Never finalized, never posted, never seen the light of day, until now. Last saved by Chen Zhen on 08 October 2011.
On the wikipedia entry for LGF, you’ll find this:
Johnson has stated many times that he is disgusted with media coverage of the death of International Solidarity Movement activist Rachel Corrie, who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah, a town in theGaza Strip. Johnson disputes the ISM’s account, holding that Corrie was “trying to ‘protect’ a house used for drugs and weapons smuggling”. Johnson states:
Rachel Corrie was emphatically not a “peace activist”. She sided with terrorists and criminals, and advocated—in fact, was excited by—violence and mass murder.In support of this view, he has cited a diary entry from Corrie in which he claims that she expresses the view that Palestinian violence towards Israel is justifiable and laudable.
In posts about her on LGF, Johnson often features a photo of Corrie burning a hand-drawn American flag and surrounded by Palestinian children.
What the wiki editors leave out is the interesting story behind the term “Saint Pancake”, which originated on LGF and was a staple reference to Corrie (and the manner of her demise) for years after her death (it was an entry in the long-lost LGF Dictionary, and even the handle of an LGFer). It remains as one of the quintessential examples of the gall and dishonesty of Charles Johnson.
You see, rather than owning up to his culpability in popularizing the term and simply apologizing for it, Johnson instead denied any association, going so far as to state this at The Guardian:
I know it’s been almost a year since we slapped CJ with the revelation of the infamous LGF comment #218822 (wherein, contrary to Johnson’s repeated claims over the better part of a decade, he did refer to Rachel Corrie as “Saint Pancake”), but there’s been a bit of a new development, and The Boiler Room has caught him in yet another lie related to the whole episode.
You see, for the longest time, the BRC was unable to dive into the archives and retrieve the comment first hand, since Johnson had cravenly blocked the Internet Archive (Wayback Machine) from his site. Luckily, enough evidence of its original existence was to be found, and we were able to prove it indirectly. Still, it would have been nice to get a rough idea of how long it stood before it was [deleted], and the periodic snapshot caches taken by the Archive would have at least told us if it was in terms of days, months, years, etc. To the point, we didn’t have much of an idea if this -one of the more definitive and comprehensive statements that CJ made about the subject when it blew up- was true, or complete BS:
The mystery ends today (sorta). How? Well, Engineer no. 5 sent out an email about how, curiously, the LGF block on the Internet Archives was no longer in place, and now anyone can freely browse again (whether this was intentional on CJ’s part or not, we’re not sure; it seems strange for him to lift the block like this after more than a year). Almost immediately (or, at least after I read the email), I stretched my ctrl+c finger, and started pluggin’ some choice urls into the interface. What popped up* was pretty interesting:
Note the Feb. 2, 2006, which means that #218822 was actually sitting there on LGF unmolested for almost 3 years (at least; this date is the most recent snapshot we can find). So, CJ is lying in one or more ways:
- It was certainly not [deleted] “very soon” after it was posted.
- CJ didn’t have a timestamp on his dashboard to indicate when a comment was [deleted].
- Both 1 and 2
To add insult to injury, Johnson could have been busted on this a long time ago, had a fact-check team such as the BRC been around back when the comment was still live. Check this exchange from 2004, in article #10619:
But alas, Johnson escaped unbusted.
Unfortunately, we can’t be sure if the comment was still live in 2009, when we saw this:
Again, the lizards took him at his word.
Our theory? CJ realized that he made his emphatic statement on his 2010 Guardian article outside the comfort of his living room, and with the BRC also lurking he decided to scrub the comment and block the Archive, in an attempt to save face. We’ll probably never know for sure, but it is probable that comment #218822 was live well into 2010.
The takeaway? It’s hard to believe that he didn’t remember essentially christening a term that became associated with LGF for years, so we’re pretty much left to conclude that virtually everything CJ’s has ever said about the “pancake” issue has been a complete pile of BS (which highlights the lengths he’g go and the size of the web he’d weave to protect his ego).
*We can thank the loozards for the tip vis a vis WebCite. We’re keeping that strawberry.
Update: It appears that the screencap we grabbed for Johnson’s aforementioned “timestamp” comment differs from what I snipped today. Can you spot the change (besides the additional updings)?
