<< TEXAS "ANOTHER WORLD" ~ MAIN ~ TRY DR PHIL >>
BOLDING BLOWS BUDGET
Note the editor comments at this Webdiary entry. All in luxurious, expensive bold.
And note the latest editor comments, from “Guest Ed Polly”. The bold tags budget has been exceeded! Soon editor comments will be in plain-text Courier, freighted in from lousy Taiwanese fontshops.
UPDATE. Bolding error now fixed, once again thanks to good old Guest Ed Tim. An invoice is on its way.
UPDATE II. Several note that “Guest Ed Polly” (Webdiary drone Polly Bush) requests commenters reveal their real names “as per Webdiary’s guidelines”. Yet “Polly Bush” herself uses a pseudonym.
LOL David! I wasn’t sure they would accept my comments. I think they did purely because if they didn’t then they would have copped a caning over here and on other (not moonbat) blogs.
Even after a good night’s sleep, I still think that insisting that commenters should not be allowed to use a handle, they are demeaning both themselves and their contributors.
I guess since everybody now knows who I am I should post all my vital stats and phone numbers.
I find that intrusive. What next, my abn?
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 09 09 at 11:47 PM • permalinkForgot to add: I’ve been supporting myself for the last 20 years, and for the last 3 (with generous assistance, of course)a child. I neither want nor deserve to be treated like an adolescent of mediocre intelligence.
I could have joined Mensa dammit!
At least here you can take the piss out of a)yourself and b)everyone else!
Yay Tim!
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 09 09 at 11:50 PM • permalinkGuest Ed Polly: Thanks for posting your comment Chris. Please post a surname next time as per Webdiary’s guidelines.
Why don’t you have a surname, Guest Ed Polly?
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 09 09 at 11:57 PM • permalinkI notice that the linked articles uses bold tags instead of strong tags. I looked at still another one there and it had one or two strong tags and numerous bold tags.
Is somebody there closely monitoring things said here at Tim Blair’s? (The whole bold/strong tag discussion here was 75% a joke.) Of course maybe the previously found use of strong tags at Webdiary was more the exception than the rule.
Will somebody give me a grant to do a comparative study of html markup patterns and habits of left & right blogs?
The use of strong tags is politically incorrect because it discriminate against weak tags.
Er, I mean, it discriminates against differently stronged tags.
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 09 10 at 12:39 AM • permalinkDavid: I get it now. Polly is his surname.
I guess Margo thinks that people named “Ed” must be good editors.
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 09 10 at 12:46 AM • permalinkDon’t knock the Courier.
It might look like crap but hey, it’s really cheap!
I can afford more EXPENSIVE WINE now.</pre>
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 09 10 at 01:12 AM • permalinkI cannot believe those fools are wasting time editing comments. No wonder they need so many helpers.
Webdiary is more than a blog. It is a professional on-line publication in the developing world of the new media that seeks to publish professional-quality input from both its contributors and its posters.
Oh, really? Their delusions of grandeur - when standing amongst such shabby, amateurish surroundings - are truly breathtaking.
Oh my god, look at the next ed comment :
Stuart Lord: ...opposed to this current editing arrangement which takes up both a large amount of time and manpower?
ed Kerri: manpower Stuart? I am sure that the last time certain members of the Webdiary team looked, it wasn’t manpower behind our work…
That is so lame, I just don’t know where to start.
Posted by James Waterton on 2005 09 10 at 02:18 AM • permalinkThey go on about Tim and Andrea banning trolls on this site but I know for a fact that they fail publish a lot of comments which do meet their guidelines.
Webdiary editors are censors in the worst possible way. Like the typical lefties, they profess to support free speech while at the same time actively work to stifle debate.
The reason why some people get branded trolls and are banned is because they arrive looking for a fight and when they get one they hold it up as evidence that everybody here is incapable having a reasoned debate.
Ask a reasonable question or put a position reasonably and you’ll get a reasonable response. That’s been evidenced by seeing disagreements between the regulars on this site who have followed the etiquette of internet debate.
But in much the same way the Webdiaries are trying to impose their own set of rules on blogging on their site, they don’t wish to play by the Internet rules anywhere else either.
Typical lefties.
Note to any WDearies reading: Any debate, any subject, any time. Nick and I welcome any opportunity to engage in vigorous discussion, if you’re game…
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 09 10 at 02:45 AM • permalinkI wonder if we should enlighten them to the incredible cost savings they could get out of using
strikethrough? They take the factory rejects, bag ‘em up and flog ‘em off cheap. In fact, they could just put everything in strikethrough, and not only would they save a bundle, but it would make finding the worthwhile content on the site at least 74% easier!Sheer genius, Vexorg!
Strikethrough fonts would be a perfect match for Webdiary content, and the price would suit theitr buget.</pre>
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 09 10 at 02:55 AM • permalinkI have noticed though plenty of errors get through despite posts going through an editing process.
So what are the editors for if not censors?
# 16 Screeching harpy bitchpower then?
Er, you wouldn’t be referring to me would you CB? ;-)
—Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 09 10 at 02:56 AM • permalink#15 - Nora - oh damn, I didn’t even know that Tim HAS guidelines!
There is logic to Margo only hiring people called Ed - that way she never forgets the name of anyone important on her team, and she only has to carry one cue card. Quite clever really.
Didn’t anyone notice that Ed Polly is ignorant of the world of Internet publishing, and it would seem, never reads a newspaper? I almost never read Crikey (especially after you had to pay), but even I know that he was very nearly done in by the number of times he has been sued for very large sums of money - how can someone “in the industry” be so ignorant that they are asking one of the “ams” in the “pro-am” model to provide answers to such trite questions? Maybe Ed Polly has only just left high school and is doing work experience.
Evil Pundit, please don’t use the html “pre” tag to force the (cheaper) monospace font—you’ve twanged the line length way off the edge of my screen with that <strike>strikethrough</strike> sentence.
It’s going to cost millions to fix that, dude.
PS: My post hasn’t shown up at WombDiary either. I basically complained about the equation of “banning dissent” with “banning trolls”.
Since lefties generally don’t know anything but bumper sticker arguments, it might make for little difference in the end. Still, I think Mz Harris gives them time and/or warnings that they’re pushing the limits of their own utility.
Tolerance becomes a crime when it is applied to evil—Thomas Mann
Posted by zeppenwolf on 2005 09 10 at 04:05 AM • permalinkJust a small note regarding blogs run by people like me..... I’m only aiming for blogosphere domination. I just believe starting small is the way to go. Slide in under the radar and all that.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 09 10 at 04:34 AM • permalink<strike>I’m so sorry, Zeppenwolf.
Since I can’t use Courier, I’ll just have to stick to strikethrough to save money.</strike>
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 09 10 at 05:29 AM • permalinkAaaaahhh, margolia! The gift of hilarity that just keeps giving.
I sent ‘em a comment, too. Just a list of verifiable facts that did not support what they laughingly call their ‘arguments’.
Did not make it past the
fact censorseditorsdimwits.To truly reflect their efforts, should not they only ever use wingding fonts?
MarkL
CanberraNo, no, no, you un sofistickated right-wingers just don’t get the brilliance of WebDiary.
If nobody sees the censorship happening, <u>it isn’t really censorship.</u> Just like with the teevee and the newspaper letter columns…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 09 10 at 12:16 PM • permalinkYears ago, I heard an official of TASS interviewed on NPR. He was asked about censorship and the lack of freedom of speech in the USSR, and replied, “You forget that the people have another very important right, the right to be protected from harmful ideas. We take the reponsibility of defending that right seriously.”
