<< STOP ROVE'S MIGNONS ~ MAIN ~ MEDIA PARTISANSHIP GOES TOO FAR >>
IRRESPONSIBLE INDECENCY CITED
Commenter Bryla, who entered this site seeking argument and found it, sends a note:
I’m sending the following to your sponsors, to Crikey and other blogs in the hope of letting people know just how irresponsible and indecent your behaviour is.
Bryan then quotes this:
Tim Blair is a mile wide and an inch deep. He has no obvious expertise on any of the subjects he puts out on, and research for Tim means Google.
Blair is the journalistic equivalent of the drunken sports yob braying for his team, with all of the wit and wisdom you might expect from the terraces.
We now return to Bryan’s note:
This is an extraordinarily generous appraisal of the vacuous and possibly dangerous Mr Blair. As far as I can tell, Mr Blair would be struggling to achieve a micron in depth, and that could only be for his talents in pointless insult. As for wit and wisdom, Tim couldn’t hope to match “the terraces” in sophistication or intellectual capacity.
I like to participate in Margo Kingston’s Web Diary, mostly because she encourages a breadth of contribution and refuses to censor comment that many might find offensive. Like Crikey it is a site genuinely supportive of free speech.
This can be annoying at times, because there’s a certain bovver-boy element whose posts are mainly gratuitous insults aimed at upsetting people without engaging in any meaningful way with the material. Still, free speech can be like that. From time to time Margo has identified Tim Blair’s blog site as the principle source for these contributors.
During a recent break in Web Diary I went for a visit to Tim’s site and was amazed by what I found. It seems that Tim’s following are mostly wannabe bloggers who post much the same material as Tim, and average a comment rate of somewhere between zero and one.
On Tim Blog they are whipped into a frenzy of self-congratulation at the ”wit” with which they dispatch “lefties”. They count personal abuse as counter argument. They threaten violence in the most juvenile of ways, and 95% of them appear incapable of following a line of inductive logic, or even coherent argument. They drown out argument with vacuous invective and claim it as intellectual victory.
I lasted about 52 hours (in real-time, not on-line) on Tim Blog before being banned forever as a “troll” (someone who disagrees with the consensus hatreds). During that time:
+ the site administrator (who calls him or herself Andrea) called upon contributors to attack me.
+ contributors then worked hard to discover my real world identity, which I hadn’t hidden because I was naïve enough to believe in respectful treatment.
+ contributors discovered my real identity and (Andrea) both published it and called attention to it.
+ contributors then went after, and discovered, my wife’s identity, which (Andrea) also published.
+ there was an stream of vitriolic personal abuse directed at me and my wife (a personal favourite came from (Andrea) who wrote “Ten to one his wife’s boffing the gardener, or some other member of the working class who’s a real man with a job.”
+ I complained about the invasion of my privacy, and my wife’s privacy, and when (Andrea) woke up (S/he lives in Florida apparently) I was banned.
Still holding out the (faint) possiblility of civilised discourse I e-mailed Mr Blair:
Bryla: My last paragraph read ‘I am disappointed that you seem unable to live within the bounds of decent behaviour, and would like to hear from you that you’re going to delete my wife’s personal details from your site, and offer both of us an apology for the bad (criminal?) behaviour of your web administrator.’
(I posted this on his site, asking his fan club for bets on whether I’d get a civilised reply. No one wanted to put money on it.)
Mr Blair: As for my being ‘unable to live within the bounds of decent behaviour’, I’d include your assumption that you wouldn’t receive a polite reply to your email as an example of, if not indecent behaviour, at least dumb behaviour. So far as I know, we’ve never previously corresponded. Why assume I’d be rude? No apology forthcoming. Should you wish to continue commenting, I’ll get you unbanned.
Bryla: I assumed you held the same values as the contibuters to your site do. You’re right, it’s a dumb assumption and I apologise. I proposed a way of continuing to contribute while restoring privacy to my wife and I.
Mr Blair: See, this is a problem: “I assumed you held the same values as the contibuters to your site do.” I happen to be extremely fond of my site’s readers. They are intelligent, funny, helpful, generous people. Explain to me, please, why I should offer any help to somebody who thinks ill of them.
Bryla: My opinion of many of your contributors is different to yours, but I don’t think ill of them. I just think they demonstrate an unfortunate proclivity to juvenile humour, ungoverned hostility, and an arrogant sense of entitlement that they and they alone possess “the truth”. I guess that’s the standard of politics these days (more’s the pity). Some of your contributors make the effort to conduct genuine debate. Where do your values lie Tim??
Needless to say, that’s the last I’ve heard from Mr Blair. My apology for making the assumption was genuine. In the absence of direct knowledge it was wrong of me to assume the worst about Tim’s character and ethics.
However now that I’m in possession of direct knowledge I have to conclude that Tim Blair is:
(i) unethical
(ii) indecent
(iii) dishonest
(iv) incapable of intellectual engagement
(v) and cheerleader for a new generation of brown-shirts in whom he encourages the worst fantasies of violence, and for whose actions he will take no responsibility.
What a drop-kick.
Yours sincerely
Bryan Law
P.S. You can find the relevant material on Tim Blair’s Blog in the threads
UPDATE. Apologies for not including the threads Bryan listed:
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
DEFEAT OF ICE BEGAN LONG AGO: CLAIM
POLICY OF INACTION
Monday, February 28, 2005
RIOTS EXPLAINED
Posted by Tim B. on 03/08/2005 at 08:36 AMCommenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Interesting. One might expect him to provide, oh, links or something to the comment sections. But I suppose it’s best to handwave and hope whomever he’s trying to impress won’t bother searching through the archives.
IIRC, wasn’t it Bryla who revealed he had been married, etc?
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 03 08 at 10:15 AM • permalink
Acre-feet is used to measure reservoirs, because they’re mostly shams. Talk about shallow. Potemkin lakes. I don’t know how they get away with it.
Just the other day one was drying up in the US Northwest : as a fellow named Day said to AP, ``Every day we go without snow, we get further behind.’’
Ah here’s the link http://rhhardin.blogspot.com/2005/03/northwest-fears-tinder-dry-summer.html pretty close.
The water that is most able to follow intricate argument is sphere-shaped. The medicine-ball of intelligence vs. the reservoir of flightiness
Another thought: it would be nice if Bryla revealed the thread where he was banned. Oh wait, that might show him posting in a manner that he claims he did not, making the action of Andrea, the Evil She Who Will Ban You lady, a bit more justified.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 03 08 at 10:19 AM • permalink
There’s nothing more amusing than reading hatemail. Apart from anything else, the sheer length of the stuff this guy has written is impressive.
