Comments on: Eric Muller’s Michelle Malkin Obsession

By: jpe

jpe — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 16:30:13 +0000

Malkin published the office address of officers in a student group and some nuts sent out nasty emails. Why is Malkin responsible for that?

The same way I'd be responsible for it if I posted your work address and email and then told my crazed minions to let you have it. This is pretty basic stuff, isn't it?

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 03:14:12 +0000

yetanotherjohn,

Well put. I found Malkin's post pretty silly, given that I am partial to foul-mouthed slutty British girls. Nonetheless, there wasn't really anything incriminating about the photoshopped Malkin shot. At least a Scotch tumbler and a bong could have been photoshopped in to make it look a little more skanky.

Also- Malkin is such an easy-target that it really isn't necessary to resort to these measures in order to criticize her. Muller seems like a man in need of a new hobby.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 01:57:11 +0000

I'm still having trouble with the logic chain that says wearing a bikini 15 years ago should prevent you from talking about moral issues today. The fact that the picture was faked is just par for the course on the lefts "fake but accurate" standards. But even if accurate I don't follow the reasoning.

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:54:20 +0000

I think that’s rightm, or close to it, he had some reason for doing what he did, such that when I read his post originally it seemed to me more of the “something’s amiss here, let me look further into it” kind of curiousity rather than stalking.

Yes that was Muller's claim, however, given that changing the times/dates of posts is particularly easy and that that is an obvious answer (toss in restaurants, coffee shops, etc. that offer WiFi as an added attraction) the degree to which he went after this anomaly struck me as quite inappropriate.

Jon Swift,

If Muller's actions do turn into cyber-stalking then the universtiy administration will likely feel really stupid for not warning him off this path earlier. Further, if something unpleasant does result the university could find itself on the end of a rather nasty lawsuit.

Bottomline: Muller is being really moronic.

By: Ugh

Ugh — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:42:21 +0000

Wasn’t the blogging-while-flying post supposed to address allegations that Malkin’s husband ghost-writes for her?

I think that's rightm, or close to it, he had some reason for doing what he did, such that when I read his post originally it seemed to me more of the "something's amiss here, let me look further into it" kind of curiousity rather than stalking.

By: alex

alex — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:41:41 +0000

It's pretty clear, to me anyway, that Muller has a strange fascination with Malkin, perhaps even a bit of a school boy crush, and because he finds her political positions to be so evil, he makes himself feel better by tearing her apart on a daily basis.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:35:14 +0000

Jon:

Not sure I take your point. Malkin published the office address of officers in a student group and some nuts sent out nasty emails. Why is Malkin responsible for that?

By contrast, Muller wrote all the things for which he's being condemned and then published them on his own site.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:16:45 +0000

Wasn't the blogging-while-flying post supposed to address allegations that Malkin's husband ghost-writes for her?

In any event, let's fervently hope that Muller is *not* perving on a skank like Malkin.

By: Jon Swift

Jon Swift — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:10:35 +0000

I'm sorry, Mr. Joyner, I had completely forgotten about the Creepiness Exception to encouraging one's readers to trying to get someone fired. I also know you to be someone who is fair-minded enough that if a conservative blogger printed contact information of a group of student protesters and encouraged her readers to contact them, and they did so with death threats, you would condemn that kind of creepiness unequivocally.

By: Eneils Bailey

Eneils Bailey — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:38:00 +0000

Yes, this is a creepy guy.
My suggestion is that the UNC Law School demote him to teaching Sex Education and Driver's Training. I will loan him my mule.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:13:24 +0000

Anderson: This post, since edited (for honorable enough reasons) by Muller, originally contained a minute-by-minute account of Malkin's posting and travel schedule. It was pretty creepy. Jon: The issue isn't agreement, it's defamation.

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:12:15 +0000

Muller is too preoccupied with Malkin, sure, but it’s not “stalking.”

I dunno Anderson, the one where he chartted her travel announcements/travel times and posting intervals came pretty close to that line. He may not have crossed it, but given the direction he is going he will eventually unless he changes course.

By: Jon Swift

Jon Swift — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:38:32 +0000

By all means, let us threaten the livelihoods of those who disagree with us.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:31:31 +0000

Muller is too preoccupied with Malkin, sure, but it's not "stalking."

Pretty lame of him to fall for that godawful Photoshop job, though.

As for Malkin's original column ... why does anyone read her? You couldn't figure it out from that.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:23:59 +0000

Ugh: Taking Malkin to task on her book is reasonable enough; the two had competing works out on the subject. There have been several instances, though, that went beyond intellectual disagreement. See this post by Malkin, for example. The update wasn't there when I posted this.