Blogs > Cliopatria > Alito Moments

Nov 9, 2005

Alito Moments




The Alito Supreme Court nomination has churned up some embarrassing moments for several of us:
A) Stephen Koff,"Brown's Alito Letter Lifted from Blogger," Cleveland Plain-Dealer, 8 November, reports that about 90% of a letter by Representative Sherrod Brown (D, Ohio) to Senator Mike DeWine (R, Ohio) outlining concerns about Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito was plagiarized from Nathan Newman. Opinion about the seriousness of the issue seems divided along political lines among bloggers. Newman, himself, claims that what he had written was in the public domain. Citing comparison with the case of Senator Joseph Biden's plagiarized speech that embarrassed his presidential campaign years ago, Daniel Drezner insists that it is plagiarism. In both cases, it is likely that the politicians were badly served by staff ghost writers. If they want to take credit for what hired help produces in their names, the politicians must also take the blame for it. See also: Hiram Hover. [more ...]

B) I don't ordinarily follow the activity over at Bitch PhD, but there's been quite a stir over there. She posted some comments about the Alito nomination at her site. They provoked this discussion thread, from which she deleted some comments by Paul Deignan, a Ph.D. candidate at Purdue, and banned him from her site. Another of Bitch PhD's readers, Wallace Hettle, a historian at the University of Northern Iowa, claims that Deignan was trolling at the site and that he sent Hettle threatening e-mail. Hettle contacted Deignan's dissertation advisor at Purdue about Deignan's behavior. So, Deignan is threatening to sue both Bitch PhD and Hettle and to out her. In doing so, he challenges some common agreements among bloggers: that a blogger has a right to delete comments they think are unconstructive and common courtesy respects a blogger's pseudonymity. Some bloggers on the right, like ProteinWisdom, line up behind Deignan and are particularly critical of Hettle's contacting Deignan's academic advisor. On the left, Adam Kotsko at The Weblog and P. Z. Myers at Pharyngula have colorful words for Deignan:"pissant of the week," a"dumb fuck," etc. Others who weigh in on the controversy: Hiram Hover and Brandon Watson at Siris, to whom I'm indebted for clarifying matters.



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Ralph E. Luker - 11/9/2005

Mr. Deignan, I did not use any chronology from Bitch PhD's site. Any attempt to summarize complex exchanges requires condensation. You may not be satisfied with the summary presented here. That is why there are both multiple links from the story to other sources and the opportunity here to explain your reservations about this summary.


Paul Deignan - 11/9/2005

Looks like you are using the phony chronology from BPhd.

Documentation is at http://info-theory.blogspot.com.

Basically, Hettle jumped in with the treat to contact advisors at 6:43 due to fact that he apparently did not like criticism. He was given the opportunity to retract the threat but instead libeled me on the same thread.

Sometime around then the administrator, decided to delete some comments that were mildly embarrassing for her. But, used the fact that she deleted the comments to allege some further inproprieties and in the process also commited libel.

So, now they are in a bind of their own making after persistently refusing to either prove the accusations of the libel or to retract the libelous statements. Ergo the lawsuit.

Banning and deletions are used by the defendent as a cover, but are otherwise irrelevant as the facts at info-theory show.

Please make the appropriate corrections to your post.

Thanks