I am shocked at the substandard ethics displayed by The New Yorker's blogger George Packer.

This New Yorker blogger, George Packer, names me and slams me, but doesn't link, so there's no way for readers to see the context. The context is here.

I didn't "push[] the plastic-device story," I genuinely thought I saw something, something that wasn't a "story" anywhere else -- I took my own freeze-frame photograph. Within 5 minutes, I looked more closely in the surrounding frames and decided it wasn't there and said so. That's all my post was. So what the hell is George Packer talking about?

Shame on you, George Packer! That is truly sleazy! You are so eager to push your little theory that you have lost sight of ethics and fairness. Packer writes:

The problem isn’t lack of education—it’s that of a self-isolating political subculture gone rancid.

Look in a mirror, man. Look in a damn mirror, loser.

ADDED: What Packer seems to have done is to have adopted another blogger's summary of what a lot of bloggers, including me, have done over the course of the election season. That other blogger paid no attention to my year of balanced blogging, under an explicit vow of cruel neutrality. And Packer, I bet, did not perform an independent check to figure out what my blog is really like. It is this failure, even more than the failure to link to the particular post he purported to describe, that is really a failure of ethics. What absurd irony that he behaved like this to reach the conclusion that the other side of the blogophere is "self-isolating" and "rancid"!

Packer, I demand an abject confession of your self-isolation and rancidity.

ADDED: Thanks to Instapundit for linking. There's also a separate post called "I got so mad at George Packer last night."