Charles Johnson Archive 9/11


2002 – Comments hidden.



2005 – Some 11 September post(s) deleted. Others have comments hidden.
In 2010, ChenZhen expounded on these deletions.
I *click* AM *click* NOT *click* AN *click* IDIOT!*click*……… *click*








Charles, you have never been glib.
Inane, hyperbolic, petulant, self-absorbed and flippant? Always.

[Updates: Added 2002 screencap via ISTE; added 2021 comment.]

Just another day in The Swamp.

This amused me. Multiple vapid (but otherwise innocuous) comments by ProLifeWTF deleted by Charles, just to give him a spanking. So petulant. At least all but #282 were quoted.
21030411 Deleted
Defeat The Rumpswabs

Rescued from Memory Hole: “Fjordman: Farewell to the United Nations?” – the Complete Thread

Our defiance of Johnson’s wish to hide LGF’s old Fjordman articles continues, and this time we’ve decided to unveil the thread on the list that received the most comments. ( There’s 542 in total, many [deleted], but a baker’s dozen belong to Fjordman in this one.)

Scan the LGF daily archives on June 30, 2006, and you might notice that article # 21845 isn’t there:

The Boiler Room Crew stole the strawberries, so we proudly present the thread, in its entirety:

LGF’s Greatest Banned and [deleted]

During our recent quest to gather data on LGF’s vast list of blocked accounts, The Boiler Room discovered (or rather, was reminded of) the fact that the number of comments listed in any particular user account profile doesn’t include their [deleted] comments. And as Nodrog pointed out a while back, there are many prominent ex-LGFers who’ve had their entire commenting history scrubbed from the LGF archives. This becomes a complication if one is trying to quantify the contributions of these persona non gratas with relation to the site’s upcoming 9 million comment milestone (where those [deleted] comments are included in CJ’s grand total).

Not to worry, however, as engineer No. 4 was on the case and had it all figured out. Below is the spreadsheet file for the top 27 banned and [deleted] (or those who had more than 50 posts; No. 4 counted 252 accounts in all, but 132 of those posted just once, so we’re ignoring the rest for now):

As you can see, those 27 accounts contributed another 256,882 [deleted] comments to overall total.  So, if you add our latest “non-[deleted] comments of the banned” total to this “top [deleted] comments of the banned” total, we get a little over 45% of the current overall total comments:

3,793,792+256,882/8,964,531 = 0.451855652013474

And again, we know there are more comments of the banned out there. These lists are by no means exhaustive, and we keep finding more. Also keep in mind that it is more difficult to quantify comment data from the pre-registration era (up to mid-’04), as there were no accounts (and thus, no profiles) back then. So, at this moment, when we say 45%, we mean at least 45%.

But perhaps the most interesting revelation from this [deleted] list is the fact that these 27 accounts leave over 120 thousand positive net karma behind.

Bonus quiz: Did you notice that buzzsawmonkey and song_and_dance_man both have one (1) comment left standing in the archives? Well, why?  (and try not to burn a sock)


[Guest Post: Swamprat!]

I never said St. Pancake! And you can’t prove I did. ’Cause… cause… well just nevermind why you can’t prove it! Oh. Well, I said it once and deleted it.

That vid showing the pagecount jumping 10 or more per view was faked! Until someone found out it wasn’t. Never mind that I posted a tech comment explaining that I had tweaked the javascript to show every thread on the front page as a “view”!

No one was ever banned for simply disagreeing with me… except for taxfreekiller and song-and-dance-man and mandymanners and several people who said they liked Rush Limbaugh on one thread and a guy who unfairly dissed a musican I am fond of and anybody who is a creationist, ’cause I disagree, and anyone who doesn’t believe exactly as I do about global warming, and though I have implied some pretty broad slanders against Christians in general and Catholics in particular I won’t tolerate any broadbrush anti-muslim sentiments and I don’t like specific, provable critiques either.

So I am completely fair.

Unless you blog at a blog I have blogged against even when I previously blogged in favor of those blogs. Anyone caught blogging at an abrogated blog will be banned, unless they are on a mission to racism bait, or troll. In that case they will usually get banned, unless I really really like them, and they generally keep within the lines and don’t stray.

But if you get banned, or flounce, or just leave, everybody knows you are simply a tribalistic racist.

(with deep and sorrowful apologies to Julie Andrews’ “Supercalafragilisticexpialidocious!”)

*Super Racist Tribalistic Ex L G F Stalkers!
Even though they’re really just a bunch of laughing mockers!
If you’re thinking otherwise, you really are quite bonkers!
Super Racist Tribalistic Ex L G F Stalkers!

(Feel free to add on!)

Airing Out The Boiler Room

[Illustration courtesy of the Hon. Internet Septic Tank Engineer who, in quick response to recent requests for an image of Charles Johnson’s head on a pike, provided that graphic for all the honest and truthful bloggers of the world to enjoy, on his own dime and without request for recompensation.]

Anyone who’s been following The Diary of Daedelus knows that The Boiler Room Crew has been very busy these past few months, and now it’s time to give them a reprieve.  To be sure, they’ve passed a few messages up the seekrit shaft, yet they’ve never requested a break. They’re long overdue for shore leave.

Two home runs in the span of a pancake is above and beyond the call of duty in this reporter’s opinion. They’ve secured, hidden and camouflaged The World’s Greatest Blog Search Engine™, opened the blacked out windows and are airing the place out so it’ll be nice and fresh when they come back to tackle the next assignment in the hopper.

Congrats and Kudos, Dudos. You’ve caused jaws to drop in stunned amazement all over the internest.