Update: For those who do not read here:
Rachel Corrie was nicknamed “St. Pancake” by the LGF lizards, and we’ve continued the meme, including a section dedicated to her in The Diary of Daedalus Store. Sure it’s morbid mockery, but is it appropriate? The late National Lampoon mocked Ted Kennedy mercilessly for Chappaquiddick, but he was alive, even though Mary Jo Kopechne was not. So here’s a poll that will remain open for a week. Do we drop St. Pancake or not?
Update: For those who needed clarification on who promoted the St. Pancake meme, here ya go:
In honor of Chuck admitting he used the term St. Pancakes!
Chuck you finally were honest! You loved that St. Pancakes before your conversion to the Left! We are happy to have made you speak the truth!
(Hat Tip: BuddyG)
and they both mention this blog!
Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 8:53 am
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
Clip this away, folks, for this will prove once and for all that Johnson is actually a liar.
Just today The Other McCain noted how easy it is to ignore Charles Johnson. But since Patterico stirred things up, I came across this astonishing item from Johnson.
Apparently he has written at least one piece in the UK’s Guardian about the “haters” in America like Pam Geller. Yeah, you read that right, the Guardian, which he used to refer to as the al Guardian (although to his credit he owns up to that comment). So a few commenters with long memories brought up Johnson’s own use of the term “pancake” when mocking the death of Rachel Corrie. Bear in mind, back in the day he used to make jokes like that all the time. When I made some kind of joke about memorializing her with a breakfast at the International House of Pancakes, I was ripping off borrowing Johnson’s jokes. So a few people brought up those kinds of comments. For instance:
Charles used to refer to Rachel Corrie, a pro-Palestinian “activist” who was crushed by a bulldozer, as “Saint Pancake.” Google for “rachel corrie pancake breakfast.” For him to try to characterize the former tone of his site as the result of too-loose moderation is simply disingenuous.
But Johnson selectively chooses to respond only to Joey100’s comment:
Some of the rhetoric – al Guardian, St. Pancake – has been brought up in this thread to embarass CJ. Maybe he should speak to that.
To which Johnson responded:
First, about the term “St. Pancake” — the simple fact is that I never used this term at LGF, and in fact I have told people many times, when I saw them using it, that I didn’t like it. I even warned some people that continuing to use it would get their accounts blocked. This is a case in which the smear is absolutely, 100% due to the very people you see posting hateful comments directed me in this thread.
Which was appallingly deceptive. I didn’t personally remember the man ever saying those exact words, but to deny one insult and pretend he made no other Rachel Corrie/pancake references was just bull. It was pulling a Bill Clinton, making a statement so deceptive it is in practicality a lie. He apparently has vigorously scrubbed his site of these jokes that used to come all the time, but, um, he missed a spot:
(Note: the highlighting effect there is the result of me selecting words to copy and forgetting to turn that off when I made the screencap.)
Notice the wording: “Indymedia unwittingly imitates Little Green Footballs: Rachel Corrie Pancake Breakfast” (emphasis added). Now how could they be imitating anything, if LGF had never made Rachel Corrie “pancake” jokes in the first place? Johnson was challenged on this point and he responds:
I made an ironic reference to the use of the term by LGF readers. I didn’t use it myself.
Mmm, yeah, except he didn’t say “our readers.” He said “Little Green Footballs.” And further in the past when other bloggers tried to hold the behavior of his commenters against him, he regularly denied responsibility for his commenters—he claimed he was not responsible for what they say. To this day his site contains this disclaimer:
Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
So which is it, Chuckie boy? But it gets even worse. Let’s remember that he considered the phrase to be so offensive that he claimed that he threatened to ban accounts of people who used that term when he was aware of them. Oh, except he didn’t. For years there was a commenter on his site that went by the handle “St. Pancake.” And Johnson even gave him a hat tip in this post (don’t bother deleting, Chuckie, we have the screen shot). So the claim that he deleted that term was a lie.
R. S. McCain’s take on McDumdum’s (il)logic
Posted on | January 21, 2011 | View Comments
“I was such a small fish at the time. I realized I was basically committing blog suicide by going against him. But he was wrong.”
– Pamela Geller, January 2010
It’s interesting how easy it has become to ignore Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs. A couple weeks ago, Diary of Daedalus or the Blogmocracy had a post with a graphic showing the decline in LGF’s traffic since Johnson began his mad purge of commenters who didn’t cooperate with his site’s leftward shift. And I would have blogged about that, but why bother? Nobody cares about LGF anymore.
Johnson has tried to re-invent LGF as an amateur Media Matters, and Patterico caught LGF doing a phony “gotcha” wherein Glenn Beck last June supposedly told his viewers to shoot people in the head.
Patterico links the transcript of the program which makes clear that Beck never said or intended any such thing. What Beck was talking about was a “civil war” within the Democratic Party between pragmatic, mainstream liberals and the revolutionary True Believers who are intent on radical change By Any Means Necessary:
You’ve been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.
They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they’re revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.
You will recall that after the 9/12 March on Washington in 2009, Nancy Pelosi gave a press conference warning about rhetoric that “created a climate in which violence took place” in San Francisco in the late 1970s:
And what Beck was trying to say on his June 2010 program was that Democratic leaders, who believed they could co-opt and use the radicalism of the Left for their political advantage, should worry more about extremism from their own allies than from the conservative opposition. You don’t have to believe that assertion — or be a Beck fan — to see that what the LGF post did was to twist Beck’s meaning into the exact opposite of what Beck intended.
What’s stunning is how easily Johnson — or rather one of his second-banana henchpeople, “Conservative Moonbat” — was gulled into that error. The Beck transcript was available online the whole time. The transcript was located by the third commenter on the LGF post and the fourth commenter observed:
So he says that Dems will have to shoot left-wing radicals “in the head”
Charles Johnson has cut himself off from conservatives and made them his enemies, without actually bothering to declare himself a liberal. Liberals were happy to celebrate Johnson’s defection from the Right, but the one-time dividend of a New York Times profile hasn’t yielded any lasting benefit.
No blog is an island. If you aren’t linked by other blogs, you can’t increase your readership. That which does not grow will eventually begin to die. When Johnson decided to make war on erstwhile blog allies, he also cut himself off from their readers, and without a readership — beyond the dwindling cult of sycophants — he has become irrelevant.
Does anybody remember what Charles Johnson told the readers of The Guardian last year, in the comment section of his (nearly as) disingenuous article about Pamela Geller*? We do:
With regard to “St. Pancake”, this wasn’t the first time CJ had issued this denial, as the subject has periodically come up on his site in the past. Never mind the fact that LGF golden boy Killgore Trout has used the term more than once (without consequence), or that Johnson used to give “hat tips” to someone using the nic “St. Pancake”, or that it was canonized in the (now defunct) LGF Dictionary, should we wonder how this came to be associated with (and popularized within) LGF, and why Charles has had to address this accusation so many times?
Well, the Boiler Room crew has uncovered evidence that, contrary to his claims, the Grand Lizardoid did use this dreaded term as well. Proudly.
First, go to this thread (5/9/03):
You’ll see that familiar image of Rachel Corrie in the article** (this picture of her burning a paper US flag was an LGF favorite at the time). When you look at the comments, it is obvious that it wasn’t there when the thread was initially published, rather that it was quickly added upon request. Let’s look at the exchange, because it is very revealing (especially comment #6):
Now, one doesn’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that the [deleted] comment in #3 belonged to Charles, and that he was being responded to in #5, and both quoted and responded to in #6. Yes, Charles referred to Rachel Corrie as “Saint Pancake”, and at some point down the road, deleted his own comment (and this is likely the main reason why he made the move to block the Wayback Machine shortly after his emphatic Guardian statement, as it probably would have revealed comments like this uncensored).
Unfortunately, without the Internet Archive, we cannot resurrect the direct proof that “Saint Pancake” was mentioned in comment #3. However, we can prove that comment 3 was Charles, and we’ll then leave it to the true LGF sycophants to twist themselves into knots denying the obvious.
You see, contrary to popular belief, you do not have to be registered and logged in to see who authored a [deleted] comment. All one needs is the comment URL (even the [deleted] comments have one). For this comment #3, it is:
Then, roll your mouse over the little green football, and all will be revealed. Check the target URL in your browser, and you’ll see: littlegreenfootballs.com/user/Charles/6557/0003/entry. Or, just check our screenshot of the same (look in the lower left corner of the image). Comment #3 was Charles.