Here’s a suggestion for Tim. Why not start a section of the site called hatemail, with witty and amusing demolitions of same? Maddox in Utah does this to great effect.
Bri needs to “free the mind” as he is obviously not “using the brain”. Perhaps we Zionist RWDB Brownshirts can help him out by buying him a sense of humo(u)r.
Posted by Some0Seppo on 2005 03 08 at 10:57 AM • permalink
Bryla does like his revisionist history, doesn’t he? None of his personal information came out until *he* started talking about himself…..most of which revealed a most shallow and self-centered person whose “values” focused on maximum return for minimum work. And it wasn’t hard; 10 minutes with Google told me more about him than I ever wanted to know.
And the rest is merely whining and whinging that the world doesn’t play by his rules.
Notes to Bryla:
1. Don’t use your home or business address in e-mails that get posted on line. A search for your e-mail address opened the door. I just never discussed it on line, figuring if you were that dumb, well, you wouldn’t listen to me.)
2. I never insulted you nor directed vitrolic comments at you, although my comments were not always kind. But I agree with Andrea, your wife and the gardner are likely getting it on while you are on line enlightening the world.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 08 at 11:17 AM • permalink
The_Real_JeffS:
But I agree with Andrea, your wife and the gardner are likely getting it on while you are on line enlightening the world.
Of course Bryan’s wife is banging the gardner. Look at what she (unfortunately) married: a whining, sniveling, snot-nosed left-winger who sucks off his wife’s largesse.
You know Bryla..you come in spouting (as rexie pointed out) and it will get rolled up and poked right back in your eye. Justifably so.
Posted by Bucky Katt on 2005 03 08 at 11:30 AM • permalink
“Bryla” is a lying beeatch.
Here is the complete text of an unsolicited e-mail he sent me after he ran away sniveling…
You won’t hear any more hair-splitting from me. Unless you visit the
Moonbat site. I found you all very, very perceptive on Tim Blair’s
site.I’ve sent you the complete e-mail with full address headers. Use as you see fit and I’m always available for depositions…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 03 08 at 11:39 AM • permalink
This thing about the “puts out” is interesting, though. Shall we send Jeff Gannon over to, er, “do your profile”?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 03 08 at 11:40 AM • permalink
I’m starting to think Dubya wasn’t misspeaking in that debate last year when he spoke of “the Internets”...I mean, Bryla comes across like he’s spent the last few years on some sheltered lefty alternaverse Internet, and only recently discovered this one, where people (gasp!) actually have the capability to hurt his widdle feelings by (gasp! again) demolishing his ill-thought out arguments.
Seriously, it reminds me of clueless newbies discovering Usenet circa 1999.
The fact that he thinks Webdiary isn’t “censored” (to use his terminology) is just icing on the stupidity cake.
(The economics student in me wants to point out that Bryla still qualifies as homo oeconomicus, though…he’s clearly made a rational decision when he decided to forego work in favour of marrying money. Holding down a real job would quite obviously be beyond his qualifications.)
Hm. “You’re bad, because—because—I don’t like you, that’s why!” That sums up Bryla’s argumentative technique.
You know, I let these two trolls—Bryla and David Heidelberg—comment because believe it or not I really don’t want to be She Who Bans All Unpleasant Commentary, but inevitably the thing happened that happens on all unmonitored blogs: the trolls take over the comment threads with their lecturings, superior moral posturings, tedious argumentum ad moonbatiems (sorry I don’t know how to pluralize in Latin), and insults towards the regulars. With Bryla it was a case of a few too many references to his time in prison coupled with his bizarre response to “private” information about him being talked about in a forum where he had been the one to bring his “private life” up in the first place. So I decided this guy was borderline psycho and not worth wasting time on. With Heidelberg (who tried to sign up here with another email address this morning EST; I simply deleted it), things were going more or less civilly until he couldn’t resist bringing up the old, tired, bigoted canard that the war is all about oil and Israel. And still I let him yammer on until he referred to a Commondreams article as a supporting point in his arguments about whatever, when I decided that, you know, life is too freaking short.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 08 at 11:54 AM • permalink
Feb 28 :
First Comment on “Riots Explained” :If you think education is expensive try ignorance. What you’ll get is the kind of prejudiced, uninformed and callous guff(y) that I’m reading here.
Keep us subjugated and dispossessed folks, we’re coming for your Home Theatre Systems (in stolen cars).
Bry-an La-w is correct about one thing: his “coherent logic” of an “inductive argument” escapes me.
Second Post
Third Post
Fourth Post...This has already gone too long, so one final point about riots. They work.
[...]
The only mistake I could see at Palm Island was that the rioters forgot to burn the school as well….Nice Bloke.
My only knowledge of the rich comes from my wife’s family who’ve been “owning class” for three generations now. Owning class is having enough property and investments to live comfortably without working. The capital grows and we live on the interest.
I live in a house my wife owns, drive a car she pays for, and put out my hand when I need money for leisure or projects. We live among the trogs and try to build healthy community.
BTW, we’re still able to collect middle class welfare. Family tax benefit allows us to have a house and up to $200,000 in cash before becoming ineligible. We’re OK until M’s next inheritance.
And here’s Andrea’s incandescent reply to this odious little article
Actually, it’s not Bryla that’s independently wealthy, it’s his (supposed) wife. He’s living off her money. We’re being lectured to by a parasite, folks: that’s rich. Ten to one his wife’s boffing the gardener, or some other member of the working class who’s a real man with a job.
Me, I ain’t got no sugar daddy to give me money and jewels; I’ve worked all my life and am planning to retire at the young, fun-ready age of 85 the way things are going. But I’ve never been on welfare; I’ve never even had to apply for unemployment. I don’t have the ability to “reach out” for a stack of money when I want it but at least I’ve got my pride.
I won’t include more than links to Bry-an La-w’s first posts on other topics.
Defeat of Ice began Long AgoLove the fart jokes folks, they really add tone to the discussion.
Anyone here heard about science or Carbon dioxide. No? Didn’t think so.
Real intellectual stuff this innit?
Policy of Inaction...One has to ask just how Tim ended his career that he’s turned into such a bitter old man.
No, no ad-hominem from our Bryan. Nothing to see, move along.
