501(C)? Oh, wait, I forgot; not all blogs are charities, only hers is. When you and I post our ideas to the blogosphere, we’re just cranks doing our own thing on our own time. But when Andrea the Allegedly Great does it, she’s doing the world a fucking fucking favor by gracing us with her virtual presence. And when she viciously attacks a commenter for not attacking another commenter viciously enough, she’s doing both of them some huge favor by allowing them to comment at all.
I don’t have to let anyone comment here. I certainly don’t have to let huge-egoed Big Mister Men who think they know fuckall because they used to amuse people with their mad photoshop skillz0Rz? And then took off in a dramatic “I’m disappearing my blog cuz I have some Deep Serious Personal Issues but I’ll wait for the chorus of Sobbing Fans to finish crying. And I’ll still comment!” By the way, how do you get so many people to follow you from comment thread to comment thread whining “wow, the blogospheroid has never been the same since Allahpundit quit blogging, pleez mister Allah start blogging again!” I’m just curious, do you pay them or something?
Do I detect a bit of jealousy here?
Anyway, as far as I am concerned, you’ve wasted my server space swinging your dick because you can’t stand losing an argument much less having your Amazing Kreskin intellect dissed, and you are welcome to go piss somewhere else.
I’d love to know what planet you can “win” an argument on by calling people nasty names and droning on about what a wonderful, charitable guy you were for allowing them to make their arguments, ignoring them, and then declaring yourself the victor. This comment is bound to cost Andrea’s “charity” her tax exempt status, however. I hear the IRS is not too keen on charities that only extend their charity to members of their own religious cults.
UPDATE x2: Christ on a crutch. Good thing Patterico and I got out of that asylum before the inmates took over.
UPDATE x3: Hypothetical congratulations to Steve H. of Hog on Ice, who probably would have won if Patterico hadn’t hurt Watcher’s widdle feelings by not updating his blogroll quickly enough when he moved to WordPress. As much as it pains me to say this, Andrea is right, the thread has jumped the shark (as has the phrase “jump the shark,” but that’s another thread).
February 10th, 2005 at 4:01 am
Mistake of the year
Oh look. I’ve been threatened.This bitch needs to be institutionalized. She’s not funny, she’s not snarky, she’s not clever, she’s just an entity in which arrogance, stupidity and conceit are all struggling to gain the upper hand. Someone, ple…
February 10th, 2005 at 7:46 am
Are we supposed to see the angry Sheriff? :?:
February 10th, 2005 at 7:51 am
Yes. Froggyporn is too good for this nitwit.
February 10th, 2005 at 11:22 am
Cannot expect one of the Contrarians (I no longer refer to them as liberals or progressives) to be able to take their own medicine. It is always do as I say, not as I do.
Maybe she can call AL Gore to protect her from your “threats.” I hope you don’t mind if I call her a fucktard.
February 10th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
Heh. I figured as much. God I hate when people fuck with you and then cry foul as soon as you defend yourself.
February 10th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Some points:
1. Rule #1 of blogs is “your blog, your rules.” In this case, her blog, her rules. You, I, Allah, or any others of her readers may or may not approve of those rules, but–here’s the beauty of the whole thing–we don’t have to. No one’s making you visit her site, dude. If you don’t like the way she handles her comments section, step back off her comments section. You’ll be happier for it, promise.
2. “This bitch needs to be institutionalized.” That’s a little extreme and . . . oh, what’s the word I’m looking for here . . . yes, threatening. I don’t blame her identifying that as a threat. It would be foolish in this day and age to do otherwise.
3. I like Allah. I like Andrea. I wish they got along; that would rock my pitiful world. But you know what they say about getting in the middle of a pissing match, right? It really doesn’t reflect too well on you that you appear to have jumped in the middle of this one after pounding a case of Old Milwaukee.
February 10th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Ilkya, I’m confused. Perhaps you could explain to me on what planet, other than maybe Planet Andrea, it is OK for Blogger A to launch a completely unprovoked broadside against Bloggers B and C, yet it is not OK for Blogger D to respond in kind? Here on earth, it’s not, as the same rules apply to everyone. If Andrea expects to be insulated from criticism over whatever she posts on her blog, then the least she can do is extend the same courtesy to others, rather than picking fights with one blogger over what he says on his own blog and with another over what he posts in comments on other blogs than her own. Having chosen to use her “charity” as a launching pad for her own vitriol, she’s in no position to complain when a third blogger offers her a taste of her own medicine. The irony of your first rule is delicious, were you not completely oblivious to it: you barge into my blog to lecture me about how I shouldn’t lecture others about what they should say on their own blogs. O-kay. Using your own logic, it’s not as though anyone forced you to visit my blog, either. I certainly didn’t.
Your claim that I “threatened” Andrea by facetiously recommending that she be institutionalized does not pass the laugh test. Do you honestly think that anyone who works at any city or county mental institution will read my blog, scratch his chin and think to himself “Hmmm, maybe this anonymous schlock with an unpronounceable handle is right, we’d better go lock up Ms. Harris pronto and stop her before she blogs again!” Please. That theory of a “threat” is even dumber than Andrea’s, which appears to be based on the notion that a picture of a cop ordering a motorist off the Internet will provoke a real cop to do the same to her. Not that there’d be anything wrong with that.
Last and least, is dishonest to characterize your heroine’s tirades as a “pissing match.” A pissing match is a match. This was no match. Neither Allah nor Patterico did a f’n thing to provoke your unstable little friend. She acted out entirely on her own. The only difference between my reaction to her post and her reaction to Patterico’s was that I attacked her for behaving like a jerk, while she attacked Patterico (and later, Allah) simply for disagreeing. If you can’t/won’t see the difference, that’s your problem, not mine. And BTW, I wouldn’t touch Old Milwaukee if you paid me.
Sorry if I come off a bit harsh, but then again, maybe I shouldn’t apologize at all. Compared to how Andrea treats those who disagree with her, you just got the red carpet treatment.
February 10th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
Um — and you are who?
February 11th, 2005 at 9:10 am
Sorry if I come off a bit harsh, but then again, maybe I shouldn’t apologize at all.
Stick to your guns, man. You’re on the right side of this one. Andrea clearly not only has a stick up her ass, but also envies Allah’s popularity. Unlike Ilyka, I’m not a particularly big fan of Allah myself, but you’re right- he didn’t do a goddam thing to provoke Andrea’s gratuitous, childish, Coulteresque little hissy-fit.
And the best part is, now she’s using the “I’m being attacked because I’m an assertive woman!” defense. Pathetic.
February 11th, 2005 at 10:19 am
Ms. Harris is, in fact, a frothy idiot.
The “I’m angry and liberals all suck and people that take a moderate view are all pussies and LOOK AT ME I’m a sassy woman that doesn’t take any shit” routine is so terribly cliched. Reminds me of Sekimori.
Here’s where we got into it way back over me taking mild issue with propagandizing over a picture prior to the election.
The standard question with people like her is, that’s what caused you such outrage?
February 11th, 2005 at 10:36 am
PS – The sassy conserva-outrage schtick is typefied by the title of her post: “Just. Shut. Up.” You see, the periods between words cause these cool pauses when you read it, lending weight and force to the sentiment. This highly original voice is typically a sign of great thoughtfulness and intelligence, especially when it’s. used. every. other. post.
February 11th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
I don’t see what the big deal is with her remarks. She cursed out Patterico rather than politely disagreeing with him. So what. If she politely dissented she wouldn’t get half the traffic that she has over this argument. Plus, the general making such remarks isn’t even newsworthy (in my humble opinion). There are better things to discuss.
Plus, I kinda sympathize with the general’s remarks because I know personally some men that have abused women in the past and I had no problem threatening them due to their violent behavior. Yes, I felt this was an appropriate thing to do and I was proud of doing so. Can anyone really argue with what the general said, or are we just worried about being P.C. Think about it.