Want further proof? Just pull up the source code for the page, and you’ll see this:
It’s now safe to say that, much to CJ’s fault and chagrin, the old “fact check your ass” players are on our team now.
The World’s Greatest Blog Search Engine™ also revealed that, while the lizards had already made a few assorted “pancake” jokes, the first use of the term “St. Pancake” came from the netizen “hobgoblin”, and the debate over whether Corrie’s nickname should be “St. Pancake” or “Flat Bitch” took place on this thread on 5/8/03:
Conclusion? The term was essentially christened by CJ the next day with the “Saint Pancake” reference, and the rest is history.
While we’re on the subject of “St. Pancake” at LGF….Yesterday, I posted up this little nugget:
The link was dead, so I had to satisfy my curiosity. With the help of the google, I found it, and I’ve decided that it should really be here for posterity:
And while I was at it, I discovered that this wasn’t Alouette’s only painstakingly crafted tribute to Corrie:
After all, they are collectors items.
The other day, DoD reader ‘antilgfwarrior’ posted a little reminder about the truth and rumor aspects of the use of this disparaging nickname for Rachel Corrie. So, The Boiler Room crew thought that sorting some of this stuff out might be a perfect excuse to take The World’s Greatest Blog Search Engine™ out for another spin, and what we found was pretty enlightening…
But first, we’ll get some of the background stuff out of the way. The truth:
- “St. Pancake” is/was an entry in the LGF Dictionary, listed under “Terms that Originated on LGF”
- “St. Pancake” was the nic of a lizard, active from ’05-’08 with over 25,000 posts (and at least 2 “hat tips“).
- Rachel Corrie won the LGF “Fiskie” (Idiotarian) award for 2004, and this speaks for itself.
- There is an LGF thread (still live) titled The Rachel Corrie Pancake Breakfast. In it, Charles says: “No, it’s not a joke.” (Really?)
Aside from that, there are countless front page LGF threads about Corrie that appear after her March ’03 death, and not a positive one in the bunch. In fact, looking back, CJ appears almost obsessed with her; sort of the Pam Geller of the era (the difference, of course, is that she’s, ya know…dead).
Now, in my LGF days (’06-’07), saying “St. Pancake” seemed to be A-OK, although I never used it (or felt compelled to). But sometime in between my departure and today things did change, and The Boiler Room crew discovered that it was only in the last 12 months that CJ took some real offence to its use, and threatened to ban posters who did it. We’re not sure what caused this, and given the facts above, he might want to clarify it to the current cultists.
In any case, there are literally hundreds of comments in the LGF archives that refer to Corrie as “St. Pancake”. Most of the authors haven’t been heard from in quite some time, and a few of them are some of our fellow DoD readers (we know who you are, so…).
But they’re not all gone:
And although she did use the term as well, we thought this made a better screencap:
(the link is now dead)
Exit question: In light of CJ’s position now, do you think we’ll see our distinguished lizards above try to earn some extra karma and take it back?
LGF – EASTER 2004
60 Charles Sun, Apr 11, 2004 6:41:16am
scaramouche: shh. Don’t want to wake up the Mudheads with any factual data; it might hurt their feelings.
73 Charles Sun, Apr 11, 2004 7:00:09am
Mike: you have stung me to the quick.
Guess you missed the numerous statements from the owner of that site saying it was exactly what he wanted, and that he was delighted with it?
Thank you for the comment, though. Every time you folks reveal yourselves as the low, crass, hate-filled slogan spouters you are, I laugh. But just a little; then I get back to work.
85 Charles Sun, Apr 11, 2004 7:13:34am
It’s on the front page, cedar.
102 Charles Sun, Apr 11, 2004 7:44:17am
cedar: got it. So, in other words, a front page post that contains a vile picture (unflattering, too) of me as Eva Braun is fine with you?
Thanks for clarifying.
113 Charles Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:09:05am
No, it’s not. However, I don’t recall seeing a picture of you at all on MetaFilter. Did I miss something?
Nice dodge. Thanks for playing.