And for extra credit:Old Rich Man is Angry
I LOVE Janet A. I have to admit I don’t read the words, I just look at the pictures. Like most contributers to this list I hope to see a naked woman one day (in real life, not just on the screen) and I figure Janet can be my love object meantime.
Classy stuff, Bry-an, real Classy.
Tim’s posting of the facts without commentary, letting people like myself do the research and find the raw data, is far more damning than the most scathing critique.
As for Bry-an La-w, “parasite and proud of it”, poor petal. I look forward to his criticism being more widely publicised, just so the facts can be more widely known.
Jorgen:
He wanted the truth, but he couldn’t handle the truth.
Hmmmm..why am I reminded of Jack Nicholson at this point? ;-)
Posted by Bucky Katt on 2005 03 08 at 12:00 PM • permalink
Tim, we’ve been outed… Does this mean I can’t wear my brown shirt when I read your blog? Does this mean I can’t wear my “I Support Torture” lapel pin? No more cross-burnings on the lawns of my non-white neighbors? Sniff, sniff… It’s takes all the fun out of being a white guy.
Posted by Mystery Meat on 2005 03 08 at 12:11 PM • permalink
The one (and only) positive of Margo the Moonbat is that she allows me to taunt those Whakey Lefty Dudes whenever I want. Craig Rowley outed me on her site about a month ago. Only problem for Craig is that I couldn’t care, Margo couldn’t care and neither it seems could anyone else. Since I live in London I have no fear of Hamish coming around to scare me with his body odour.
My one (and only) criticism of this site is that Andrea bans people. If you truly want a blog and not simply and boring little sit-and-agree you cannot ban people. Besides, the amount of fun generated by idiots like this Bryla (a better example of the chardonnay socialist excapes me) makes this site more fun. Take a chill pill Andrea.
Posted by Karl Fidel Adams-Kingston on 2005 03 08 at 12:16 PM • permalink
Oh Andrea, there is one criticism of Bry-an’s that does hold an element of truth. Tim’s site commentary is at times too much of a monoculture, everyone agreeing with everyone else.
There are reasonable people out there with differing views. Tim even links to some of them. The name Marxist-Org-UK might just hint that the authors might not exactly be NeoCons, for example.
I applaud your efforts to sort out the deliberately Obnoxious from the rest. Odds are, some Leftist sites have the same problem. I have no idea how to get a dialogue going though. May I suggest that any newcomer who disagrees gets a bit more gentle treatment than some have in the past - and that the tone of those we agree with is held to a (slightly) higher standard than those we don’t. Unfair, certainly.
Anyway, it’s a suggestion, one that I found worked reasonably well at The Command Post. Naturally though, your blog, your rules, and a “suggestion” is all it could ever be.
I do know that I wouldn’t have your job for quids. So thanks.
BTW I think you owe Gardners an apology. They have standards too, you know.
Seriously, it reminds me of clueless newbies discovering Usenet circa 1999.
1999? Try 1995 or so, when AOL gave users access to Usenet.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 03 08 at 12:28 PM • permalink
There are reasonable people out there with differing views.
I don’t ban those.
BTW I think you owe Gardners an apology. They have standards too, you know.
Well, you know, maybe Mrs. La is really attractive. Or a great cook.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 08 at 12:29 PM • permalink
Given all the crap from trolls on this site, a stern hand is needed. And my experience has been that Andrea bans those that are obnoxious, rude, and uncooperative.
If the lefties who want to dwell here and offer their opinions without Fear Of Being Banned, here is my suggestion:
Do not endlessly repeat your opinions as facts, especially when you are told that they are not facts, but opinions. “Facts” mean that you can provide a reliable and independent source to back them up. Not can opinions be presented as natural law, or the ideal human condition without suitable facts to back them up. Bryla violated all of these points.
Almost invaribly, some leftie gets upset when confronted with this issue, and throws a virtual tantrum. Said person gets insulting and abusive, and takes over the thread in their attempt to show how smart they (“See? My opinions are facts!”). This is similar to a child demanding attention in a room full of adults by shouting. In a properly run home, said child is banished to their rooms. That applies to any blog as well. And to Bryla in this case. Andrea was more than generous and patient.
I do agree with aebrain, though, that we need to be less reactive to leftie opinions, and wait a couple posts to confirm their trollish behavior. However, aebrain, Bryla started out by being insulting and childish. Rude people need to be put into their place.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 08 at 12:42 PM • permalink
Jeffs, that is a valuable guide to some of their behavior, but there is one more thing that they do that drives me bonko. Maybe you can help root it out.
It’s when they’re challenged for a fact to support their position, and lo and behold, they come up with a fact. A fact that might at first lead one to consider their position but that does not come close to proving it. Yet when this insufficiency is pointed out, they trumpet, “You asked for a fact, you didn’t like it, so now I have to come up with another one? Typical!”
Not all facts have equal value in proving an assertion, my dear little trolls. As proof of this, I will state that my great-grandmother was born in Steubenville, Ohio.
1999? Try 1995 or so, when AOL gave users access to Usenet.
I missed that wave, unfortunately. (Only been online since 1997 myself.) The ones I remember were the @Home infestation. Although I suspect the ‘95 AOL cluebies were even worse than the ‘99 cable kiddies. Or maybe they were just differently-disabled, so to speak.
Love the fart jokes folks, they really add tone to the discussion.
Jeez louise, it was mammoth farts, which pretty much sums the whole no-longer-man-of-mystery-and-would-it-were-so Bryla guy up. And thanks again, ‘cause I started that. (I’m so clever, I’m so clever.)
C’mon Andrea. Talk dirty in Latin again, would ja please, huh, please, huh?! Gives us that little shine of sophistication in our dingy grey fart-joke world.
Posted by tree hugging sister on 2005 03 08 at 01:25 PM • permalink
The problem is that what we consider the Left is increasingly marginalized. I would estimate that at least 60-70% of the political landscape is represented by regular commenters here, and they are able to disagree on quite a few political issues and still retain civility. In short, we have tolerance for reasonable differences of opinion.
The problem is when people like Bryla argue simply for the sake of arguing. To most of the readers of this site, (for example) the liberation of Iraq was good, and the ratification of Kyoto was bad. We can disagree on aspects of these and other issues, but we do have common ground on which to meet. Bryla’s problem is the same of the Anybody But Bush crowd, where everything Bush did was instantly wrong, simply because Bush did it.
It always amazes me when someone proudly proclaims that they are living off someone else’s money without doing any useful work (I’d love to tell you about the sociopathic welfare queen from the UK that I met online). She couldn’t carry on a conversation without becoming abusive and insulting either, even if no disagreement arose. I think it’s a personality trait.