February 11th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
I’ve already thought about it, NJR, so maybe you should, too. Expecting a high ranking official to conduct himself professionally rather than say whatever he feels like whenever he feels like it has nothing to do with being P.C., unless the “P” stands for “professional.” Maybe it’s “fun” for cops to shoot suspected wife beaters, too, but that doesn’t mean they should be out bragging about it, or even allowed to continue on the force if they can’t learn to keep their yaps shut after a warning or two.
All this is really beside the point, however. I didn’t call Andrea out for having a stupid viewpoint (though she does), I called her out for being a jerk about it. If acting like a stupid spoiled link-whore nets her more traffic than a civil discussion would, so what? All that proves is that there are people out there who get the same sick pleasure watching a virtual trainwreck in the blogosphere as others get watching a real one in real life. Like arsonists who set forest fires just to see their names in the paper, it’s nothing to be proud of.
February 11th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Cops are law-enforcement officers dealing with the public.
Marines are military personnel fighting a war.
Could it just maybe possibly be that, somehow, maybe, they might not be the same sort of thing?
(PS. If she’s bad for acting like your “threat” wasn’t obviously facetious, what are you for assuming that her wondering “who should I report this to” was Deadly Serious? I mean, pot, kettle, luminance levels.)
February 11th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Marines are in the business fighting wars against hostile countries. They’re not hired to shoot up wife beaters for fun. If that were anyone’s job, cops would be better suited for it than Marines. Why the hell should be we more lenient toward American wife-beaters in America than we are toward Afghan wife-beaters in Afghanistan?!
February 11th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
I actually don’t have such a problem with General Mattis’s remarks, though I’m not animated either way. What does animate me is this consistent hostility from Harris towards people that might dare to take a moderate position.
February 11th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
Gee, Xlurrqqq, didn’t meanta scare ya. I was thinking about having a quiet word with your hosting service, but I’ve changed my mind. You’ve provided me with loads of entertainment. I can’t wait to find out what you’ll get up to next. Oh yeah, and here’s a shout out to my homey Bill! :twisted:
February 11th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
About what? About the “threat” posed by a picture of a cop ordering you off the Internet, or about Ilkya’s theory of a “threat” of having you thrown in the booby hatch? Or is the more of a generalized “threat” to your freedom to act like a blogtard without being called one in return?
Whatever my supposed “threat” may have been, I can’t see my service provider giving a rat’s patoot about it. But I’m sure you can, given your penchant for seeing things that aren’t there.
February 11th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
Jeez, you two — get a room.
February 12th, 2005 at 9:44 am
We’re like Spencer and Tracy!
February 12th, 2005 at 11:11 am
Wow… did anyone read Andrea’s comments in the second trackback? “Unhinged” doesn’t begin to describe her mental state.
February 12th, 2005 at 11:38 am
Sure you meant the second, and not the third? The second (referring to Bill) struck me as the least loopy of the three. The third – where she non-explains why she think this entry was a “threat” – could have been written by a mental patient. I responded there but I seem to be banned, so I’ll respond here instead (minus a couple of typos I’ve since caught):
February 12th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
You haven’t been banned, Xy. Feel free to comment on my site any time you want. Really, you can trust me. :shock:
February 12th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Whichever number trackback it was, I had this in mind (from the comments, not the post itself):
Re Xrlq’s offer to remove the statement: well, Xqrl, if you didn’t mean it “seriously” then why say it? First you threaten me with being kicked off the internet for saying something you don’t like. And by the way, do you say that about a lot of people? What exactly is your criteria for allowing people on the internet? Can they only talk politely about issues and people? Say, that would sure get you kicked off the web in a trice. And incidentally, who died and made you king of the fucking internet anyway?
Then you pull that “well, if you’re so scared” (eyeroll) “you silly girly you, I’ll take down the offending words” (scornful shrug). Because we all know that no one ever takes someone else’s inflammatory statements seriously enough to take action. I mean, that sort of thing never has happened in the history of the world, so I’m silly for even mentioning it.
