Reading Blogs; why?
There was a bit of an off topic exchange of views of the Cardinal Cahal Daly (RIP) thread between Turgon and ‘The Spectator’. ‘The Spectator revealed that he doesn’t read any of Pete’s threads and consciously avoids debating with Turgon, Turgon seems none too pleased. I would have commented there but I am tied to a cultural respect for the dead.
I have a confession to make. I do not read any of Pete’s entries. I occasionally read Turgon’s entries but to my recollection have not commented there in a long time. Is that wrong? Bad netiquette? There are a number of other commentaters who I do not read anymore either, and I am sure as hell that not everyone reads my ramblings.
Now let me be clear, I do not know Pete nor Turgon, I would probably agree on little with either but that would rarely stop me for reading someones material as I prefer to be reading the views of people I do not agree with.
That is why I read the likes of Slugger, to learn about other people and their views, that and I would normally work with computers and find the television invariably crap. I have no idea why others do but I know they do despite strong denials.
I must also say at this point that when I did debate with Turgon I found him to be a gentleman. The fact that I do not bother with his posts now should be no reflection on that, I simply feel that I have the right to chose how I spend my precious time, a glance at a blog for me is normally simply a quick break from working.
I would hope that no one would at all feel obliged to read my posts, I am of course, somewhat of a one trick pony after all.
Slugger is or should be about exchanging views and learning from other people but perhaps there is a limits on what is of value? Like me, most commentators on Slugger have very strong and set views. Are we by commenting trying to influence others? trying to annoy others? or is it just keyboard screaming?
What is the point in stating and restating set positions?
For example, I am essentially a critical follower of Marx. I am very interested in religons but I would find it rather pointless to debate many things with religous people as their views are based on faith rather than thought.
For example, what is the point in online debating the rights and wrongs of a greater Isreal with someone who believes in the legitmacy of that project simply because that is what it says in their bible? None whatsoever probably, at least not enough to merit taking time of of your work day to do so.
Having read the christian bible, I could venture into a theological discussion, being of the view that Christianity seems to be somewhat of a conspiracy to undermine the teachings of Christ (Seemed a bit of a Palestine Communist to my mind!) but people’s interpretations of the bible (and I have never met anyone who read it in Hebrew) seem to come from their background and upbringing rather than their own reflections.
Likewise, whilst I try and kept and open mind, short of God revealing himself to me and revealing which sect of Christianity is actually on the right path, religous people are highly unlikely to be able influence me with religous arguement.
I suppose the Turgon / Spectator exchange has made me question the value of blogging at all. Once in trying to explain the possible influence of blogging to a doubter I once compared it to trying to change the course of an oil tanker by pushing it with one’s hand, pointless as an individual but perhaps ten thousand hands could change its direction.
Now I am not so sure. Is is new media, or simply a new form of the soap box?
To add
As for the idea that the comments zone has descended to a new low recently..
You should have been here before.
But, if it has descended, I’d argue that the reduction in posts of video clips [particularly BBC political video clips] has a lot to do with that.
I’m a nationalist and applaud the contributions of all those who blog on this site. I hope you know that your efforts are much appreciated by many.
For me it’s intriguing to read the perspectives of those of a different political stripe. I’ve rarely left the site without mulling over one or more of my pre-conceptions about the other side or, indeed, even my own.
I know the abuse on here can get a little toxic at times but I hope the bloggers see this as evidence that they’ve done their job (and done it well) to stimulate and educate.
Keep up the invaluable work that you do, and happy, and peaceful, new year to all of you.
Pete,
I think that is much regretted on both sides.
Only asking,
I’m afraid it is you who are ‘all over the place’. I’m afraid I cannot see what single point you are making to Turgon, for it seems to be a different one each time he replies to your previous one.
If you are intent on playing the man rather than the ball (even if it amuses you, it is wasting everyone else’s time), you’ll shortly be in receipt of a Yellow Card.
This site is for political grown ups to contend over politics, not for sustaining pointless grudge matches.
[quote]though I still support keeping the Queen and (I guess) Charles after her.[/quote] …. Posted by Turgon on Jan 02, 2010 @ 08:33 PM
What on earth for, Turgon, whenever they are imprisoned by the imposition of their being mute silent puppets, forced into clandestine musings by proxy if they can be bothered at all to do anything or utter anything worthwhile. It is hardly a freedom that can be enjoyed, with their every move suspect and sought for media attention. Is the Monarchy presently anything other than a Cuckolded Neutered Dog of a Old, Once Leading, Institution/Intelligence Service?