In my mind, people like Bryla and the welfare queen are the real-life equivalent of vampires.
Which would make them scary if they weren’t such pathetic, whining, little sore losers.
Strange - the beginning of my brief encounter with Bryla began when he decided to get pedantically insulting about a Harold Pinter parody which I had (a) written in five minutes (b) did not intend to be on a professional level because it was, you know, a parody written in five minutes in a comments section.
I think that’s where Bryla’s confusion lies. This sort of commenting is pure fun for me and, I would guess, a lot of others; our equivalent of having a drink at the end of the day and letting off some steam with our fellow drink-havers. For him, who seems to lack the perception that sometimes people online just like to have fun, every comment and post has to be backed up with forty footnotes and ten thousand disclaimers apologizing to anyone whom it might offend. In other words, our play is his work.
For a vacuous kind of guy, you sure are cute, Mr. Blair.
Posted by Janis Gore on 2005 03 08 at 03:23 PM • permalink
Rebecca H:
I think it’s a personality trait.
More like a self-esteem problem. My experience is that such individuals need to belittle and insult others in order feel good about themselves. Not exactly pleasant people to be around.
Cheers.
Posted by Bucky Katt on 2005 03 08 at 03:26 PM • permalink
Is it healthy for us to devote a whole thread to I Remember Bryla?
He got banned for a good reason. Should we obscure this with a flood of messages calling him names? The moonbats will doubtless proclaim him vindicated in either case, but let’s not provide a clearinghouse for them.
I suggest the “Real_JeffS” approach, as demonstrated above (#35). Let’s use this as a springboard for some actual discussion.
He went to my blog too, no doubt encouraged by a post on me talking about message board communities.
(But I wasn’t talking about any blogs, let alone this one, but I don’t think he realised that…)
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 03 08 at 04:18 PM • permalink
Posted the same garbage hear, Quentin: http://www.gravett.org/pc/index.php?p=4015
His first ever comment on this site: http://www.gravett.org/sauce/archives/006395.html
“Personally I’m a great believer in censorship. I love power tripping as well, and I think the sun shines out of murph’s bum. I’m sure Kirsten must feel the same way
Posted by Bryan Law at March 3, 2005 04:08 PM”
So may I understand this? What Bryan Law is indicating IS…He/she/it adores his/hers/its “Free Speech” BUT abhors ALL others….“Free Speech”? Is that what is being stated, by Mr/Ms/Its. law?
“I like to participate in Margo Kingston’s Web Diary, mostly because she encourages a breadth of contribution and refuses to censor comment that many might find offensive. Like Crikey it is a site genuinely supportive of free speech.”
“However now that I’m in possession of direct knowledge I have to conclude that Tim Blair is:
(i) unethical
(ii) indecent
(iii) dishonest
(iv) incapable of intellectual engagement
(v) and cheerleader for a new generation of brown-shirts in whom he encourages the worst fantasies of violence, and for whose actions he will take no responsibility.
What a drop-kick.
Yours sincerely
Bryan Law”
I must confess that I knew Bryan Law personally when I was a young student at Griffith Uni back in the early ‘80’s. He was a mature age student then deeply involved in Leftist politics and a semi-professional agitator involved in the Student Union and every protest going.
He was even more famous for his huge girth, scraggy beard and overpowering body odour.
Although an amiable chap he was at Uni it seemed only to revel in the culture of the academic Leftist cocoon and three years later when I matriculated he was still bludging about part time more interested in protests than study.
He was jailed at Boggo Road for not paying protest fines and in recent years, now as a taxi driver (Go Bryan!!) he ran most unsuccessfully for Cairns City mayor.
Believe me he is one of most dyed in the wool socialist you could ever hope to ban. If you relent and unban the fool you will be sorry.
81 Aplha out.
1999? Try 1995 or so, when AOL gave users access to Usenet.
Right, the September that never ended.
The American school year begins in September, so every year at that time Usenet got flooded with newbies - college kids getting their first taste of the ‘net. (Such as it was then, this being before the web was invented.)
After a month or so, they’d either have got themselves sorted out, or have been flamed to a crisp and forsaken Usenet for good. Either way worked.
Then in 1995, AOL gave its users Usenet access. September never ended that year.
Just this year, AOL announced that it was dropping Usenet access, but I don’t think it will really change things at this point.
Which is a roundabout way of saying that I think Andrea is doing a good job of controlling the trolls. A light touch, but when it becomes necessary she pound them into goo. You can’t keep idiots like Bryan around on a blog like this; they’ll destroy it in short order. I’ve seen it happen too many times.
(Web Diary of course comes pre-destroyed for your trolling pleasure.)
There are reasonable people out there with differing views.
I don’t ban those.
Bullshit. Just about every single left-wing Australian blogger has been banned from commenting on this site at one time or another.
This guy’s clearly an idiot (Margo doesn’t censor comments? I’ve never had a comment successfully appear on web diary), but the fact is that Andrea’s control of the comments on Tim’s site has become an embarrassment - especially to those like me who are big fans of Tim, and have to continually defend him against people who’ve been banned from here for dissent.
There are only 2 Australian blogs that routinely delete/ban dissenting comments: Tim Blair and Margo Kingston. That should tell you something.
“Bullshit. Just about every single left-wing Australian blogger has been banned from commenting on this site at one time or another.”—Yobbo
Subtract the one’s that didn’t set out to provoke a banning or only include the one’s that started out with “reasonable ..... differing views”. Then make a list.
Just about every single left-wing Australian blogger has been banned from commenting on this site at one time or another.
Even if what you say were true (and it isn’t), which of them do you claim to be “reasonable people”?
There are only 2 Australian blogs that routinely delete/ban dissenting comments: Tim Blair and Margo Kingston. That should tell you something.
This blog doesn’t ban dissenting comments. It bans idiots. There is a difference.
He was even more famous for his huge girth, scraggy beard and overpowering body odour.
Cripes. How did Bryan manage to score an attractive, svelte sugar-mummy?
(I made up the ‘attractive, svelte’ bit, but often rich ladies are also lovely, or at least appear so).
Posted by walterplinge on 2005 03 08 at 06:47 PM • permalink
Gosh, Yobbo. Someone sure woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. What, did I ban your girlfriend or something, or were you really looking forward to a cybertussle with mental giants like Miranda Divide and Big Hawk? (Remember them? Ah, memories.)
