Go look up “meme.” Wikipedia, that bastardization/bastion of information, should have a definition.

No need for any apology to anyone. Just put down the big spoon and stop stirring s*** with such vigor. Your “editorial we” is splattering the rest of of mere mortals – and it has lost its train-wreck fascination as it becomes more and more an ordinary occurence.

It has become predictable and boring.

It’s far, far too easy to get caught up in our own efforts to persuade – I do it as well, and am no less guilty (but i’m aware of it at least).

But I have to agree with Tim here. And yes – it’s terribly important to hold Dems’ feet to the fire, and yes, that can look like “they’re just as bad”… but context, perspective, and history are really hard to encapsulate here (so it may look like “just as bad” when it really means “bad and not totally good”).

Well, on the conservative side anyway.

Are you under the impression that most of the blogosphere is more about honesty than spin? Really?

Those of us who do what we do is fairly rare. XGW may give multisourced and original content, but you know that is not usual. there are hundreds- if not thousands – which exist for no purpose other than to slant, accuse, twist, and lie.

I tend not to spend much time on sites that rush to tell you just how bad the other side is, but even among the sites I read and enjoy regularly, there are those that I know I have to go to external sources for perspective.

Which is why I’m mad at myself to going with the quote from GLAAD’s site. I knew better. I’m not faulting them for doing what they do, but I should have kept looking for original sources.

If you still think I need to appologize to bloggers beyond the more general apology I included, I hereby apologize to anyone who was offended by me pointing out that most of the blogosphere is culture war spin, insinuation, and general bad will.

I wasn’t under the impression that I’m implying that Democrats are as bad as Republicans. I know that isn’t true – not even close – so I don’t want to give that impression.

But I do comment when I think a Democrat isnt living up to promise or potential. I probably even do so more than when a Republican does something identical because it just isn’t news when the unfriendly party is unfriendly. And besides I don’t think it’s the goal of Democrats to be the same as Republicans on matters of equality so I do hold them to a higher standard.

Also here at BTB we are willing to criticize gay groups, Democrats (including supportive Democrats), and allies. I know that a lot of sites are deeply invested in the culture war and think that you never praise an enemy or fault an ally, but none of us work from that paradigm.

I also know that I’m quick to praise positive steps from Republicans. It irritates the hell out of me when a one-time bitter enemy makes a tentative step in the right direction only to be faced with a wall of resistance, suspicion, and hostility. I like to reward baby steps – on that I’m unlikely to change.

And finally, not everyone will agree with this, but I think that many gay sites carry water for the Democratic Party. To often I read a story that is more spin and positioning than it is fact. So anything I write will stand out in contrast.

Taken together, I can see how that could look like I think the two parties are equal. That isnt the case. And if I’m allowing that perception to exist then I’m clearly not explaining my views well and will have to be more careful going forward.

What I said above isn’t justifying any impression I’m giving. It simply means that I’m failing to position my views correctly and need to be aware of not only words in a vacuum but also of social context.

…and instead of just “owning” your mistake, as you claim, you typically got bitchy and defensive.

…and, you didn’t just come clean and apologize for your mistake, no, you had to throw GLAAD under the bus as if they were responsible for your edited quote.

…and you expect all of us to believe that when you make an honest mistake it’s an honest mistake and a one-off but when others do it it’s an intentional and nefarious lie.

I agree with David, you’re a good blogger but you’re often a hypocrite who thinks much more highly of yourself than you do others and you don’t know when to quit digging.

Soren – its probable because unlike Barton – and most other non-BTB bloggers, if I misquote, I own it.

That’s (forgive me fellow bloggers) relatively rare in the blogosphere. Most write to sway opinion.

I’m not going to get into you blaming GLAAD for your error, but you owe a hell of a lot of good bloggers a really, really big apology right now. 

You are a good writer, Timothy, but for God’s sake get some perspective.

Points are made with real fact, not with altered quotes. Even when those altered quotes are always–swear to God–cleaned up later.

Boy Scouts has been a valuable organization and has done a lot of good.

Their anti-gay policy is discriminatory, and it should be opposed.

There’s nothing there about “good people can agree to disagree” – those are your words, not Obama’s. Implicit in his statement is that the anti-gay ban is not the sum totality of the organization, its history, or its members. Baby and bathwater.

And, based on the Constitution, the small group of white men who constitute national leadership of the BSA have the right to make bigoted asses of themselves as long as they retain that policy, because they have the right to determine the membership of a private organization. And face the consequences, which Scouting surely has, and, rightly will continue to do so.

The President really shouldn’t comment further than he did there – to comment explicitly on a private organization operating within their Constitutional privileges… I know I don’t want any sitting president commenting forcefully on my exercise of Freedom of Religion, or Freedom of Speech – it’s just not his place to do so.

Honestly, I get the sense here that there’s a lot of painting with a broad brush here – a lot of ignorance of Scouting at the level where it matters (the kids) and a lot of “we don’t care, we just want Boy Scouts of America to burn to the ground”.

I get that we’re angry and indignant, and we’re right to be. But I think it’s far more productive to pressure Boy Scouts to bend to the inevitable and give up this rule than it is to gleefully dance over everything negative happening involving Scouting. It’s the leadership who are the problem, not the thousands of active boyscouts. For example, watching young men give up their hard-earned Eagle medals is heartbreaking to anyone who knows how hard they worked for it. Not that they aren’t principled to do so… just that reveling over how many Eagle Scouts have made a very difficult and personal choice is, well, more than a little unseemly. (Also, given that 300,000 boys earned the Scout badge in the 1990′s alone, it’s remarkably close to NOM’s gleeful (and silly) boycott signature counting… I really rather expect more of folks here.)

Rather than gleefully hoping all that is good is lost for the less that is bad, we can be bigger men and women and continue to make our case that Scouting and anti-gay policies are, in fact, antithetical to each other. Because when Scouting gets their act together, there’s a lot it can teach the next generation of boys about being accepting (not just tolerant), even-handed, and respectful of all citizens – those are the values of Scouting that have been there since 1908.

Oh, and for the record, I welcome Tim’s postings. Even when I disagree with him – he operates with integrity and still keeps things thoughtful and provocative.

Also – Erp, I’ve never heard the things you mention in your article, but that’s also the kind of thing which, if true, BSA wouldn’t really make public (and how LDS troops operated historically is likely very different from how non-LDS troops operated)… but can you point me to some reference material?