And it would do them a world of good to bring in better staff than they presently have, for whoever/whatever office thought that this was a good idea …… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/6925437/Prince-William-I-will-not-become-shadow-king.html …. needs to be replaced.
Ooops ….. I appear to have drifted off topic somewhat
….. as you can so easily do in these novel times.
The Spectator,
Back to telling lies: I guess I can expect little better.
Now we have you saying that all you complain about is that you were forced to debate with me.
Another lie. You side tracked a blog on the late Cardinal Daly to have a go at me and Pete. You could have emailed Mick with your thoughts or put them on another blog. However, no you elected to come onto an obit blog and make those statements which had no relevance there. To then lie about it shows both your arrogance and hypocrisy.
Still if you wish to stop debating with me do so. One simply stops replying. As to m style of debate. I will not give any quarter to the supporters of terrorism it is as simple as that. I will hound and expose them. That is actually a form of debate. What it will not achieve is a meeting of minds or an agreed position. I will not take an agreed position on Northern Ireland with republicans until they unequivocally reject terrorism both past and present.
Incidentally I would appreciate a retraction of the lie that you said I have labelled you a cheerleader. I have not at any stage and telling more lies to try to attack me merely undermines your faux civility.
If on the other hand you wish to pronounce yourself a cheerleader: go ahead.
Only Asking,
Back come the lies.
You said I did not attack loyalists. When I pointed out a series of occasions when I did you said “I haven’t read your links and don’t intend to.”
Hence, clearly you had absolutely no interest in my attacks on loyalists as they did not suit the lies you were telling about me.
You have asked a series of questions as to my motivation in blogging, told a series of lies about me and still have achieved only to demonstrate your own inability to sustain an argument.
Mick
Out of curioisty, what has Only Asking said about Turgon that is by a degree worse than what Turgon said about him?
Because I’m getting the distinct impression that your policy has become “protect Turgon at all costs, even at the cost of talking shit”.
Turgon
Back to telling lies: I guess I can expect little better.
I see a night’s sleep has restored the bile. All well and good.
I have written no lies on this or other posts. If you would like to copy and paste the supposed lying statement, I will quite happily demonstrate that
The accustation, it appears, has become a rather favourite “tactic” in this thread. Like the rest of the bile, Turgon, it won’t work with me.
Now we have you saying that all you complain about is that you were forced to debate with me.
Where have I said that, or anything like that? Copy and paste, please, so we can all have a good look.
You side tracked a blog on the late Cardinal Daly to have a go at me and Pete.
Actually, I ‘sidetracked’ the obit thread, which had already descended and been sidetracked to shite, to suggest that commenting quality was going down. I merely mentioned the two of you as background to how I came to my conclusion.
Stating that I don’t engage with your posts (or anyone else’s for that matter) is not an attack. Get over yourself, if you can.
That is actually a form of debate.
No, it isn’t.
Incidentally I would appreciate a retraction of the lie that you said I have labelled you a cheerleader.
From this thread -
The fact that certain supporters of terrorism try to avoid debating with me I regard as a badge of honour.
…
I not that it is extremely rare for opponents of violence to complain about my debating style.
…
I have never called him a cheerleader. … those who complain are those who seem to actually support terrorism but not want to admit it.
From the Daly thread
I might actually observe that what I suspect you dislike is that I am able to attack and chase cheerleaders and usually they eventually give up and go away;
Now you may wish to entreat with cheerleaders; you may be one for all I know.
The implications of this are clear as day.
You could have emailed Mick with your thoughts or put them on another blog.
I’ll communicate with Mick as I see fit, Turgon. What you think or feel about that is, as I’ve said before, worthless.
Eamonn
I really don’t see your point. I don’t see exactly where I claimed otherwise.
Perhaps you could illuminate your point a little by some further exposition.
The Spectator,
You were objecting to my style of debate and I explained it. At no point did I call you a cheerleader. So now you admit the lie: I have not called you a cheerleader. You can take any inference you want but I did not call you a cheerleader. As such you lied. Plain and simple.
If my views are so worthless I wonder why you keep responding (and repeating the lies).
You claim that saying you do not comment on my threads for the reasons you had stated previously: that I was in an echo chamber, did not debate etc. was not an attack is a further lie.
It seems to be becoming a pattern does not it. It is also man playing but you seem to specialise in that. Indeed you have not actually stated any opinions at all other than on me and my style of debate. That is man playing.