169 Charles Sun, Apr 11, 2004 10:45:48am
Folks, we’re talking about two different things. The actual picture was not visible on the Mudfilter page.
There was, however, a link to the picture. That’s what cedar and johnny dee think is just fine. According to these guys, there’s a huge difference between posting the actual picture, and posting a link telling people to go look at the picture. Apparently, when someone posts a link to a crude photoshop that puts my head on Eva Braun’s body at Metafilter, I’m supposed to have humility and acknowledge that I’m not always right.
It’s a matter of nuance, you see. When executing a personal smear job, it’s good to do it in as nuanced a way as possible.
176 Charles Sun, Apr 11, 2004 11:09:10am
One is left to wonder how long that personal attack would have remained on Metafilter’s front page if I hadn’t linked to it.
Getting caught does wonders for some people’s scruples.
180 Charles Sun, Apr 11, 2004 11:24:31am
Folks, what we have here is a typical case of lefty role reversal. To divert attention away from the fact that a link to a really nasty personal attack was left on Mudfilter’s front page for several hours — on Easter morning, mind you — it’s now become a matter of the “group think” at LGF. We’re all supposed to be ashamed and I’m supposed to be humble. And even pointing it out is called a bad thing.
Just observe the tactics at work.
182 Charles Sun, Apr 11, 2004 11:32:07am
OK, folks — I don’t know for sure — I never saw the picture at Mudfilter. So I don’t know either way, at least from my personal experience.
But be aware — this is not the issue. This is an attempt by Mudfilter groupies to turn the argument around and deflect the blame.
197 Charles Sun, Apr 11, 2004 12:12:15pm
cedar: you’re really starting to show your jerk badge.
The “Nuke Mecca crowd,” as you put it, does not appear on the front page.
“A dumb post.” I’m trying to remain level-headed here. But someday I’d like to see how you react if you wake up on a nice Easter morning and find the Mudfilter slimeballs chuckling and patting each other on the back at how clever they are for comparing you to Adolf Hitler’s girlfriend.
In an ugly polka dot dress to boot.
Right, but that’s just “dumb.” Whereas, pointing it out is “shameful, hypocritical, disingenuous,” etc. etc. etc. retch.
That “dumb” post stayed up for almost 6 hours, until I linked to it. I’m pretty sure that if I hadn’t linked to it, it would have remained.
Now go away, you pest.
204 Charles Sun, Apr 11, 2004 12:23:43pm
Please note: now the discussion has turned to ways to shut LGF down, at Metatalk.
215 Charles Sun, Apr 11, 2004 12:33:49pm
That’s right, not everything is about me. How could I have thought that putting my head on Eva Braun, then gloating over it at Metafilter, was about me?
I’m such a thin-skinned narcissist. You have taught me much, cedar.
304 Charles Sun, Apr 11, 2004 7:47:08pm
And by the way, at this point, you’ve made my case, underlined it, signed it, sealed it, bought insurance, and shipped it FedEx. Thanks.
59 Charles Sun, Apr 11, 2004 2:44:03pm
Note: See the update to the thread. They’re saying mean things about us over at “Screw Them” Zuniga’s hole again.
104 Charles Mon, Apr 12, 2004 7:35:16am
SAO (who is in Canada) takes a pause from bashing LGF at every other site in the blogosphere, to spew:
Nobody is comparing Charles himself to a Nazi, just a few “cherry-picked” comments.
Uh huh. That Eva Braun thing, why, that’s just a joke, right?
167 Charles Mon, Apr 12, 2004 9:36:17am
It’s a lie. There has never been a single post by me that uses the word “pancake” to refer to Rachel Corrie. Not one.
Yeah, right, Charles. When have you retracted anything besides a Luxo Lamp? You want us to list your uncorrected fups again for your fans? Let’s start with this: Buckhead, Jeremy Chrysler’s .gif, LGF Statistics, Breitbart’s Menu Board, the AirCav hat, the Tennessee State Flag, the Ohio State Flag, Saint Pancake… There are many more ChuckFails and too many to recall on short notice. Once we have the list with links we’ll add it to The Ruse and Fail series, and then we’ll laugh and laugh and laugh.
Charles, you’re a mess.