Talk:Charles Foster Johnson

Untitled

It wasn't just any productivity software. He was involved with PageStream, which was a popular DTP package. -Joseph (Talk) 12:53, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)

LGF

The following text is bot highly POV and unattributed. Can it be removed?Scott Adler 00:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The shift in tone of the LGF warblog is adequately covered by the entry for the warblog itself; list of themes he does not discuss on his blog are also not germane to this bio.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragula (talk • contribs) 02:37, 29 September 2004 (UTC).

(I tracked down the editor's name and added the "unsigned" message. and the "LGF" heading.) "Warblog" was not a pejorative term in 2004, so I'm happy to leave this in place now that it is (so to speak) dated. Cheers, CWC 03:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Johnson's picture

Should it be included? Here's the picture: [1], which was taken from this Forbes list of famous bloggers: [2] --aishel 18:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Its a good picture. Although Johnson's photo does not appear on the blog, he has appeared a number of times on the TV, so I think that it is worthy of inclusion.

Lance 6 Wins

Lance,

If you are reading this please e-mail me.

Thanks, Zeq 10:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Jazz guitarist?

I see nowhere on the Internet to connect Charles Johnson the blogger and Charles Johnson the guitarist. I've always heard that Charles Johnson the blogger was a programmer by occupation, not a musician. Because this article is on the blogger and many of the artist related attributes are not-so-verifiable, I'm taking the liberty to remove any references to the musician. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after rereading the article, it seems like it's best not to remove the references now. I would like a comment on this. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Two of the external links, http://www.nysun.com/article/8711 and http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/62000, are Reliable Sources for this connection. Cheers, CWC 09:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: both those links are now referenced in the article, following a clean-up I just did. The NY Sun profile is now the very first reference, which I feel strengthens the article. Thanks for the wake-up call, Member. Cheers, CWC 10:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Liberal mugged by reality?

Our statement that Johnson

now describes himself (per neoconservative writer Irving Kristol) as "a liberal who got mugged by reality"

has had a "citation needed" tag since February 2007. I'm fairly sure Johnson would accept that description, but I could not find any example of him using those words. Does anyone have a link to such an example? CWC 10:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Dan Rather's" memos?

He gained increased public attention for debunking Dan Rather’s National Guard memos about George W Bush during the 2004 US presidential campaign.

Calling them "Dan Rather's National Guard memos" seems a bit imprecise; that could read (to someone unfamiliar with the incident) as though Rather created the memos. I'll rephrase this a bit (no objection to the content, just want to word it more precisely). Actually, while I'm at it, "National Guard memos" is vague, saying nothing about what the controversy was over, so I'll expand that just a bit.75.139.32.246 09:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's be careful about how we describe the memos' authenticity. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Mark Shaw (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nirth Certifikit stuff

Can someone please pull a few links for this when his site comes back online? I'd love to have links for where he uses the "nirth" phrase, but LGF is timing out at the moment. Maybe his server collapsed again.

--I didn't actually add the above, I was answering it and trying to put the article neutral while adding the sources. Someone needs to fix their Sinebot thing so that it understands where an "undo" is made and doesn't sign to someone else's words.

To Mark Shaw: please explain your objections to the added content rather than simply removing it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.194.45 (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether this material is notable is debatable (it's my opinion that it is not), but if it's to be included it must be rewritten with less slanted language. For one thing, define "large numbers" of people banned; for another, "even if their disagreement [does not relate to the matter]" is unsupported. And "expend a great deal of effort trying to link" is similarly problematic. The passage as written is clearly intended to indict CJ as some sort of intolerant boob - rewrite it, and it can be included. I've removed it again for now. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to revert re-inclusion of this material unless it is first discussed on the talk page. Simply re-inserting it without discussion is, quite simply, vandalism.Mark Shaw (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should take a timeout. I wasn't the one who re-added it, and obviously others do not see it as you are seeing it. Further, I need to know why it is you think the language is "slanted", because I already spent a good deal of time working to neutralize the language from the previous user's version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.194.45 (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I need to know why it is you think the language is slanted - see explanation above. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a USENET newsgroup. Rewrite the passage so as to present the topic in neutral language, and I won't object to its inclusion. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

[PA removed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleGreenVolleyball (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea, Shaw. You're the one trying to buck consensus. How about YOU supply what you consider "more neutral" wording [PA removed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)] The other guy took his time trying to neutral out the wording, I've found the spot where Charles commented on it as a "meltdown", how about you do your own part rather than just being a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleGreenVolleyball (talk • contribs) 22:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that LittleGreenVolleyball and I have reported each other for WP:3RR violations. I will not edit this section until an administrator responds to these complaints. In the meantime, perhaps some other editor will suggest meaningful but neutral language. Mark Shaw (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Mark, you have been asked some very direct questions and I wish you would be helpful instead of vexatious. This is supposed to be a collaborative process and you seem more interested in issuing ultimatums than in collaborating. It also harms the ability of others to remain calm and neutral when you vexatiously and disingenuously mislabel their edits as vandalism, and I suggest that an apology would probably do wonders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.194.45 (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see anyone else collaborating. I've been asked how the passage's neutrality is slanted, and I've provided several examples (see above). There has been no response to this other than reverting and personal attack.