You say you will communicate with Mick as you see fit. Yes but you were not merely communicating with Mick; you were communicating with everyone and repeated your attacks on me and my style of debate. That was an attack: hence, you lie in saying it was not.
Now maybe you will continue this man playing and lying: I do not know. Alternatively you could actually express an opinion on something other than me. For someone in whom you have so little apparent interest (myself) your stalking me (and lying about me) ion this thread are starting to look odd.
TS,
MY apologies, I was logged in as Eamonn and responded to you under the wrong account.
My point was that you can think what you like, but I am the one that gives up Yellow and red cards, not you.
I am more than happy for people to take stick when it is deserved. But these ‘Zombie’ arguments almost never hit the bloggers where it should hurt (ie on the basis of what they ACTUALLY say.
And I have no time for that kind of nonsense…
Besides, there’s a great test match struggle going on in Cape Town… take a couple of hours out and come back when you’re ready to have a real go…
I have to say I’ve never understood the amount of bile spewed at Turgon (or Pete for that matter). While I disagree with many of Turgon’s views, he consistently makes a real effort to engage in serious thought and debate, as well as trying to widen the topics covered, with his historical posts etc. He is also actually more progressive on many issues than quite a few of those who scream reactionary at him on the basis of his views on the constitutional question/power sharing. I think he has helped raise the bar here, and long may he continue to do so.
Anyone who doesn’t support what is now the popular consensus propagated by a conspiracy of the well-meaning but hopelessly misguided and the state will find himself marginalised, branded as either a bigot/cave-dweller (and sly fan of loyalists) if he is a unionist or branded as a dissident and supporter of futile terrorism if he is a nationalist.
While the branding of bigot and fellow-traveller was always there, it is particularly acute now that political groups have led their respective nations to renounce fundamental national rights that are the basis for nations and their states all over the world.
However, because they are unaware that they have renounced those rights – being led to believe that they have merely changed the means of obtaining them – there is a concerted and almost universal propaganda campaign afoot to persuade them to maintain the positions that they have been led to adopt, not because they actually support those positions with solid ideological underpinning, but because they are led to believe that the consequences of not expressing support for them will “give succour” to those who are violently opposed to them.
In this mass-hysteria context, it is the witches like Turgon and Pete who are to be tied to the stake and duly burned as a lesson to others not to veer from the path of righteousness. Even if the burning is little more than “Don’t listen to him coz he’s a (boring) bollix.”
Turgon
You were grossly and fundamentally wrong the first time you said all that. You still are.
Mick Fealty
My point was that you can think what you like, but I am the one that gives up Yellow and red cards, not you.
When did I suggest otherwise? Straw man.
… these ‘Zombie’ arguments …
Plain English, maybe?
in fine
I don’t know if there is much point in further engagement with you, Mick, or even with the site.
I attempted to raise with you what I thought was a valid point for the benefit of the site – the rest of this emotional garbage was not of my creation. After a while, it is simply tedious.
I was not considering “taking my ball and going home” at all … until your last post to me. I read it, laughed for a second, and then that wave of ‘disengagement’ I mentioned just came over me again. The project must be protected. Indeed, maybe it must.
But not from me. I don’t have the energy, or the interest. You’ve made your choice and feelings clear. They are yours to make.
As, I suppose, our mine.
Salve
TS
The Specttaor,
You still have not adressed your lying in what you said about me. Again you claimed I had said things about you which I had not and you kept repeating the lie even when challenged.
In addition I observe that you complained about me not debating. I explained that I do debate in a very robust fashion with cheerleaders (and indeed various liars who may or may not be cheerleaders).
I also debate civilly and politely with a number of people here: some of whom have kindly pointed that out on this thread.
All of that is, however, nothing to you who keep telling me you do not care about me yet have spent much of this thread attack a person about whom you do not care.
A very odd position. I suppose at least it is a position on something since you seem to take no other public views on anything on this site (apart from attacking Pete’s style betimes).
Hence, apart from attacking people and telling lies you seem to have no real function. Now if you want to go away by all means do: feel as disengaged as you want.
Rest assured next time you reappear telling lies I will be here to answer you (and remind you of the old lies).
“I haven’t made my mind up yet on Jason; I find him readible, even likeable, but not yet convincing.”
Ha! Join the club. I’m still grappling with the question of what my point is. Having no alternative weighs heavily on my mind.
Jason.
if it has descended, I’d argue that the reduction in posts of video clips [particularly BBC political video clips] has a lot to do with that.
