I share the Megan McArdle-Will Wilkinson skepticism, on the public employee unions.

"I can tell you that Gavin’s actions toward Jessica should make him a pariah"

I have never once in my life stalked anyone--and am incensed by Fecke's oafish indolence, in lobbing his various ungentlemanly, moronic charges.

In his astoundingly stupid attack piece, Fecke says I 'published' Prof. Pieklo's course syllabus.

This is inaccurate: Prof. Pieklo--or Hamline--published it.

I make no apology for referring readers to relevant, on-point publicly-available information--and consider it absurd for Fecke to seek to stigmatize the discussion of publicly-available information.

In my blogpost I was asking Fecke to contact Prof. Pieklo--to condemn her for her irresponsible charge. The only reason I linked to Prof. Pieklo's syllabus was to provide Fecke with Pieklo's contact email address.

Fecke claims to see my inner motivation for linking to Pieklo's publication: To force her into a conversation with me against her will. (Huh?)

Prof. Pieklo has directed strong accusations against me: It is true that I believe people lobbing strong charges should defend them, that much is true, though I can't see how linking to her syllabus would matter--or constitute 'putting pressure' on Pieklo.

**

For clarity, my paragraphs above respond to Fecke's statement here:

But when you start publishing Jessica’s course syllabus online in an effort to force her into a conversation that you want to have — and that she has made clear that she doesn’t — you’re crossing the line from troll to stalker. That is, yes, misogynist, dear Gavin. (If you can’t understand why pointing out the employer of a woman is not just misogynist, but McCarthyite, my point is proven more.) And it makes you someone I have absolutely, positively no interest in ever hearing from or dealing with again.

In other words, Fecke clearly knows zilch about his blogpost's subject. (To put forth one example: Few right-wing blogs supported John Marty for Governor--and then supported Margaret Anderson Kelliher in the primary!)

I'm not complaining of being ignored, of course--I'm complaining about her evidence-free suggestion that my criticism of her public statements constitutes misogyny.

Hamline Law syllabi are published here--and, as Jeff Fecke should have been aware--not published by me.

(When I publish stuff the URL isn't going to be law.hamline.edu!)

Fecke stupidly implies that calling attention to Pieklo's publications constitutes abuse. Pshaw!

in this instance, meaning Jeff Rosenberg

Better here

i.e. illegitimate participants within the marketplace of ideas, people whose chirping needn't be acknowledged

Which is simply to acknowledge, of other participants, that their community involvement is welcome and that they are not viewed as morally substandard.

No admiration is required. Note also that this principle--making our 'default setting' to acknowledge the good citizenship of our neighbors--has an entirely respectable pedigree and isn't in fact weird, as Pieklo, Fecke and Rosenberg all implicitly assert.

finding a person or an idea which doesn't meet your criteria and then bashing them for it

and hence, I have argued that Jeff Fecke and Jessica Pieklo garner more community esteem than they should