I do take your point about mislabeling the reversions as "vandalism," and offer my apologies for that. The reversions were, in my opinion, justified; the label was perhaps intemperate.

An administrator has suggested that I step away from this dispute for now, and I will do so. I'll offer up what I consider to be more reasonable language for the passage in a day or two, if no other editor does so during the interim.

Mark Shaw (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I offer the opinion that it would have been best - and much better proof that you were here to constructively collaborate in good faith - had you offered alternative wording the first time you were asked (LGVB's request "how about you do your own part rather than just being a problem"), rather than waiting until now and stalling even longer. In addition, I inform you that I have left notes with LGVB's page, the report page, and Mr. Connolley regarding the fact that I consider you the more culpable in this matter because you have, whether you realize it personally or not, been vexatious and obstructive to multiple people and it has strained the bounds of my calmness to deal with you. I can understand much more why LGVB acted as he/she did than why you acted the way you did and would like you to take a good, hard look at your actions, especially the attempt to get someone blocked because you somehow felt justified in edit warring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.194.45 (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I submit that, in addition to the WP:NPOV and WP:BLP problems with this passage, it really belongs at Little Green Footballs. Even there, though, it may not be notable because of WP:Recentism. Thoughts? Mark Shaw (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to it being moved to there. Actually, after looking through this article, it appears that the entire article could easily be merged there with little complaint. Without the Little Green Footballs blog, Charles F Johnson just isn't notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.194.45 (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Little Green Footballs (software)

Before becoming famous as a blogger, and before the formation of CodeHead, Charles Johnson created software published under the name "Little Green Footballs". I can't seem to find anything on the internet about it, though. The CodeHead reference given in the article doesn't mention the original LGF, but you can see an allusion to it in the name of one of the CodeHead products, "Little Green Selector". LGF's best known Atari ST software is probably a mouse cursor management desk accessory called Mouskamania, if memory serves me correctly. It is mentioned in this old doc, but no credit is given. It just seems so odd I can't find anything online about the old LGF. Maybe I can find something in my old issues of STart magazine, I'm certain I have his software in my collection. Surely, somebody else remembers this. Xot (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm surprised this didn't turn up before, but I found what I was looking for. This issue of ST-Log has an article by Charles F. Johnson about his Mouse-Ka-Mania! utility. If you look at the second image you can see "Copyright 1987 Little Green Footballs" in the upper-right corner of the dialog box / cursor editor. If someone could figure out if this should go here or in the LGF page, that would be great. If someone wants to make the addition, that would be even better. Xot (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Coinages

Text

Johnson coined the term "idiotarian", popularized the epithet "moonbat" and promoted the sarcastic use of the phrase "Religion of Peace" to describe Islam. He also coined the term "fauxtography" to describe the publishing of manipulated photographs by news services such as Reuters and the Associated Press. (See 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies and Adnan Hajj photographs controversy.)

Discussion

We can't say that he coined these phrases based only on his own blog posts. We'd need secondary sources for these assertions.   Will Beback  talk  02:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• samizdata.net a dictionary entry, not reffing CFJ,
• Why We Use the Word ‘Idiotarian’ by political group settingtheworldtorights mentions CFJ,

for now. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Attacks on Beck, Geller, Spencer, HotAir, etc

His recent and sustained attacks on Glenn Beck, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and others are easily documented (a wide variety of his own posts to point to). I've included them after clearing off someone who was obviously pretty mad and had rewritten the article with some non-truthful (and non-BIO) stuff as well.

Can I get some help putting the sources in correctly? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.10.222 (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

CJ leaves the Right

I think lumping Johnson in with conservatives isn't correct. He's supported some positions that conservatives held in the past, but he's always been squeamish about being called a conservative. Indeed, he made a point of telling audiences that his positions on many issues aren't right-leaning. And he recently made this official on LGF, with a blunt post called "Why I Parted Ways With The Right". And IIRC correctly, he generally wasn't considered to be a right-winger before 9/11, so I think classifying him as a conservative is a mistake, and he might well agree with that. I think more to the point, he's a hawk on national security issues, but not on others. Harry Truman, LBJ, and JFK were national security hawks, but otherwise liberals, and Johnson is probably closer to this model than any other. He certainly takes many, many positions that are considered to be outright liberal stances, so if we're hell-bent on classifying people, "Hawkish Liberal" or "National Security Liberal" would probably be more accurate than "conservative" in his case. He's closer to Joe Lieberman than George Bush.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35243_Why_I_Parted_Ways_With_The_Right

DesScorp (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As with every biography on this site, this one should draw from reliable sources. I could link any article on Johnson's site as a reference to support the statement that he just takes himself very seriously, but that wouldn't be a good way to go about writing an encyclopedia. Find the articles, before labeling anyone. Nevard (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

i don't think this is so hard to pin down, actually. johnson has penned several articles in which he explains why he "left the right" leaving no doubt that he had previously identified himself as a member of the right. 99.136.254.109 (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

See also Meet the Former Right-Wing Blogger Who Realized Conservatives Are Crazy, alternet.org, 2012-05-07. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a regular consumer, but his blog now consists mostly of political commentary that is of a left/Democratic party perspective, without anything that is of a right leaning or conservative slant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:107:6513:7D30:1ED1:6C2B (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)