Today Isthmus publishes many of the letters received concerning Nathan Comp's 9-11 "truthers" feature. Included is a letter from Prof. Kevin Barrett and a response from Comp (Nathan Comp occasionally contributes to Dane101.com). In his letter Barrett accuses Comp and Isthmus of libel and boasts of "pro bono attorneys lining up at my doorstep." It is a not quite so veiled threat that he may sue the publication.

While I would never wish a libel suit on any publication, even if said publication had no chance of losing (the court costs are always high), if Barrett truly believes his name was sullied by Isthmus then he should stop issuing idle threats in letters written for the sake of posterity and do it. It would also convince me that Barrett’s real issue with the story was “fact-checking” and not simply that the article didn’t focus on him enough.

Then maybe the judge can ask him to explain why instead of taking the high ground and turning the other cheek as he pursued a legal response, he instead chose to begin issuing threats to Comp.

Much of what I write below is also noted by Jenna Pryor on her blog Right Off the Shore. It should be noted that Pryor has also done some serious digging when it comes to Barrett’s assertion that he has never used the words “Jewish Conspiracy.” He is probably being honest and has truly never used those two words together, but the picture Pryor paints...

Barrett released Comp’s email address to his list serve and the response was an email box full of one line emails yelling “NASS: DEBATE BARRETT!”

Comp cordially asked Barrett to remove him from the list as the emails had little to do with the topic he covered and he had no power over Rep. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater):

Instead of replying that he would make the request, Barrett simply replied ten hours later, “did I send any?”

Twenty-two hours later and still receiving a barrage of emails and seeing no request for a cessation from Barrett, Comp snapped, took the Barrett bait and issued an angry and arguably immature response:

Barrett fires back with accusations of libel, threatening a new email campaign into Comp’s mail box, and ccing Isthmus editor Bill Lueders:

Lueders respectfully responds:

Barrett, ignoring the easy path to the high road, issues what appears to be a threatening statement:

And his second response was to send out Comp’s phone number in an email to supporters (posted on Right Off the Shore). This is when my radar went off. I had been willing to give Barrett the benefit of the doubt. The University found him fit to teach and that was all I needed to hear. I even found his ability to manage the press so his name would stay in headlines for days on end to be masterful. But when a University Professor starts making threats and giving out the phone number of people he sees as enemies instead of taking proper civilized recourse - it is not only childish, but dangerous.

Barrett has chosen to become a public figure and he basks in this limelight. If he is going to offer a controversial theory then he should have the thick skin to take some bruises. The media has been insanely kind to Barrett and as he notes in the same newsletter he used to put out Comp’s phone number, he relishes the fame, “Memo to Warhol: did you say fifteen MINUTES?”

I decided to send an email to Barrett expressing my concern over the way he has been dealing with Comp:

Unsurprisingly, instead of replying directly to me and taking the chance of having a civil non-public discussion, he used the opportunity to cc my email and his response to Isthmus reaffirming my personal conspiracy theory that he is nothing more than a glory hound banking on riding this “conspiracy theory” out until he finishes his book of letters and cashing in off the backs of the sheep who he calls “supporters” and will no doubt buy it.

While I don’t take Barrett’s theory hook, line, and sinker, I do acknowledge that there are many unanswered questions when it comes to the events of September 11. I saw his elevation as an opportunity to maybe get some of those unknowns answered. But now there is little chance because Barrett has chosen to change the subject. Instead the dialogue is now all about him. Sadly, I don’t think he would really have it any other way.

The views in this post do not necessarily reflect those of other Dane101 contributors.