By the way, didn’t you call me a bitter, menopausal spinster somewhere? I could swear that was you or someone using your nick and url.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 08 at 07:02 PM • permalink
For a minute there, I though Mr. Law was talking about Phillip Adams or Margo Kingston or Richard Neville or Michael McKinley or Mike Seccombe or Robert Fisk or John Pilger or David Marr or Paul McGeough, etc. etc. etc.
Apart from being on the other side of the arguement, how is the invective expressed here any different from theirs!
HOW!?
BLOODY HYPOCRITE!
Walt,
Who said she was svelte? Not me. I must admit to be surprised when I heard that he had hooked up with a female of the human species given his monstrous unkempt appearance and that incredible body odour stench.
Actually for those who have not have the pleasure, our Bryan physically resembles the inelegant Mike Moore in more ways than one. I might also add that trying to argue with this dedicated ‘career’ socialist will get you frustrated but little else.Let him barf his bullshit elsewhere I say.
81 Aplha out.
I’ve logged onto this a bit late. “Bryla” as I said previously sounds like something from the movie,‘Sibyl’, remember the one about the multiple personalities?
Anyway, web blog has its own characteristics. I don’t hear Bryla complaining about Niall or Dunlop’s site (where I am banned but cant remember posting there) or the fatuous Mark Bahnisch and his coterie of leftist onanists as examples of less than perfect sites. Tim’s site is a bit like the school yard. If you come here and taunt the residents dont go an complain to the teacher if you cant handle it. Fancy complaining to Margo and or Crikey, dear oh dear oh dear. Now we can expect Marilyn Shepherd posting here, I can hardly wait, muhahahahah.
Here is a list of Bryan and Margaret’s pet causes:
Closing down the US bases in Australia – FAILED
Halting the visit of nuclear warships to Australian ports – FAILED
Stopping the mining and export of uranium – FAILED
Stopping the visit of US warships to the port of Fremantle – FAILED
Forest Defence Campaigns – FAILED (year after year)
Stop military action by the `coalition’ in the gulf 1991 – FAILED
Stop military action by the `coalition’ in the gulf 1991 – FAILED
Etc etc etcPoor Bryan’s history of failure after failure has caused him to succumb to the worst case of moonbattery since Studebaker Hawk covered himself in honey and flew away in a phone booth …
Read their sad `manifesto at: http://nonviolencehelp.tripod.com/downloads/ann_story.pdf
Those I mentioned in my previous post, plus countless others on the Left, engage in the MOST EGREGIOUS vilification and denigration possible! They and their disciples are in no position to judge ANYONE!
Take Mr. Adams for example. His relentless, ruthless anti-Americanism, boarders on the criminal if you ask me. Who decides when demonisation ultimately becomes a hate crime? As far as I’m concerned, he passed that point a long time ago. I won’t be at all surprised when the next mass murder of American civilians in the U.S. turns out to be the handy work of a Left-wing nut, incited by an Adams-like abomination!
It’s like the looney’s spamming to get noticed- he wasted my bandwidth with the same self-serving drivel in my comments;with a bit of luck, Ingrid will swing to the south and drop a few coconuts on his pointy head before blowing him out to sea where he can become one with nature once the sharks shit out his decaying remains. Nature boy being fucked up by nature- I love irony.
I second Yobbo. There are plenty of RWDBs who have said stupid stuff in the past and haven’t been banned. Alot of LWPDs (Left Wing Pencil Dicks) have been banned for much less.
One of the problems I see is that the RWDBs are able to bait and abuse the LWPDs (without being banned) but the LWPDs are banned if they respond in kind.
Tim’s got a right to ban people but it’s gone a bit too far in some cases. The debate gets a bit sterile (or non-existent). I’ve generally found that lefties generally hang themselves if you give them enough rope. As GWB famously said to the Australian Parliament in response to the idiotic antics of Senators Brown and Nettle:
I love free speech!
Meaning, he loves it because it allows idiots to broadcast the fact that they are idiots.
If we don’t allow alternative viewpoints (even if they are stupid) we just look like a bunch of circle wankers like the commenters at the blogs of Dunlop, Shiels and Quiggin.
Yobbo, murph—there’s nothing stopping the leftist twits from making their idiocy clear on someone else’s site. Like, say, their own.
Blogs aren’t exactly hard to set up or run, after all.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2005 03 08 at 09:07 PM • permalink
I am rather late to the fair with regards the Bryan Law dust-up (I Googled him and came up with f***all). Now I happen to think that Tim can ban whomever he wishes to ban through the kind ministrations of his hatchet-babe, Andrea. It’s his website. And since I only just caught up here, it seems that Mr. Law was only on this site in order to attack Tim and others here, not to engage in enlighened debate. I also think we can be as grotty and snotty as we like (we could not do so on Margo’s precious site). But sometimes it is fun to allow idiots to hang themselves in front of us. It’s the only way we can enjoy public executions in this day and age (God! For a good public hanging!). I say roll out the tumbrells and hang the bastards in the public square.
Don’t forget to bring the kids.
Jeez Yob, I’ve been banned from all the major Oz Leftie blogs merely for speaking truth to moonbats. They hate facts and have absolutely zero sense of humour.
Personally, unless someone’s getting foulmouthed, I don’t see any reason to ban them. Loonies are always good for a laugh and I get a great kick out of poking them with sticks.
I second Yobbo. There are plenty of RWDBs who have said stupid stuff in the past and haven’t been banned. Alot of LWPDs (Left Wing Pencil Dicks) have been banned for much less.
Hm. In order to make this fuse with reality, I should ban you and Yobbo. After all, I wouldn’t want to be partisan in my banning, nor do I wish to be accused of banning leftists for no more than weak banter while letting righties continue their ruthless reign of the cutting insult up to and including allowing them to call opponents names.
(Puts on pretty ring she found in a box of Crackerjacks.)
Yes—the scales have fallen from my eyes. No longer shall I be unfair and anti-egalitarian in my banning. I shall ban both the weak and feeble complainer and the astute and witty jiber from both sides of the political sandbox! I shall mow down all until all are equal! I shall ban for no reason - because I woke up with a crick in my neck, or because I laughed at something on tv, or because I developed gas from eating cheese! I shall ban on a whim, for no reason whatsoever! I will be Queen of the Banning Admins! I shall be as beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! All shall love me and despair!
Is that better, my Precious?
