Charles’ Comment 167 WAS a lie (as proven years later by the BRC) which put his immediate spazdefense comments in question. Comment 168 indicates that he knows he deleted a comment once he became aware of it yet he doesn’t recall it. Regarding Comment 169: remember when Charles denied sending the LGF Flying Monkeys to astroturf the Amazon reviews of Pam Geller’s book? Yeah, like that never happened. (In fact, it never happened twice.) Does anyone really believe Comment 169?
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?
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.
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.
Ever wonder what search engine terms led people to visit this blog? I didn’t think so, but I was curious. Here’s a list of almost every search term since Day One in alphabotanical order. I omitted most of the varieties of “Diary of Daedalus.” –Briareus
[List begins below the break.]
Only behind the fevered forehead of Charles Johnson (nestled in the damp darkness somewhere between his blank black bead-button eyes and his Magical Jazzy Ponytail scrunchie) could this photo be construed as a Pro Nazi Rally, but that’s precisely what he claimed while trying to smear Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit. What exactly is Hoft guilty of? Pulling a Breitbart.
Okay. So radical grampas and grammas and mommies and daddies are neonazis for wanting to prevent the IRS from becoming a US version of Germany’s SS. Got it. So what was Hoft’s “Monumental Fail” that Mr.#Rumpswab refers to? An honest clarification of obvious intent, caught by a Wonkette reader. Original version:
Hunh. That’s a “Monumental Fail” according to someone who is notorious for editing and deleting his own words and those of other years after they were posted on LGF, who claimed he had nothing to do with nicknaming Rachel Corrie “St. Pancake”, who couldn’t identify the State Flags of either Tennessee or Ohio, who can’t tell the difference between a menu board and a laptop, who lied about Brevik’s Manifesto, who honestly claimed Anthony Weiner’s PeniePix as his own, who claimed George Zimmerman wasn’t injured by Trayvon Martin, who supports planting racist comments on rival blogs, who doesn’t know the definition of the word “bogus” or how to pronounce the word “milieu” and who’s been reduced to licking the fetid rump-pus-infections of a blogger known as Wonkette for liberal street cred.
Chuck, you’re a mess.
Update: The inane attack on Hoft continues. Here’s the pertinent part of the DSCC Request For Donations:
The unspoken insinuation is undeniably clear:
The Tea Party is a radical group comprised of neo-nazis.
Jim Hoft’s offer of a reward was poorly worded, but his intent was also undeniably clear:
Prove that the Tea Party supports National Socialism or STFU.
[Update: Added “St. Pancake” to the list of lies, h/t Swamprat.]
Charles Johnson admits he is self righteous.
At least Charles is being honest for once.
Update: Note that he included a subweasel sarc tag, but let’s ignore that. There’s an earlier mea culpa from Charles that shouldn’t go unnoticed. – Briareus
From someone who constantly screeched, harped on, criticized and blamed other websites and bloggers (i.e., HotAir, Big Journalism, Ace of Spades,
YouTube, Fox News, Drudge) for not policing tens of thousands of comments according to the BlogLaws of Charles Johnson Race Detective, that’s an amazing admission.
“Living in the past and carrying grudges” is exactly what Charles has been doing ever since he danced on his coffee table, mooned his couch, and proceeded to smear every radio personality and blogger who supported him and helped put Little Green Footballs on the map. What a pantload.
P.S. His comment No. 5 was posted on “Rachel Corrie, Ten Years After Her Death Under IDF Bulldozer in Rafah.” No traffic for you, brah, but don’t bother deleting it, Charlie. It’s been captured in all its Fuldkommen Gak.
Andrew Breitbart on OWS, SEIU, The Tea Party, Main Stream Media, Racism and Charles Johnson’s Magical Jazzy PonytailPosted: April 2, 2012
THE BREITBART INTERVIEW
On Sunday 2 October 2011, at our invitation, Andrew Breitbart called into a podcast hosted by The Blogmocracy. No rules, no pre-interview, no script, just pure Breitbart. He was given free-rein, to talk about anything he wanted for as long as he wanted, and to provide him with an open forum to discuss Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs. In typical Breitbart fashion, he didn’t hold back.
Here is the complete transcript, unedited, except to delete some of the verbal ums, youknows, repeated phrases, and to break up run-on sentences that are all typical of the spoken word. Other grammatical errors and hesitations have been left intact. Ellipsis […] indicate pauses, changes in thought, and are not omissions.
The Blogmocracy & Diary of Daedalus
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: