Irresponsible indecency cited

-----------------------
The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info
-----------------------

Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:30 am

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, 2005DEFEAT 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 AM
(135) CommentsPermalink