That strikes me as the type of argument you would expect from either a delusional paranoiac or a 12-year-old. Either way, there’s no reason to think you’ll ever get a rational response from her on any topic.
February 12th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
I figured that was the one you probably meant. It also sums up the reason for the tone of my original post. I’m generally a reasonable guy, but I’m not into reasoning with people who I know will never listen to reason. Ever since Andrea unloaded on “Patticakes” for supposedly not taking evil seriously enough, it was pretty clear that she is not a person who is likely to respond to any rational argument. I mean, seriously. How many violent thugs has she put behind bars?!
February 12th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Ah yes, Andrea Harris. Is she crazy or just really stupid and immature? One of life’s little mysteries.
February 12th, 2005 at 11:47 pm
Interesting. When I was reading her rant, it actually occurred to me that it was right up the alley of the “Watcher’s Council.” Entries there typically have a good chance of winning when they make you say “Damn right!” at the end.
February 13th, 2005 at 9:28 am
Xrlq… did it ever occur to you that your leaving is what drove me over the edge in the first place? But seriously — if it were up to me, then the post by CavalierX would have won… unfortunately, I wasn’t given that option. Only three people voted for Victory Soap this week, leaving it tied for first place… I’m sorry that my tie-breaking vote compels you to insult a bunch of people you probably don’t even know.
Patterico… did you really think that, or was it just a convenient insult you only came up with after the fact? Have you read this, or this, this, this, or this? If your answer is no, then I’m not very surprised, because you haven’t had me on your blogroll for ages.
February 13th, 2005 at 10:23 am
Watcher,
It hasn’t been “ages,” Watcher. It’s been a week or two, since I switched to WordPress. I have been moving over the blogroll and other aspects of the template, and haven’t gotten the Watcher’s Council blogroll entered yet. I haven’t gotten the members of “Oh, That Liberal Media” up either, so it’s nothing personal. The Watcher’s Council will be back on my blogroll — this thing notwithstanding — and accordingly you will be back on my blogroll along with the other current and former members of the Council.
February 13th, 2005 at 10:59 am
“Substitute “some wife-beater†for “Hitler†and think you have an irresponsible comment that no general should utter in public.”
Oh good god. This comment thread has jumped the shark.
February 13th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Oh good god. This comment thread has jumped the shark.
There you have it, Xrlq: straight from the Fonzie’s mouth.
February 13th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
As you can see from the last update, I actually agree with the Fonzette on this one, though not for the same reason.
February 13th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Well, I was just noticing the delicious irony that Andrea, whose histrionic overreactions and steadfast refusal to acknowledge even a shred of validity in her opponents’ viewpoints strike me as jumping the shark of even blogospheric hyper-emotionalism, would make such a comment.
And I think I just jumped the shark of run-on sentences. I’ll shut up now.
February 13th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
Actually Xrlq, this whole thing is just a cover for my secret hatred of Steve for having never blogrolled me to begin with… or maybe, just maybe, I was a little Churchilled out and not so much in the mood for another send-up of his ethnic confusion.
If you want to build a conspiracy theory around my previous comment, go right ahead… whatever gets you through the night. I was simply trying to point out to Patterico that there are plenty of winning posts out there that don’t fit into the characterization he made. His comment made me suspect that he hadn’t been following much of our goings-on, and when I noticed that I was no longer on his blogroll, I jumped to the wrong conclusion… my bad.
February 14th, 2005 at 9:13 am
So Churchilled out, I see, that your very next entry was about … oh, I don’t know …. WARD CHURCHILL?! In any event, maybe the reason you were Churchilled out and not Pattericoed out is because Churchill made outrageous, inflammatory comments that warranted the great deal of invective that it got, while Patterico’s statements were almost nice-to-a-fault, and therefore generated invective only from a few certifiable nuts. Then again, I have been gone for a few months; maybe the rules have changed and the game is now “Watch the Loony.” In that case, Andrea’s rant should have won by a landslide.
In any event, my theory that there may be a connection between your petty whining about not being on Patterico’s blogroll and your equally petty decision to stab him in the back by voting for this deranged screed is just that, a theory. There may be no connection at all between the two, aside from the facts that both acts (1) were petty and (2) involved you. But whether the theory is right, wrong, or batshit crazy, how the hell does it become a “conspiracy” theory? I never so much as intimated that you had acted in concert with anyone. Who else have you and your imaginary friend been “conspiring” against lately?
February 15th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
I got banned from Harris’s site. My offense: pointing out that, in characterizing your post as a threat rather than a joke, she left out the punchline (the picture).
February 15th, 2005 at 4:21 pm
I can’t believe the kraken has the nerve to come over and threaten you- what a power tripping verminous creature.
Xrlq has hit the nail on the head when he says that it is about getting a pasting then getting banned before you can defend yourself. I’d add that if you force people to go through a lengthy sign-up procedure you have an obligation to tell them if you have a policy of banning people for mild dissent.
Harris- if you don’t want people taking Blair’s content outside the web and to his employers, or better yet testing the Australian legal system which has a very different code on defamation than the US, then f*ck off with the personal threats to these guys.
February 15th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
Martin,
I’m not sure I completely understand your comment, but I implore you to leave Tim Blair out of this. He’s a great guy, and I don’t want to involve him in any way.
February 15th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
Okay, Martin, having visited your site I now have a better sense of your complaint. So Andrea Harris controls who comments at Tim Blair’s site? Well, that seems unfortunate, but I reiterate that I think Blair himself is a very clever and insightful guy whose blog I enjoy very much.
February 16th, 2005 at 8:22 am
The story of my run in with Andrea Harris is here, if anyone is interested. And yes, she has banned me from commenting on Tim Blair’s blog.
February 15th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
Martin,
You should put a link to the post on Tim Blair’s site so people can see for themselves what you’re talking about.
February 15th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
Because I have no idea.
February 15th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
Blair has to take responsibility if he hands over control of his site to someone else. His site has a notorious reputation, as the comments to my post bear out (even some right wingers gave me support, and I’m a lefty), for putting people through a painful registration process, then banning them with no warning for- well, just about anything.
Andrea also waltzes around parading her power on there; you don’t need a link from me, just go to his site and read a few comment threads. It’s HIS site, not hers, and he should take responsibility for it.
I’m not linking anything to him – I don’t think sites that operate like that should get linked to in the blogosphere, regardless of their politics. Just my view, I know.
February 15th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
Link away, Martin. I have the nofollow attribute on comments, so you won’t help his Google rankings at all. Promise.
February 21st, 2005 at 12:38 am
Salim told me about these libelouswoghateblogs run by Tim Blair and Andrea Harris. He says they’re:
Neo-conservative: The exact opposite of a conservative. Neo-cons are the Bolsheviks of the Right. Like Bolsheviks, they appear in restrained groups driven by a simple ideology … it is not unreasonable to place them among the last true Marxists, since they believe in the inevitability of class warfare, which they are certain they can win by provoking it while they have power. jrs
Tim Blair and his beastly administrator are the hammer and sickle on a banner of propaganda. We find them daily, mouthing the Neo-conservative formulae, expressing cynicism as if it is mere jest and not an aggressive attitude aborting any real debate.
There is aggression but no courage there. There is carping but no free speech. “Shut up”, they whimper; “Bye-bye”, they cry – as they eject any criticism in the rush to salve themselves in their little dissent free closed shop. They never take on a contest. Weak and gutless, they seek the comfort of consensus amongst cretins pretending to be conservative but not really knowing what it is. There is no honour there; there is only cowardice.
RWDB is even worse, a shite blog by PF dickcheese and it is but a pale shadow of those other places. It’s the dribble from Andrea’s arse.