How not to get what you want via email.

This one will forever remain the locus classicus for e-futility, but the four I received in the last sixteen hours make for a mighty strong undercard.  In sum:

You are a liar and a fraud.  And I don't give a rat's ass what anyone who respects you may think of me, because I haven't any respect for anyone who would respect a disingenuous lying weasel like you to begin with.  Can you do me a favor?

Because I can't help but be polite, I even responded to these emails by telling my interlocutor how he could secure the information he needed to launch another baseless attack against me.  Why did I tell an intellectually dishonest person how to contact an agent who could put him in touch with the author he believes has information that undermines my argument?  Because that's what disingenuous lying weasels do: they provide their critics the means to suss out any truth that begs for sunlight.  Don't believe me? 

You should.  I have independent corroboration of my good faith gesture.  That evidence of my good faith comes from the very person who would cast me as a world-historical tool should elicit a few cheap chuckles . . . as should the fact that said person attempts to prove my iniquitous nature by publishing a private email in which I wrote the following: 

[Y]ou don’t even realize that I was trying to help you there, because I’d like to know what Andersen thinks as much as you do. But after the way you’ve maligned me without cause for the past few years, my friends—go figure—don’t want to have a fucking thing to do with you. I can’t ask them to do a favor on your behalf because they’re pre-pissed at me for even engaging with you in uncivil blog commentary.

But because I’m not a fucking asshole, I remind you that you did some graduate work with someone who currently works at the same agency that represents Andersen. How do I know this? Because the person in question told me once upon a time. I’m not going to give you my friend’s email address because that’d be pointless—apples to oranges she already has all permutations of your address in a kill file—so I point you in a direction of another agent there that might bear fruit[.]

Your eyes do not deceive you: I am being called all manner of awful things for the sin of trying to help a person who wants to discredit me because I'm more interested in the truth than I am winning an argument.  I'm actually glad my critic tunneled 'neath the low road and published our private correspondence online because it proves that I'm the sort of person

1. whose friends care about him enough to despise strangers on his behalf
2. is so invested in the truth that he will attempt to help someone who hates him find a way around those friends in order to discover it
3. who should fucking cut back on the profane emphatic particles already

So you know what?  Retroactive as to now, I give my critic permission to pull the dick move and publish our private correspondence online because it proves—more powerfully than my words ever could—that I have a commitment to something more important than my ego. 

Comments

[Wm T Sherman]

So:

Do you have Christopher Andersen’s e-mail address?
Did you provide it when asked?
If not, why not?

[JPRS]

Scott, you're a sophist and a hamfisted prevaricator. Can I have one of your kidneys?

[Richard Pennyfarthing]

You sir are a cad and a bounder!

And can I borrow some money?

[happyfeet]

I just worry that while everyone is arguing the little president man and his academic terrorist friends are gonna do awful dirty socialisms on our little country.

I will be vigilant but I have errands so hopefully you guys can keep a watchful eye too.

[JPool]

I have other pressing questions:
What's a kill file? It couldn't possibly be as sinister as it sounds, could it? Could it?!?
Why would you bet apples against oranges? Is it because you see oranges as inherently more valuable? This time of year, I would think that apples would be of better quality, assuming a basic enjoyment of each fruit. Or is this just a mixed metaphor, which, as my mother would say, I have a bat's chance in hell of understanding?

Also, I believe that the first passage was making reference to the Kampuchean Lying Weasel, which are often kept as domestic animals for their good temper and willingness to "do favors", through the dispatch of vermin, for their hosts. It is traditional to insult these weasels while requesting said favors of them, so that malevolent spirits should be misdirected away from them. Providing contact information is very roughly analagous to the dispatch of vermin, so I think we must assume a similar cultural setting for the above exchange.

[Jonathan Dresner]

Scott, I recently had an oddly similar exchange, though in completely different circumstances: I got an email from someone requesting comment on a thoroughly wacky revisionist historical argument; after I told him it was absurd, he sent me the form letter that he sends to academics who reject his ideas -- and I know it's a form letter because he sent it to me again after my next reply -- which prompted me to examine his web writings. Oddly, not a day later, I ran across a review of an ambitious (but wrongheaded, I think) scholarly work that had parallels to his argument (you might find it interesting, Scott, because it parallels ecological and historical analysis), and forwarded it to him. He told me in rather sharp terms that he had no interest in reading something by someone as closeminded and wrongheaded as I, and I pointed out that it wasn't by me at all but might be of interest to him, because that's what scholars do. No further correspondence ensued.

