Follow-up on “Don’t Piss Off Krissy”
Ah, this crazy little series of tubes we call Teh Intarweebs. Follow:
Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds posts a link to the “Don’t Piss Off Krissy” entry, which serves as an inspiration for his wife, Dr. Helen, to make a post on the entry, in which she takes exception to the events as reported, which leads to (among other things) folks from her site coming over here to mock and/or lecture me and Krissy. Dr. Helen’s post inspires Dean Esmay to make a post which is positive to Dr. Helen’s interpretation, and also inspires alicublog and Steve Gilliard to post attacking Dr. Helen’s post (and Dr. Helen, and Instapundit), and sends people into her comment thread to mock and/or lecture the people there. Dr. Helen responds by linking back to alicublog with an update, and on and on.
Mmmm… internet craziness.
Points to make:
1. The story as I related it is not the whole story; it’s not wrong, but it’s incomplete. In the context of the whole event, Krissy’s reaction was eminently justifiable. No, I won’t relate all the details publicly; this ain’t a trial, and you’re not entitled to see all the evidence. Trust me on this or don’t. Suffice to say I’m proud of the way my wife responded; it was the correct response in the situation, and I’m glad it was her course of action.
2. I don’t agree with Dr. Helen’s posted read of the event, but inasmuch as she was working from what I originally posted, which as noted above was an incomplete reading of the situation, I’m not upset with it either, nor with her, because I know not all the context is there. As it happens people on the blogosphere often proceed with the information they have to make points they want to make. Funny how that is (she’s also less than pleased with the accompanying picture, which in the context of the post is not an unreasonable position, although I find it less problematic because I know it originally came from elsewhere where the comedic intent is more obvious, and where it’s clear it’s not directed toward men in particular). Some of the commenters here who I suspect came from her site I’ve found rather more annoying, but I’ve wielded the cluestick as necessary; it’ll be fine.
3. There’s some irony in that I’m friendly with Dr. Helen and Glenn in that Internetty sort of way, so when some others are jumping up and down on their heads for being Dr. Helen and Glenn rather than addressing the substance of her post (which is of course fair game), my reaction is, you know, quit it. I know these people and I like them. I noted in Dr. Helen’s blog that I wished people wouldn’t make ad hominem attacks on Helen and Glenn over in Dr. Helen’s comment thread; I was almost immediately called a “douche” for it over in the alicublog. Once again, I have everybody angry at me! Excellent.
4. I do find it amusing regarding comments that people really do seem to be under the impression that they know the whole story, particularly the folks who think that Krissy is a vicious harpy who should be the one going to jail for assaulting that poor lonely sot of a man. Among the various comment threads discussing this, there are commenters who have taken my clarification that the guy grabbed Krissy first as “changing the story” because we’re worried about pending legal action, and we’re trying to cover our asses for when this drunk groper presses charges. Yes, well. You kids go with that theory.
5. Since a number of people seem to have taken exception of the picture of Krissy wielding the bat in a mock-threatening way, here’s a counteracting photo to ameliorate their fear and dread of my wife:
See how wholesome and gracious she is, serving a holiday meal for the whole family? Yes, indeed! Truly a woman who can back up a grabby drunk and prepare a multicourse festival feast is the perfect woman. And truly, Krissy is.
Ultimately, the hoofraw around this particular event is a bit silly. But then, this is the blogosphere. “A bit silly” is what we do here.