Our Kenneth
What I love the most about Ricochet is the community. Even those of us who are, um, former members of the community, for one reason or another.
(I'll pause here for a moment to say, once again, that if you haven't joined as a member, please do. Right now. We'll wait.)
Okay, with that said, many of you will remember a former member, Kenneth, who stirred things up with his acerbic wit and -- let's be honest -- sharper-than-necessary language. What's he been up to lately?
There's lots of funny stuff over there -- he calls his blog "The Full Kenneth," which means pretty much what you expect that it means. But I especially enjoyed his recent screed against the huge amount of land the government owns:
The federal government owns more than 30% of the land in the United States. Here in California, that share is more than 45%.
Now, no one would object that national treasures like Yosemite and Yellowstone should be preserved, in perpetuity, for the enjoyment of future generations.
But the problem these days is that federal bureaucrats and their environmental enablers increasingly militate for a regime in which the public who owns those lands are barred from enjoying them.
Take Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park, for instance. Established in 1968, this 316-square-mile preserve spans a magnificent part of the high Sierra Mountains. But it’s tough trekking, so, for many years before and since the establishment of the park, dozens of small, family-owned companies have provided horseback tours that allow flatlanders to enjoy the area’s beauty.
No more. An outfit calling itself High Sierra Hikers – essentially two fanatic environmentalists who live in Lake Tahoe, hundreds of miles away from the park – recently sued the federal Department of the Interior, claiming that by allowing a few hundred tourists each summer to visit the park on horseback, the Department was violating the 1964 Wilderness Act...
...those two guys in Lake Tahoe found a big-time San Francisco law firm to file the suit. And, by coincidence, the federal judge who heard the case was a former lawyer for said big-time law firm. And when the two guys won the case, the judge awarded the big-time law firm millions of dollars in legal fees, while the small companies that had offered horseback tours for generations were put out of business. And hundreds of citizens who might have enjoyed the back country each summer were out of luck.
I know I'm stirring things up myself when I say this, but if you've got a moment and are so inclined, head over to Kenneth's blog and say hello.
- Comment (133)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (12)
Comments:
Jan '11
Re: Our Kenneth
Sigh, the bad boys get attention from the cool crowd. Well, you know what?? Here's my take [Redacted]
May '10
Re: Our Kenneth
Tommy De Seno
This comment was liked 7 times and quoted twice.
This furthers the position that Kenneth was rude?
Irony just put on his hat and coat, kissed everyone goodbye and announced his work is done here.
Oh please. Like a pattern of behavior is excused because someone shows the practitioner the same courtesy. If one man misbehaves himself towards 20 people, its no contradiction to reply in kind to said culprit. Tell "irony" to get out from underneath the desk - he's outlived his usefulness.
Edited on June 24, 2012 at 10:02amRe: Our Kenneth
Michael Labeit
Tommy De Seno
This comment was liked 7 times and quoted twice.
This furthers the position that Kenneth was rude?
Irony just put on his hat and coat, kissed everyone goodbye and announced his work is done here.
I was in many conversations with Kenneth. Never once did he become uncivil toward me (perhaps because we agreed so often).
I never saw these horrible moments of intemperance others write about Kenneth. That is not to say they didn't exist - I never saw them.
I miss him at Ricochet. · 2 hours ago
Ahem, in case this was not pronounced with the requisite assertiveness before:
He is as.c.h.m.u.c.k.
Champion the internet equivalent of a transvestite if you will. · 36 minutes ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
Is this like the rule of law that says you can't defame the dead? Does the Rico CofC no longer apply just because Kenneth is no longer a member?
May '10
Re: Our Kenneth
Tommy De Seno
Michael Labeit
Tommy De Seno:
This comment was liked 7 times and quoted twice.
This furthers the position that Kenneth was rude?
Irony just put on his hat and coat, kissed everyone goodbye and announced his work is done here.
I was in many conversations with Kenneth. Never once did he become uncivil toward me (perhaps because we agreed so often).
I never saw these horrible moments of intemperance others write about Kenneth. That is not to say they didn't exist - I never saw them.
I miss him at Ricochet. · 2 hours ago
Ahem, in case this was not pronounced with the requisite assertiveness before:
He is as.c.h.m.u.c.k.