I'm not sure that most people outside of academia (or many inside, for that matter) really understand the principle of productive disagreement.

[Karl Steel]

Dresner, nice point, nice story.

really understand the principle of productive disagreement

You wouldn't know it from how I behave around these parts (I'm off the clock, folks!), but my syllabuses always say that I'm going to teach them how "to engage in academic disagreements professionally and graciously."

I'd drop the adjective "academic" if I could, but while I may be a hypocrite, I ain't no miracle worker.

[Wm T Sherman]

The timeline of the Jeff G.'s original request for the e-mail address (and its tone), your response, and Jeff G.'s response to that, are rather jumbled in your account; the better to portray him as someone who first insults you and *only then* makes a request of you, apparently. Yeah, who would do a thing like that. That Jeff G., what a maroon.

The request was made, your response was a bunch of rude and verbose crapola, he responded to the latter as one would expect, and now you have rewritten history with everything between the first and the last events excised, and the order of those reversed.

Let me rephrase my original question: Why did you not simply reply, "I don't know the e-mail address" or "I know the e-mail address but I don't feel like telling you because I don't like you?" Why the cloud of squid ink?

You had the same problem when you reached your conclusion that Cashill was essentially citing himself for affirmation. It was in support of your dismissal of Andersen's book, remember? The problem was, and is, ambiguous, selective, even false presentation of times and sources of quotations.

Starting with a desired conclusion, and then selecting and massaging facts into supporting it, is not a respectable thing to do.

I would say that your desired conclusion is that Obama is an admirable man doing admirable things, and that people who do not admire what he is doing are nefarious, not to mention stupid; yes, let's not forget stupid. If you could have reached that conclusion honestly, you would have done so. Your gaming makes me curious to read Andersen's book.

To SEK's "loyal friends who hate particular people merely because SEK does:" dance, rummies.

[Richard Pennyfarthing]

We don't hate Goldbrick, we pity him.

[Karl Steel]

W. T. Sherman (loved your work in Georgia, by the way!), here's your chance to reach a conclusion honestly. Can you name one of SEK's "loyal friends who hate particular people," say, JeffG., "merely because SEK does"?

Or are you just taking a brave stand against sycophants and hangers-on?

If so, let me join you in your crusade! Heck, I bet SEK would join up too.

[Wm T Sherman]

Well, R. Pennyfart. and K. Steel, I was naively basing that statement on the man's own words:

"because it proves that I'm the sort of person

1. whose friends care about him enough to despise strangers on his behalf"

If you know what he means better than he does, then maybe I should get his opinions from you guys instead of him. I hope that he is not offended by this new arrangement, and that he is on the mend, and will soon be able to make himself clear without assistance.

Oh, and: dance, rummies.

[SEK]

WM T Sherman:

The timeline of the Jeff G.'s original request for the e-mail address (and its tone), your response, and Jeff G.'s response to that, are rather jumbled in your account; the better to portray him as someone who first insults you and *only then* makes a request of you, apparently. Yeah, who would do a thing like that . . .

The request was made, your response was a bunch of rude and verbose crapola, he responded to the latter as one would expect, and now you have rewritten history with everything between the first and the last events excised, and the order of those reversed.

Jeff started throwing gratuitous insults two days ago, wrote an post yesterday, kept it up in the comments all afternoon, then wrote me an email and called me a "dishonest asshole" at 6:06 p.m. Make sense now?

Why did you not simply reply, "I don't know the e-mail address" or "I know the e-mail address but I don't feel like telling you because I don't like you?" Why the cloud of squid ink?

There was no ink-cloud: I told him exactly how he use a connection to acquire the information he desired.

JPool:

What's a kill file?

Me showing my age, apparently.

Or is this just a mixed metaphor, which, as my mother would say, I have a bat's chance in hell of understanding?

This I can't answer. I just say "I'd bet apples to oranges that . . ." when there's no absolutely no chance that the clause after "that" is true.