…That’s What We Thought

Aw c’mon! We could hardly wait for the story about how his smug, “simple fact”  insistence that he never said and didn’t approve of the term was just an honest mistake, and that he didn’t remember saying it, didn’t remember deleting it, and didn’t remember the subsequent YEARS of other lizards taking his official christening and using it in hundreds of comments without any hint of disapproval from him.

That would’ve been a good one!

We’ll hold on to the hope, though.  In the meantime, well, I know it’s not a pancake, but in this situation I think a waffle is just as appropriate.

Oh, wait’s over, I guess. The explanation was already made in that thread, but CJ made it official by tweeting it later:

OK this is funny.  Let’s do some more fact checking, eh?

Point 1-  CJ says he has a timestamp of the deletion (?), but won’t reveal how long it was really there.  Now, based on visible timestamps, we know that it was there at least long enough to be quoted in the thread (4 min).  We also know that there were 118 comments in that thread, that the last of which showed up 4 days later, and none mentioned a missing comment or any expression of regret from Johnson.  Alternatively, there were comments in that thread that support our thesis that this is when “St. Pancake” was christened, and became the official nickname for Corrie on LGF:


Therefore, I don’t know if any reasonable person would characterize CJ’s comment as “insignificant”, given the facts about the term’s long history on the site.

In fact, The World’s Greatest Blog Search Engine™ could find no evidence of Charles’ regret for using the term, or mentioning of the comment’s deletion.  All we know is that it was stealthily [deleted] at some point, and that signs of disapproval of the nickname’s use didn’t appear until about 7 years later (2010).

Point 2-  While it is understandable that no one would remember the content of every comment that they ever posted, it would also follow that one wouldn’t remember that they didn’t say something, right?   So, why would an honest person unequivocally (and repeatedly) deny saying something?  Answer:  They didn’t say it, and knew for a fact that they didn’t.  And a dishonest person?  Answer: they did, and (thought they had) erased it.

Bottom line: If one actually didn’t remember saying something specific like that, as CJ now claims, we’d expect the comment to still be there, and/or we would have seen “I don’t remember saying that”  instead of the repeated and matter-of-fact denials (and on the issue of memory, the distinction should be made between the tens of thousands of Charles’ comments that stand, and the handful that were deemed worthy of deletion; people usually remember things they regret doing).

Point 3-  The World’s Greatest Blog Search Engine™ could find no evidence of anyone actually being banned for “constantly” using the term “St. Pancake”.  There’s a lot of comments to sift through, so it still might have happened, but we pointed out more than a few of today’s regulars who had used the term repeatedly (and some quite vivaciously) over the years, and are still in good standing.

Point 4- Waste of time?  Heh. Keep digging CJ.  This is fun.  But are you sure you really want to keep going with this in front of your old-timers, especially the ones who’ve said it?

Free Comment 218822!

Having recently discovered what should go down as the most notorious [deleted] comment in LGF history, we shall begin our campaign to liberate this pithy wonder from the bowels of the memory hole, and petition CJ to release it for all time (in the name of “integrity“).  For the record, here is its address:

Or, for a link that works just as well, but because of CJ’s coding wizardry is so much more fun in the browser:

After all, like a big scratch on a classic automobile, this gaping hole mars what would otherwise be a pristine and perfectly readable thread, and hides the beginning of an era.

And to help the cause, we have shamelessly outsourced for a few modest promotional items:

(Note: we may or may not get a small commission from the “Free 218822” program for everything you buy, if you follow one of our links.)

Free 218822!!!

Fact Check: Johnson DID Refer to Corrie as “Saint Pancake”

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:  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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Wait, Did CJ Mock Someone About Deleting Comments?

I bet some of you guys/gals are wondering why we waited a week to mention that CJ turned off the archived comments again, right? No? Well, there is a method to our madness around here, and the reason we mention it now is because we saw an opportunity, and we were hoping that he’d turn them back on again once we posted something about it (he does this in an attempt to make us look silly, and we think it’s adorable). You see, the blog warriors here at DoD form an elite team of kung fu masters, and an hour or two is all we really need (as expected, those millions of comments are now blocked again).

Anyway, here’s what came up:

What followed was a video that was interesting, but as CJ said, kind of inconclusive.  I was just going to shrug my shoulders and move on, but then we got this:

Oh poor CJ, victim of such malicious mischaracterizations!  I’m not sure who has used that Church Lady argument, but I think it’s worth taking a closer look at this idea that all the deleted comments are a result of CJ is just “moderating” his blog.  We know that every blogger is going to delete trollish comments every so often.  I’ve done it on my blog, and I think we’ve done it here.  But in the case of LGF, we’ve noticed a few things that appear to go above and beyond simple moderation.  Way above and beyond, actually…

 First, thanks to Charles’ predictably spiteful behavior, we now have our own visual aid:

No, that’s not a photoshop.  In fact, there was a lot more of them (35 I think), but I couldn’t fit them all into a single screencap.  Don’t believe me?  Well, go ahead, check it out:

Oh wait, I forgot, they’re blocked!

Should we rest our case?  Not quite yet…

You see, unlike CJ, we have a pretty good idea of the total [deleted] count.  By Boiler Room estimates, there is actually somewhere in the neighborhood of 300K [deleted] comments (yes, that’s three hundred thousand) on LGF.   That number in and of itself should raise an eyebrow, but consider that these presumably “obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying” comments have an accumulated karma score of ~120,000 (yes, that’s positive karma)*.   I mean,




Now we can rest our case.

*Total [deleted] = 296,163

zero karma comments = 240,874 (153,771 pre-karma era)
positive karma comments = 49,018 with +140,719  total karma
negative karma comments = 6,271 with -20,580 total karma