Champion the internet equivalent of a transvestite if you will. · 36 minutes ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
Is this like the rule of law that says you can't defame the dead? Does the Rico CofC no longer apply just because Kenneth is no longer a member? · 8 minutes ago
I was never much for the stigma against belittling the dead myself. I don't impute much significance to someone's metabolism, or lack thereof, when it come to judgments.
Oct '10
Re: Our Kenneth
Personally, I’m glad he’s gone. He always struck me like the guy in class who raised his hand with every question from the teacher, because he thought he knew the answer. He was only right half of the time. I went up against him a couple of times because I knew something about the topic and he was factually incorrect. Losing the argument, he quickly degenerated to name calling. He exhibited poor manners and never learned Bill Buckley’s dictum to always attack the other person’s ideas, but never attack the other person. I still remember one post where he was describing many elderly people who were on a National Review cruise with him. These were people who probably subscribed for several decades and had a life long desire to take the cruise and could finally afford it. Rather than being happy for them, he mocked them as “zombies” and denigrated their presence in many other ways. His treatment of Sarah Palin and her family was simply mean and nasty. He has nothing to say that I am interested in hearing. I feel sorry for the guy.
Edited on June 24, 2012 at 12:14pmMar '11
Re: Our Kenneth
Mike LaRoche
EJHill · 9 minutes ago
I am not a number, I am a free man! · 10 hours ago
Sep '10
Re: Our Kenneth
Wow. This is quite interesting thread. I never saw any of Kenneth's nasty stuff because they were redacted. In a strange way Kenneth was protected by this policy.
And here is a guy who's been gone getting all this attention, and I really don't understand Rob's posting about him. And Ricochet members don't have anything better to talk about than a banned member?
Personal attacks are banned here, but the guy gets called a shmuck and that's not redacted? I just don't understand.
I don't miss Kenneth, but I do miss spirited debate here.
I wish people would have thicker skins. I have never been hurt personally by words a stranger said to me on the internet.
Feb '11
Re: Our Kenneth
Canuckski: Larry's right -- Ricochet is a lot more boring without Kenneth. The smug self-righteousness that bursts forth from certain members (semper bufo) on the mention of K's name (pace Kafka) is infinitely more offensive than K's abrasiveness.
The "tyranny of nice" that has emerged on Ricochet does not compensate for the loss of his posts.
If it weren't for Delingpole, I wouldn't have renewed. · 6 hours ago
I may be self-righteous, but I do try not to be smug. Thanks for the criticism -- would you really like me to work on bringing out my inner scary toad?
May '10
Re: Our Kenneth
I sense the presence of a 60s TV theme in rippling through this thread.
Aug '10
Re: Our Kenneth
So Kenneth had three other names here at Ricochet??? I must be slow on the uptake. I had no idea that was the case. How'd you guys know that?
I remember reading only one of Kenneth's personal attacks - against Lance. It was pretty classless. I suppose the other CoC violations were redacted before I could read them.
Kenneth had his moments. Some very good ones, I think. But unlike a lot of the members here at Ricochet, I never wanted to sit and have a cup of coffee with the guy. Not without a dictionary and a bodyguard, at least.
May '10
Re: Our Kenneth
I wasn't going to say anything.... BUT... Since Rob picked at this wound and decided to make it bleed again... the subject in question is a man of two minds and he demanded that you agree with both of them.
One was affable and witty. The other was guilty of BUI. He could write eloquently of a dead pet and attack others viciously for indulging in things he felt weren't in line with a website that he didn't create or administer.
This was a subject that was best left buried.
Oct '10
Re: Our Kenneth
Franco:
And Ricochet members don't have anything better to talk about than a banned member?
I wish people would have thicker skins.
I think you have missed something important. Kenneth the individual isn't really the point even though he's the point of departure for the discussion. What is really being addressed is Ricochet's mores; its community standards. We're talking about this for that exact reason: we think of and care about Ricochet as a community. We want it to be something different from what we all know we can find elsewhere---yes, even within our own family in some cases. It isn’t thick skin we lack. There have been plenty of sharp, pointed even angry disagreements. There will be plenty more. We want to keep Ricochet a place where sharp and pointed doesn’t auto-devolve into ad hominem Trashville. This is an artistic balance, if you will, not a scientific one. That is why you can discern in this thread a groping about for where to draw the line. But it’s not because we are out of things to talk about or can’t handle rough treatment over our ideas.