See? It’s not censorship. They are courageously defending the right of the people to be protected from harmful ideas.
marcus — It’s the cheap coffee in the cybercafes…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 09 10 at 07:35 PM • permalinkRe Polly Bush’s name, non de plumes are used (by several contributors) when a reason for anonymity is requested. Here’s what the guidelines say:
“1. If you don’t want to use your real name, use a nom de plume and briefly explain, for publication, why you don’t want to use your real name. Please send me your real name on a confidential basis if you choose to use a nom de plume. I will not publish attacks on other contributors unless your real name is used.”
So where is the hypocrisy in asking for a full name per the guidelines? Another weak post. Surely there’s something more important that you can spend your bandwidth on.
#40 - “I will not publish attacks on other contributors unless your real name is used”.
And there we have it!
Ethics in practice: it is NOT against their guidelines to “attack” other contributors so long as you do it under the genteel umbrella of a “real” name. That explains the shrill contribution from Marilyn. (Short of people supplying birth certificates, how would they know if a name is “real”?)
“Attacks” are okay, just not reasonable comment on factual matters, especially if the observations are about Margo - thus why David and others end up in the unpublished basket.
Dirt Bike, if this thread is not to your liking perhaps you could care to browse from Tim’s wide selection of other posts or blogroll at your leisure.
And, to add to David and CB, nom-de-Net is standing etiquette on the Internet since its inception. People have various reasons not to use their real name when contributing to blogs or message boards.
My issues with Margo’s demand for ‘real names’ are as follows:
1. She cannot be trusted with the proper management of a database (evidenced by the mishandling for the transfer to the new WD)
2. There is nothing in her code of ethics that suggests that she is abiding by any legislated privacy provisions.
3. There is nothing in her site which satisfies me that she can securely manage a database against e-mail harvesting and spam.
4. There is nothing on her site that states that she will not on-sell or use names for purposes other than establishing posters bona fides.
5. She pays lip service to the ideal of free speech. Indeed, it is her policy to actively censor it on her site.I hope this answers your questions.
Good evening,
NoraPosted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 09 11 at 05:52 AM • permalinkNot everyone likes their grammar and punctuation altered as it can be seen to interfere with their personal style… but if it makes the post easier and clearer to understand without changing the essential meaning or opinion submitted by the poster, then we reserve the right to make those changes, for the benefit of the reader and the discussion in general.
Well, now. I think I’ll just do a little grammar and punctuation altering myself:
Not everyone likes their grammar and punctuation altered as it can be seen to interfere with their personal style… but if it makes the post clearer and easier to understand, without changing the essential meaning or opinion submitted by the poster, then we reserve the right to make those changes for the benefit of the reader, and the discussion in general.
Take that, ed Kerri.
Congratulations on the sex change Mr Harris – the hormone treatments are obviously working – (extract from over at WD – why did they get to hear about this breaking news first!?).
“Whenever I want intolerance and insult I go over to Tim Blair.
I hope those posters from Tim’s site on this thread appreciate that they are able to make comments of substance here, while Andrew Harris bans anyone she thinks is vaguely ‘left’.
You can be as bland, civil, and reasoned as you like on Tim’s blog, and you’ll be banned anyway just for your political views.
I have to admit though that I’m glad Tim’s blog exists, and that it promotes Webdiary so heavily. For one thing it gives everyone a good look at the kind of intolerant, abusive and destructive world that the rampant right would like to force us all into.”It doesn’t give the WD guys pause that such an “intolerant, abusive and destructive” force gives so much free publicity to them? They’re normally a lot more paranoid than that, but they must have a blind spot where they themselves are concerned.
I guess they don’t realize what a great job WD does in shoring up support for the right. Not to mention the pure entertainment factor.
CkHart, your quoting of WD isn’t all that obvious. I had to read twice and follow the quote marks to realize that. But you did quote that WD idiot. I guess I’m spoiled by the block quote feature.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 09 12 at 04:41 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Humph. They refused to post my message, despite the blatant pandering to their insensibilities in the last line:
And I even posted under a full name!