Jonathan:

I'm not sure that most people outside of academia (or many inside, for that matter) really understand the principle of productive disagreement.

That's what's odd and valuable about places like Unfogged, where not everyone's an academic, but somehow the tone remains mostly elevated. Places like that are a surprise for the reason you identify: most people are utterly incapable of calibrating the stakes of a given argument to the tone in which it's being received or delivered.

[Luther Blissett]

Sherman, Scott's point about Cashill remains pertinent: why does he approvingly cite Andersen as proof of his own points without acknowledging that he, Cashill, is the only source cited by Andersen in the first place? Cashill seems to assume that Andersen has some additional, anonymous, source, but since when would that be reliable evidence? So Cashill is lying by omission to puff up his shoddy argument, while Andersen is publishing unverifyable -- and hency unfalsifiable -- insinuation.

The whole Jeff-Scott conflict, though, is precisely why I comment on blogs but refuse to start my own. Let's not pretend that Jeff hasn't acted like a douchebag to Scott from the very start of this exchange. And then to come along and say, "Hey old buddy old pal, you're a douchebag, but you could be useful to me if you gave me an email address," well, that's just plain old fashioned fuckery. That Jeff publishes personal email exchanges is also complete dick-headedness. That Jeff erases people's comments to his blog is further fuckery. I don't think Scott is under any pressure to do anything more than call Jeff a cocksucker. That Scott won't do so is proof that he's a better man than I.

[SEK]

Karl:

Can you name one of SEK's "loyal friends who hate particular people," say, JeffG., "merely because SEK does"?

It's sad, but predictable, that the folks at PW can't understand the basic structure of an abusive relationship: but every time I give Jeff a chance to demonstrate that he still has something resembling integrity, there are people who beg me not to reengage him because they know how it will end . . . and one of those people happens to be the one in the publishing industry I tapped to forward my email to Andersen. Had I requested she do the same for Jeff, not only would she have told me "No," she would've told me off.

Which is why I said it was "sad," because I wouldn't want to live in a world where my friends didn't look out for me---where they didn't make the effort to point out my blind-spots and try to steer me safely home.

[Wm T Sherman]

"You are a liar and a fraud. And I don't give a rat's ass what anyone who respects you may think of me, because I haven't any respect for anyone who would respect a disingenuous lying weasel like you to begin with. Can you do me a favor?"

The above quote was your intro to the concept of insult & ask. It was in response to your reply. Therefore, it did not precede the request, it followed it. This is misleading.

But I must admit, following your link, that Jeff G. did start insulting you two days ago. He asked people to tell you that you are a liar. And "Fuck them, all of them" he wrote, including you. I had actualy commented on that thread but blew right past that stuff about telling you that you are a liar, and "fuck them,' including you, and so on.

So, I acknowledge that he started saying insulting things about you two days ago. I admit that I was wrong.

Now you can admit that you misrepresented the timing of the quote above, either through error or to make a better story.

[SEK]

Now you can admit that you misrepresented the timing of the quote above, either through error or to make a better story.

I don't think anyone believes Jeff actually sent that exact email. It's obviously doctored so as to be funny, which is why JPRS and Richard Pennyfarthing ran with it up-thread. So yes, I'm more than happy to admit that the email was meant to characterize the situation as pithily as possible. Which, as you note, it did.

[SEK]

That thread at Jeff's place is more hilarious than when he wrote this yesterday at 10:06 p.m.:

And he’s reading every comment on this thread. I know this because he thought it somehow biting to drop hints that he’s doing so in the email exchange.

I note that he wrote that at 10:06 p.m. yesterday only because I noted that I was reading the comments the day before at 9:25 p.m. Why is that hilarious? Check out who wrote the next comment. Apparently, I find it rhetorically biting to speak of common knowledge as if it were common knowledge---am I an idiot or what?

Back to the aforementioned funnier stuff. His commenters think that Jeff's possessions of my emails constitute a threat. Seriously:

Please note that Jeff has your full e-mails.

You know who else has my full emails? Me! You know who's not threatened by the fact that Jeff has them? Also me! Here are all my responses, edited to remove what Jeff wrote because, unlike him, I don't publish other people's emails without their permission:

1. [Jeff requests Andersen's email.]

