Armando, the short explanation is this: You reap what you sow. When people say you had it coming, that's what they mean. ... You were outed because you are an unrelenting asshole. ... Seriously, Armando, your behavior has been far worse than Jiggy's on many dimensions. ...

You couldn't be more wrong.

No deserves this, no one.  Armando put words on a screen, nothing more.  Sorry, this doesn't qualify as abuse.  Even getting someone banned doesn't live up to that designation.

In an uncaring world where those with means refuse to assist those without despite their dire circumstances, Armando's behavior doesn't even register on the scale.  I've known abuse as a child, this isn't it.    

I have no great love for Armando, but that isn't relevant.  Could he be an asshole?  Obviously.  But his actions all fell within the framework of blogtopia.  Words on a screen, nothing more.  

Fear will keep the local systems in line. -Grand Moff Tarkin Survivor Left Blogistan

The eternal GBCW routine that so many self-obsessed bloggers have employed.  The list is long...  In/out  In/out.

It'd be comedy, but it never really rises, not even to a guffaw.

One thing is clear, that sort never got enough attention as children.  Awww.

Why don't you take your fifth grade name-calling back over there.  I question why this post belongs here at Booman.

Never seen a diary or comment from you in the year I've been here.  Why today?

"Don't waste your time on the clowns, watch the real show"

I always stood by what I wrote. I always linked back to my original statements when Armando misquoted me, which he did frequently. I never went back and scrubbed a diary. Sadly, now, it's damned near impossible to get to the threads of my diaries at dK ... links often go back to the front page. Stalinist, that place has become, rewriting and cleaning up and censoring history to suit their dishonest agenda as digital ward heelers for a thoroughly corrupt corporate party.

They have betrayed what they claimed to be building.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

armando did bring this on himself, but not because he was mean to you (and me, and dozens of other posters).

he brought it on himself by thinking he could not only be a shit-stirrer, but a shit-stirrer who worked across non-partisan levels with the other side, and remain pseudonymous.

someone at the fdl breakfast (and since i'm paraphrasing, i shan't attribute it to her by name, in case i get what she meant wrong) concluded that "if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas."

it was her opinion that armando brought it on himself by naively trying to cooperate with rightist bloggers, whom never should be trusted. in her opinion, the "other side" was out to get even for our "destruction" of ben domenech.  so when armando set up crossed swords with trevino, but the other side (be it trevino, or someone at nro) pounced at the chance to take one of ours down.

and it is my opinion that, in this day of <whois>, cell phones with video cameras, isp records and google,  nobody has a reasonable expectation of remaining nonymous online, be it an- or pseudo-.

and especially if someone makes it his/her "schtick" to be confrontational, can they expect to remain unknown.

now, i would disagree that it was either "karma" or specific retribution for a specific "slight," real or imagined, which lead to armando's outing.  it's more a serrendipity of coincidence that those who nurse wounds and grudges latch onto to justify their own feeling of powerlessness, which, considering it takes place in cyberspace, is downright pathetic.

the best you can enjoy is the irony of the situation. but it's certainly not the foundation for a diary, unless it's one that is more thoughtfully done, as i did with this comment.