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 08 at 09:29 PM • permalink
If we don’t allow alternative viewpoints (even if they are stupid)
I for one am troubled not so much by the stupidity of the comments of those who end up banned, but their utter lack of creativity. Just take David Heidelberg and his quick descent into “the Iraq War was about oil and Israel” moonbattiness after he was prodded fairly lightly (by this blog’s standards). If any of them actually had something interesting to say, hell, I’d be the first to ask for them to stay. (Bryla was fun for a while because he was at least unpredictable…for about 48 hours or so.)
But as things stand, 99% of those “alternative viewpoints” are just a weekly repetition of the same nonsense that has been debunked ad nauseam, for two years or more in some cases. In that sense, letting them stay around only serves to derail the conversation because they usually insist on re-fighting the opinion battles of yesteryear. (If I see one more lefty try to play the bogus “WMD were the only justification” card…)
Let the trolls step up their game and actually post something new, interesting and thought-provoking, then we can talk. Right now, they can’t seem to get beyond “provoking”.
This has really been a great thread. It has moved from vitriol to free speech! The fact is that the Margot site has a point of view and so has Tim’s. Depending on your point of view (and neither of these has made a secret of their’s) you will think that the opposing view is wrong.
Tim and Andrea exercise editorial control and in the end the popularity of the site will partly reflect the ethics and value of that control. What is clear that any publication, be it MSM or otherwise will not allow itself to be a vehicle for content that will damage it.
Given the known audience of Tim Blair, it is unlikely that they will tolerate poorly expressed counter ideology for long. They will just move on. The comments by 81Alpha are valuable as he reveals Bryan as a known provocateur, something that can be inferred from his comments and lack of need to apply logic and evidence.
Keep up the good work Andrea and Tim. I never miss reading the blog wherever I am and only wish you both had more time to spend on it.
Bryan needs to get some reinforcement for that glass jaw of his. Blogging is a contact sport and there are no beg pardons when someone plays the ball or man.
Besides, it is commmon knowledge that Ms Harris is, in reality, a perfect specimen of genteel womanhood, who secretly lusts after the soft and sensitive type.
My guess is that she really likes Bryan, but is playing hard to get.You’re the only man for me, Jack—Andrea H, Queen of Administration.
Oh, and…if there’s one thing that can be laid at Andrea’s feet, it’s that her (no pun intended) liberal banning policies in conjunction with Tim’s traffic levels seem to have made it something of a status symbol to get banned from here, which as with all “kewl” things tends to attract those with the highest moron quotient.
(Of course, that knife cuts both ways…any time I see one of the regulars here boast about how he got banned from Webdiary, I can’t help but groan. I’m sorry, but I just don’t care.)
I rarely post here but I do read every day, I have seen what happens once the Trolls take over a blog, for a good example check out the now defunct Diplomad site. No matter what the subject a couple of trolls would always attempt to hijack the thread. The comments section became unreadable as 30 – 50% of posts were mindless troll comments, we are not talking about a few posts but hundreds of troll dumps a day.
This blog is tightly run and it is the better for it! There are thousands of blogs out there if someone isn’t happy with how this site is run.
Andrea, be careful there. You’re showing entirely too much wit, and aren’t taking yourself nearly seriously enough.
AFAIK you’ve never banned anybody who has made a serious attempt at rational discussion. Not once. But you have let some of us RWDBs get away with stuff you wouldn’t have tolerated from Moonbats.
I’m with Yobbo and Murph, at least to a degree.
Trouble is, I’m loath to criticise - not because I fear the Wrath of She Who Must be Obeyed, but because I know you’re better at this job than I would be.
Andrea’s a pussy- she only bans poor old Brian, whereas I want to feed him to sharks. Going by the previous comment on him being a fat bastard, the noahs would have a jolly good time as well. He could even contribute to the economy finally, as all that blubber makes their fins grow extra fast, and at a grand a kilo it would be a real boost to the flagging soup industry.
Bryan Law spammed the same message as a comment on my blog. It has been deleted.
I’d suggest that other bloggers who are linked by Tim should check for Bryan Law spam in their comments.
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 03 08 at 10:08 PM • permalink
Paul: “Jeez Yob, I’ve been banned from all the major Oz Leftie blogs merely for speaking truth to moonbats. They hate facts and have absolutely zero sense of humour.”
Congratulations! :D I’ve personally been banned from Democratic Underground in the US three times, and consider that a badge of honor! :)
Why, just last night I was banned there for posting links to Giuliana Sgrena’s three different versions of her “truth”, highlighting the discrepancies in her stories :D. Today I had an e-mail from their administrator saying, “Be wise…...preach to the choir.
try to sell your ideas to people who already think like you.”So much for that famous liberal “tolerance” and “diversity”! :D
Little do they know that banning isn’t a deterrent for me… I come and go there as I please ;). Of course, my shots are up to date, and I have a bottle of disinfectant standing by (Southern Comfort does nicely!). But it is a beautiful thing :).
Posted by mamapajamas on 2005 03 08 at 10:18 PM • permalink
murph
“One of the problems I see is that the RWDBs are able to bait and abuse the LWPDs (without being banned) but the LWPDs are banned if they respond in kind.”
Was it John Quiggen or Tim Dunlop’s site that a hole domain was banned for one your comments thus preventing a half dozen people from commenting?
Anyway this is crap and is probably entertaining weasels like Tim Lambert and Martin Pike in-between getting of on naked Iraqi men. eeeewwwww!!!
Grizz…“I suspect that “moonbatâ€? in Latin would be something like lunachiroptera”
LOL! The Anti-Idiotarian has an occasional drive-by sarcasm artist who posts sheer insanity under the name “Luna Chiroptera”. It was either one of the Latin-learned doctors or the lawyers on the site that called that one as sarcasm and not “serious”. Sometimes it’s hard to tell! :)
Posted by mamapajamas on 2005 03 08 at 10:22 PM • permalink
Habib: well, you live right there in Australia with Brylalala; you can feed him to the sharks any time you like.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 08 at 10:24 PM • permalink
ANNOUNCEMENT: behold my new instrument of banning. Will it be a saving roll or will you go down with three Dark Elf arrows in your Neutral Mage? Who knows? It’s all up to the 8-Sided Dice of Doom!
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 08 at 10:30 PM • permalink
shall mow down all until all are equal! I shall ban for no reason - because I woke up with a crick in my neck, or because I laughed at something on tv, or because I developed gas from eating cheese!
Even wensleydale cheese?wensleydale
Bryan: “I hate you, Tim and Andrea! I absolutely abhor you both! I hate you so much I wish you had cancer; in the head!”
