You perhaps should reconsider that, not much to be gained from such actions. Violence never solved anything, remember?

Besides, she might whip your bitch ass and how would that look, right?

in an attempt to intimidate.

“After nationally syndicated columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin posted the e-mail addresses and phone numbers of three members of Students Against War, they received a flood of obscene and harassing messages from around the country, including death threats. When a liberal Web site, in retaliation, published Malkin's cell phone number and home address, a full-blown blog war ensued. "I am now forced to remove one of my children from school and move my family," Malkin wrote Thursday in an e-mail to the Sentinel.” <link>

The shoe is on the other foot and she finds that it pinches. <link>

My advice to the both of you is, don’t be such whiney crybabies.

So don't you feel great that you are no better than Malkin?

Oh, and also, according to your link, her information came from their own publications.

So you are attacking her for publishing what these students already published.

My advice to you is, don't be such an asshole.

Malkin’s address and phone number <link> became public because SHE included it on an e-mail SHE sent to her subscribers. Not all of her subscribers are her friends.

So what’s the difference, dead-ender?

I'm the guy who published Malkin's personal contact info in retaliation for her doing the same against a group of perceived enemies. Perhaps I can supply some needed background data.

Not long before, Ann Coulter had published the home address of actress, writer and broadcaster Lydia Cornell, who had written a widely-distributed anti-Coulter piece. Lydia is a very nice lady. Her family did not deserve the abuse to which they were subjected. Lydia has asked me not to describe in detail what the stalkers and harassers did to her kids, but I assure you that it was all quite unnerving and disgusting.

As it happens, I had Coulter's contact info at that time. And I came THATCLOSE to publishing it. In the end, I decided not to.

The Malkin episode occurred not long afterward. At that point, it became apparent that a pattern was emergent: Right-wing pundits would publish home telephone numbers of anyone who annoyed them, and they would then sit back and let the Freepers do the dirty work of intimidation.

So this time, I published.

Do I feel proud that Malkin had to move? No. I felt, and feel, rotten. I feel as though I sank to her low level.

On the other hand, sometimes you have to punish a dog if you want the creature to stop pooping on the rug.

Neither Malkin nor Coulter nor any of their compatriots have tried a dirty trick like that again. You can't argue with success.

Some commenters on this thread have argued that progressives are mean-spirited, childish and potentially violent. A year ago, I would have laughed at the idea. But now, I think things are heading in that direction.

In terms of tone, Democratic Underground has come to resemble Free Republic at its very worst. The comments on Think Progress and other sites remind me of the comments we would hear from the pro-war professional liberal-haters back in 2003: Hysterical, hyperbolic and needlessly venomous.

What the hell has happened to this country?

And, of course, anyone who received these publications from these students were their friends.

You really are beyond dumb. But hey, if being dumb and hateful works for you, who am I to complain. After all, I am not a liberal, and therefore NOT trying to run other people's lives.

I would agree that your actions would have been tit for tat if the students hadn't already published the information Malkin printed in her article.

Since the information was already published and available, she didn't do anything wrong in publishing it.

You, however, did do wrong, since Malkin's address was not published.

It's not so easy. Remember, I said I got the data because it was previously published on the internet. So what, really, is the difference?

In Malkin's case, if I recall correctly, she had once said that she had a policy that everything sent to her in an email was publishable unless the sender requested otherwise. This was a case where that request was made. She continued to make the info available nonetheless. And it was pretty much obvious, from context, that she wanted the hordes to go after those who had committed the sin of disagreeing with her pro-war views.

In other words, her clear message was "Sic 'em!"

It used to be that there were clearly understood rules. In the days before email, people who corresponded widely placed home addresses and even phone numbers on the headers of their stationery. (Boy, THAT sure seems like a long time ago!) The assumption was that even enemies would protect their private information -- which had been, in effect, "published." This, even though (in certain fields) people xeroxed correspondence all the damn time.

I should have mentioned that from then until NOW, no-one has dared to employ such a tactic.

I should also mention the first time this tactic cropped up, at least in my recollection. You may recall a scuffle, early in the Bush administration, in which the twins went out bar-hopping underaged, and they were caught when a female bartender asked for some ID. The Freepers published the personal info of the person who had dared to treat the holy Bushes as other-than-sacred.

(I'm going on memory here, but I think I've recalled the incident more or less accurately...)