Unless my memory deceives me, you also know someone who works at the firm that represents Andersen, Trident Media, and can have her forward your email to him yourself.

2. [Jeff whines.]

I thought you were at Hopkins with [XXX]. Doesn't matter, though, because I don't have Andersen's email address, so I can't give it to you.

3. [Jeff accuses me of lying because I said I'd written Andersen and can't fathom how I might manage that without his email---even though Jeff performed the very same miracle with Cashill not but 24 hours earlier.]

Your reading skills are for shit now. Here's my first reply to you:

Unless my memory deceives me, you also know someone who works at the firm that represents Andersen, Trident Media, and can have her forward your email to him yourself.

Remember how you, to quote yourself, wrote [in this comment, not a private email] "[H]ere's the email I sent to the editor at American Thinker (who sent it on to Mr. Cashill) along with his response"? If you think about it for a second, you'll realize that "the editor at American Thinker" and an agent "at the firm that represents Andersen, Trident Media" are dots that can be connected in the how-to-contact-people-without-their-email-addresses department.

If you have problems understanding why I'm reluctant to ask a friend to do me a favor and forward an email by someone who thinks I'm scum to the client of another agent, you need to spend more time around people and learn how they work. (But by all means, continue to claim that my reluctance is based on my desire to remain ignorant of Andersen's relation to Cashill. It's not like I emailed Andersen to ask him---wait, actually I did.)

4. [Jeff sent another email made of fail and made this comment, which prompted me to write the email Jeff posted without my permission this morning.]

My posting of these has the added benefit of me being able to prove (yet again) that Jeff's a liar. In response to this question directed at me:

[D]id you specifically tell Jeff that you didn’t provide an e-mail due to the lack of a response?

Jeff wrote:

No, he did not.

Which---given that in the second email I wrote that "I don't have Andersen's email address, so I can't give it to you"---is the sort of thing only a liar would write. Moreover, his next sentence reads:

If he didn’t have one, all he needed to say was he didn’t have one.

Which---given that in the second email I wrote that "I don't have Andersen's email address, so I can't give it to you"---means he is both a liar and someone whose reading skills, as I noted in the next email, "are for shit now."

That only matters because it's the basis of everyone calling me a liar for characterizing Jeff's accusations as "baseless shit." I'll let the folks at PW decide if accusations based on lies are baseless or not.

Finally, because I'm the kind of person who gets angry on the behalf of friends, look at what Jeff said here:

I do so like how he treats happy as a pet.

Apparently, happy is now my pet and I treat him as such. I mean, it looks like he's here of his own volition, comments where- and whenever he pleases, but in actuality, I keep happy chained on the porch and let him post comments of pre-approved content to the blog before we take our twice-daily constitutionals. Jeff is absolutely not a liar here: happy is a kept man and I am his keeper. Really!

[Wm T Sherman]

"I don't think anyone believes Jeff actually sent that exact email. It's obviously doctored so as to be funny"

No sh!t.

Not doctored, but shifted in time: "You are a liar and a fraud. And I don't give a rat's ass what anyone who respects you may think of me, because I haven't any respect for anyone who would respect a disingenuous lying weasel like you to begin with."

Doctored: "Can you do me a favor?"

[Ahistoricality]

Not doctored, but shifted in time

Aside from the fact that it's entirely obvious (if you follow the links, and Scott is probably the only person whose links to PW I'd follow) that the time shift has taken place, what makes this both funny and acceptable is that Jeff G. ever asked for help from someone to whom he wrote or sincerely thought so poorly of. Also, that he'd express it so openly in the context of trying to get help, which is, I suppose, a small tribute to his honesty (which is, judging by what I know, small), if not his empathy.

[Wm T Sherman]

See, that's another thing. Was it asking for help, or giving SEK a challenge to assist in putting competing versions of the story to the test? I saw it as the latter. Jeff G. will certainly find a way to contact Andersen without help from SEK. One would think that SEK would have a selfish interest in Andersen being contacted, so as to buttress his own version of events.

You want competing ideas to be tested, right SEK? You know, like a scientist would. It looks bad when somebody asks for a copy of your data, and only gets your life story and a run-around.