(starts waving hands on outstretched arms)
Tim: “What are you doing?”
Bryan: “I’m trying to give you cancer with my mind”
Andrea: “Hey! Don’t give me cancer!”All that’s missing is Saddam Hussein, Celine Dion, Ugly Bob and kroff dinner.
Yeah, cancer sucks! No Wensleydale for you!
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 08 at 11:27 PM • permalink
ok, bwyans gone too far. i’m ringing drago right now.
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 03 08 at 11:42 PM • permalink
gwendolyn, you don’t like Wensleydale?
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2005 03 08 at 11:44 PM • permalink
Anyhow, it made him look like a fascist dickhead. That’s exactly what I’m trying to avoid here.
Well, luckily for you that will be easy, because you don’t moderate this blog!
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 09 at 12:05 AM • permalink
I got your point a long time ago on this topic,murph. How you make that point without feeding the delusion of ‘innocent’s’ from Martin Pike,Darp and Bryla is mine. Also unlike when I’ve sarcome to the impulse of banning, Tim.B openly supports Andrea’s administration. So shouldn’t he share in your criticism?
I’ve generally found that lefties generally hang themselves if you give them enough rope.
Then they tend to get banned when their minds can’t grasp this simple fact, and start repeating the same drivel over and over again.
The left is looking for heretics; the right is looking for converts.
Trolls come here because it’s full of heretical beliefs that they can attack all day long. When the true facts are revealed, they have two choices: (a) accept and rethink their position on said issue, or (b) fall back to liberal talking points. It’s only when they choose (b) that they are banned, from what I’ve noticed.
Andrea, 7th Level Priestess of Administration,
Will it be a saving roll or will you go down with three Dark Elf arrows in your Neutral Mage? Who knows? It’s all up to the 8-Sided Dice of Doom!
Does a past history of rational comments rate a +1 or +2 to saving throws?
Just askin’
=^D
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 03 09 at 01:18 AM • permalink
One of the problems I see is that the RWDBs are able to bait and abuse the LWPDs (without being banned) but the LWPDs are banned if they respond in kind.
The left - liberal domination of the MSM, Academia, the Arts community and the professions means that any intellectually challenged LWPD can make crazy assertions, not back them up with anything resembling an argument, and still claim the intellectual high ground. Inverted snobbery, intellectualism by proxy, call it what you will. The result is a fusion of stupidity and smug arrogance common to most trolls on this site. This left-liberal zeitgeist means that we RWDB’s are held to a much higher standard in most other forums, so why can’t we demand a higher standard when they come over here and start preaching? If they are not capable of meeting this higher standard, I have no problem with SWMBO banishing them.
Spiny Norman — Getting D&D jokes adds 3 to your IQ but subtracts 5 from your Charisma.
Somebody told me that. I have no idea what it means, of course.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 03 09 at 02:49 AM • permalink
There was a time when I used to worry about how quick people were getting banned from here, but I really don’t lose any sleep over it. Lately the only ones getting kicked out have all been DISRUPTIVE drooling morons as opposed to merely being morons who drool too much.
If you want someone who’s willing to disagree, look to that guy Nic White. I think he’s wrong, but he can express his wrongness in terms that don’t get him banned, even if some folks are quick to flame him.
I don’t care if this blog has a reputation for kicking people out. I like it better when jerks like Lyin’ Braw get banned.
And if anyone thinks this place is a den of agreement with the trolls all smashed, then I am sure we can find things to disagree about. In that spirit, if anyone wants to disagree with me SHUT UP YOU’RE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Sortelli, you’re wrong. Bryla isn’t a jerk. Bryla is an idiot with pretentions of being a jerk.
And I ain’t shutting up! NYAH NYAH NYAH!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 09 at 03:07 AM • permalink
YEAH? OH, YEAH!!?!?!? WELL, YOU’RE THE ONE WHO IS WRONG! WRONG WRONG WRONG!
I know ‘cuz I said so!
[stamps feet repeatedly, slams mouse against desk, curses luridly]
I’m not only CONSERVATIVE, I am NEO-CONSERVATIVE! So there!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 09 at 03:29 AM • permalink
uhh sortelli, that’s ‘ACTIVATE like no activist has ACTIVATED before’.(i think) (hang on, i’ll email jack strocchi and see if that’s correct).
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 03 09 at 03:53 AM • permalink
Funny. I have never had a comment posted on the pre-censored Webdiary.
While I think that sometimes people get banned here a tad too quickly, I have never seen a person engaging in rational and civil discourse banned here. That says something.
But I have to admit that if Andreaw ere not so on the ball, this place would be overrun by the worst trolling campaign one could imagine. It is just too well known not to be.
MarkL
Canberra
Well it if was a bit of fame Bryan was after I guess he got what he wanted.
I got spammed with the same message. That’s okay. Just responded to it and let him go on his merry way. Seems to take himself a tad seriously. Doesn’t mind stereotyping people either (a particular trait I have seen among know-it-all leftists a lot).
If you are not with him, you must be a RWDB.
Really Wonderful Delicious Beauty. Sure, I will go with that.
Murph, you make some good points.
Posted by Major Anya on 2005 03 09 at 04:31 AM • permalink
Murph, you make some good points.
Bryan has been all over the shop.
Hi Bryan, don’t you have a job?
I just responded to him and sent him on his merry way.
Bryan is fond of stereotyping. If you are not with him you are a RWDB.
Really Wonderful Delectable Beauty? Yep, thanks Bryan.
Posted by Major Anya on 2005 03 09 at 04:40 AM • permalink
And it was soooo important, I had to say it twice, only slightly differently to, ummm, emphasis different things.
Bollocks, I am just a moonbat.
Strewth!!!!
Posted by Major Anya on 2005 03 09 at 04:42 AM • permalink
Bovious, just read your comment (#36).
I can’t say if it an education system gone bad, the nihilism inherent to the far left, or an inability to connect with reality. Perhaps some combination of the above. But most of the lefties I’ve known or read about tend to classify an opinion as a “fact”, whether it is theirs, or someone else stating their opinion.
The key point to a fact is that they come from ”...a reliable and independent source…”. I use the scientific method as the basis for this. If reliable and independently confirmed data can be provided to back up facts, I find it acceptable.
If, on the other hand, the referenced source has issues with bias, unreliability, or other questionable activities, the facts are suspect until proven otherwise. And that is the responsibility of the person presenting the suspect facts to deal with. Not mine.