Oct '10
Re: Our Kenneth
EJHill:
The other was guilty of BUI.
Sorry, I'm slow on the acronym up-take. The options at http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/BUI aren't promising!
Oct '10
Re: Our Kenneth
HVTs
EJHill:
The other was guilty ofBUI.
Sorry, I'm slow on the acronym up-take. The options at http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/BUI aren't promising! · 0 minutes ago
Ohhh, Duh!
Butt Ugly Idiocy (?)
Oct '10
Re: Our Kenneth
Since apparently I can't buy a clue or a vowel here, this is my final shot:
Blogging Under the Influence (?)
Dec '10
Re: Our Kenneth
HVTs
Not canned ... back up to Frozen Chosen's explanation at #45.
Yeah, that's what I get for posting before reading the whole thread.
Not gonna comment on the real topic at hand, as I've already said my piece on that score long ago.
Sep '10
Re: Our Kenneth
HVTs
Franco:
And Ricochet members don't have anything better to talk about than a banned member?
I wish people would have thicker skins.
I think you have missed something important. Kenneth the individual isn't really the point even though he's the point of departure for the discussion. What isreallybeing addressed is Ricochet's mores; its community standards.
Okay, but where's the evidence? Redacted. So I don't understand. I've had some pretty innocuous things redacted, myself. I don't know yet if I'm going to renew my yearly subscription. My participation has already changed. Hey, it's not my site. Post what you want. Comment on what you want. My view is that there are too many posters and not enough commenters. I comment a lot on everything I feel I might have something to say. It's not hard. It's very interesting to see what generates interest and what doesn't. Interesting to see what gets to the main feed and what doesn't. Increasingly, I feel I'm in a minority here.
Oct '10
Re: Our Kenneth
Franco
Okay, but where's the evidence? Redacted. So I don't understand. ...
Increasingly, I feel I'm in a minority here.
I don't think there's much stomach for opening the evidence locker and retrying the case. He was a repeat offender and fell under the well-known Four Identities and You're Out rule. Indeed, he may still be burrowed in despite 24/7 operations by Ricochet's crack False Identity Squad, which has (sensitive, close hold) recently hired Illya Kuryakin to help it.
Have you actually detected a majority here? I sense roving gangs of minority opinion ... pick up teams, as it were. It’s the Sharks and Jets, Bloods and Crips except with fluid membership rules and no waiting period before joining. Yeah that’s right, the guy next to you on one post might shank you on the next. No Sons of Anarchy (yet ... well maybe a few and you know who you are!) but plenty Sons of Liberty and seriously hyperactive Committees of Correspondence. [:-)
Jul '11
Re: Our Kenneth
My experiences were like post #85. People who type things on the web that would, in real life, be a gamble with their front teeth are a funny lot. He's the Terrell Owens cancer of Ricochet. Talented but divisive, the emotional insecurity displays itself as a child bully.
Jul '10
Re: Our Kenneth
Whatever Ricochet actually offers, it brings Kenneth back over and over again, even if he has wised up and no longer brags about it on site. It is quite likely, in fact, that he has at least one sock puppet (no, no points for guessing Tommy De Seno, his is a well-documented identity) in this conversation.
DocJay nails it in #99. The lashing out and insults are rogue male behavior. In the real world, alpha makes a gesture, the tribal toughs take the punk out back and deal with it. Let the behavior run wild and other punk rogues join in with the idea of anointing a new alpha. Weak moderation on the Internet simulates a missing alpha, and every ugly, disgusting, and vile thing expressible is out there waiting to be found by its alleged admirers.
If bland were the real complaint, there are a million sites, literally, offering that crud. And yet every one of the Kenneth-side folk are diverting their latté money to Ricochet rather than bathing for free in the cesspool they claim to prefer.
If the Kenneth supporters cannot put forth a strong argument based on facts, than denigrating others cannot help them.