That’s my rule of thumb, anyway. This drives some lefties nuts, as they seem unable to understand that a fact has to be confirmed and unbiased. Opinions, rumors, and wild speculation aren’t facts. Poor data sampling in a survey or poll doesn’t constitute a fact—it’s a highly educated guess. And so on.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 09 at 04:53 AM • permalink
Not defending bryan in any way but there is a selective process going on as it concerns banning and it seems to hinge on whether the offending comment is in agreement with the majority.
I’m a big fan of Tim’s but I don’t agree with everything he says.
A while back I had the ridiculous notion that US soldiers snapping personal photos and allowing them to be posted on the internet was a disturbing trend. The photos in question were of Saddam’s capture. After I posted my comment about this, the avalanche of abusive responses was ridiculous. In the rush to call me whatever name or body part possible, people never considered the basis of my argument, uncontrolled circulation of snapshots taken in a war zone can compromise the mission.
Then came Abu Graib (spelling wrong I’m sure but you’ll forgive me) and my concerns turned out to be legitimate.
Anyway, IMHO banning is selective, depending on the position taken by the person making the comments.
I don’t care what position people take, there’s no need to be an asshole.
Posted by lizardflix on 2005 03 09 at 04:56 AM • permalink
Then came Abu Graib (spelling wrong I’m sure but you’ll forgive me) and my concerns turned out to be legitimate.
No. The problem at Abu Ghraib wasn’t soldiers taking photos, it was what the soldiers were doing when the photos were taken.
You were jumped on not because you disagreed with people, but because you were wrong. And you’re still wrong.
uncontrolled circulation of snapshots taken in a war zone can compromise the mission.
Has this actually happened? Your example hardly supports this.
Pixy, you miss the point entirely. you can disagree without being a jerk.
Or your comment section can simply become a pissing match. Whichever is more important I guess. Everybody is 10 feet tall when sitting at a keyboard.
I think the last year has proven the danger of allowing soldiers to take and pass around photos that shouldn’t be circulating. Too many examples to cite.
Posted by lizardflix on 2005 03 09 at 05:40 AM • permalink
I agree with lizardflix on the bit about soldiers taking photos and emailing them from a war zone. In the olden days, soldeiers’ mail had to pass through a censor to ensure security wasn’t being compromised. Very tough to do now that the guys and gals on the front line are a digital camera, a PC and an internet connection away from sending anything to anyone. It’s like some of the sailors who didn’t have the stomach for what was going on when the illegals in the Tampa and children overboard - they were breaking operational security.
This has been a very long thread, and has taken a bit of time to work through. I hope you don’t mind me adding a bit to it.
It was very obvious from early posts (1 or 2)that Bryla and David Heidelberg were here to take over the threads and post provocatively and repeatedly in order to swing things - dead cats mainly.
Andrea’s judgement is excellent. In both these cases she gave them more rope than they deserved, given their propensity to blather on and monopolise the soapbox.
Bryla was, as she said, and 81Alpha has confirmed, a bit of a head case. I hinted at this before either of them, but used tame language like egocentric.
David wants to be loved and respected and to hold centre stage, but did not know what paper Phillip Adams writes for, and eventually blossomed into full moonbat regalia - in a post I referred to as showing his true value - no more needed to be said.
In response to all those who have decried the tendency to give people a hard time if we disagree with them - there are ways and there are other ways to put a point across. If it it so bleeding obvious that you are trolling then nobody should regret your banning. As I said, it was pretty obvious that both B-law and Heidelthing were trolling, despite their protestations and pleadings.
And anyone else who wants to be treated fairly better not come in with the old 100,000 civilian casualties, dumbocracy, ducktator, or the why can’t we Topple Howard, or other assorted crapology that can only serve to waste our time and space.
I just wanted to clear something up. I am in no way related to the person “David Heidelberg”. Enjoy your respective days, Harry Heidelberg.
Posted by Harry Heidelberg on 2005 03 09 at 06:55 AM • permalink
PM- there’s a lot of nasty shit happens in the name of intelligence gathering and national security, and it should never come into the public arena unless something really bad happens so people lose their natural squeamishness. Do you reckon the OAS and MI5 sent photos to the Washington Post and the Times every time they were working over some Waffen SS heavy or an officer of the Imperial Japanese Army? Very easy to sit back in a lounge room and pontificate, bit different if you’re in the field and the info gathered from the enemy stops your mates being bushwacked. Seeing as the stated aim of the enemy is bushwacking on a global scale, I don’t give a fuck what happens to them; they gave up their human rights when they adopted a 13th century belief system that doesn’t believe in negotiation. These buggers use our basic good nature against us.
Quoting Bryla:
“I like to participate in Margo Kingston’s Web Diary, mostly because she encourages a breadth of contribution and refuses to censor comment that many might find offensive. Like Crikey it is a site genuinely supportive of free speech.”
Alan Anderson and both tried during the last Federal election with concise, unemotive comments. Neither of us were published.
Hence Bryla has a slight problem distinguishing fact from fiction.
“Everybody is 10 feet tall when sitting at a keyboard.”
So that’s what the problem is. I thought all the characters on the monitor looked tiny because I needed new glasses. Or lizardflix you silly ankle (just keeping up that tradition of calling you a body part), maybe you need to stick to imbibing nothing stronger than a soy decaf latte when sitting down in front of your keyboard.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 09 at 08:19 AM • permalink
ANNOUNCEMENT: behold my new instrument of banning. Will it be a saving roll or will you go down with three Dark Elf arrows in your Neutral Mage? Who knows? It’s all up to the 8-Sided Dice of Doom!
Yeah, but you have to roll a 9 or higher to save against banning. ;)
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 03 09 at 10:22 AM • permalink
Yes, Jeffs, but I guess what I’m talking about is more the reliance on non-sequitur that I see so much. Like the lefty friend who sent me a link to the CNN running tally of US casualties when I asked him for evidence that the war was immoral.
When I pointed out that, by this argument, every war was immoral, and asked him if he was really a pacifist, he became outraged. I was the one asking for evidence; how dare I question his fact?
Hmmmmmmm…..good point, bovious. I guess some people just take it for granted that they automatically have the morale high ground. Therefore, if you disagree, you are wrong.
Sounds like Bryla, in fact!
But there’s nothing to be done about that. To use an old military term: FIDO*
(*: F*** It, Drive On!)
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 09 at 12:52 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register | Member ListPlease note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.
Exactly, we need a bit more responsible indecency around here.