Pete,
Someone needs to challenge the BBC’s position; asserting copyright is not the same as actually possessing it. They are owned by the public and should not be allowed to prevent wide dissemination.
How’s this for an argument:
1. BBC have put the material into the public domain by sending it out on the airwaves for anyone to pick up.
2. Their intent is to have as many people as possible see it.
3. 3rd parties who pick up the signal and rebroadcast it are enabling the BBC to achieve #2.
4. No breach of a supposed copyright has occurred provided the source is acknowledged.
I sincerely hope that TS and OnAs do not leave. I think the points they made, well particularly the points made by TS are very true. Indeed I was probably responsible for sidetracking the other thread. In my defence, I was very angry, if that is a defence.
TS has simply made points against two of the leading contributors of this site, who in fact have a significant impact on the agenda of this site. If such criticism were to be censured, this site would lose all meaning to me personally and alot more besides.
TSs points about turgon are correct, his points are interesting to read but do not invite engagement, which I believe to greatly devalue his ability to argue. I do however believe that its good to have Turgon here but he should be able to suck it up.
Anyway, those are my thoughts for what they are worth!
I would agree with the Simpson lawyer’s points above in the first two paragraphs. I hope TS and OA stay, I dont think they were being particularly more out of order than the other party.
However I would also kind of agree with Garibaldi – I come from a completely different perspective to Turgon but he seems to get a lot more stick than he deserves. I also find his posts interesting even if I rarely comment upon them. I have seen him condemn Loyalist violence repeatedly, as well as condemn the concept of collusion, even if they’re clearly not his major concerns.
On topic- I think blogging is a major development in the way we communicate. I interact with people I would not get to meet in real life – I think thats the case for most of us here. It has reminded me of the fact that people from ideologies/entities I instinctively distrust can be “human” too. I hope that doesnt sound too twee, but I have found the comments of Fair Deal, for example, to raise my opinion of Orangemen (if not the OO itself).
Is this ultimately of any use? Well I think so but I would be hard pressed to give any concrete examples of real-world outcomes.
BTW Mick – kudos to you for keeping this blog going through thick and thin. I cant think of another where so many opposing viewpoints are present.
Lionel,
I agree. People with dissenting views should stay and argue them. If we don’t have argument here on Slugger then the site becomes useless.
Lionel Hutz,
The problem is that I do not mind engagement as many of my blogs and the discussions I have in them show. I do not, however, seek a meeting of minds with the supporters of terrorism. I seek to intellectually defeat them.
Neither of the two people I debated here with discussed any issue apart from complaining that I do not “engage” in the manner they want. Well unfortunately they cannot prescribe how I (or anyone else) debates here. Instead they degenerated to telling lies about me and I pointed that out. One of the most important things on this site is intellectual honesty and integrity. The Spectator and Only Asking made statements and allegations which were demonstrable false. I repeatedly pointed that ou to them. they had no other useful arguments. then when defeated in debate they simply moaned: The Spectator accused me of things I had not said and Only Asking wailed that I was a bully. That is simply man playing.
It is hardly my fault that I beat them and eventually I see Mick pointed out that they were man playing. Then rather than start to genuinely debate or (horror of horrors) admit what they had done and apologise they ran away. I did not drive them away: the lack of any content in any of their contributions along with their inability to do anything other than attack me seems to have been what did that.
With you I am entirely happy to try to interact civilly. If you do any cheerleading I will peruse you relentlessly on that issue. I am not calling you a cheerleader in any way I am just stating what I do (though you clearly know it already). If you tell lies about me I will point it out repeatedly unless you retract the lie.
If I did any of that to you I would ask for nothing different in return. I am not here in order to be liked or respected. If people like and respect me I am pleased but I am not going to change who I am or what I do in order to curry favour.
I know The Spectator did not like it when I said it and in no way do I compare myself with the originator of the phrase but “Here I stand I can do no other.” In addition I am not going away you know.
Turgon,
I hope you don’t see it as a personal victory that The Spectator and Only Asking have left the site.
They both made a valuable contribution and we need dissenting opinions among all contributors if we are ever to understand each other and eventually learn to respect different cultures.
I have no problem whatsoever with you vigorously attacking those who espouse violence; I have done it myself. Exchanging words rather than bullets can only lead us forward.
Lionel Hutz,
I totally agree that The Spectator and Only Asking should not leave the Slugger stage, more people like them should join in these debates and let their fingers do the talking.
My observations on Turgon, for what they are worth, is that this blogger is very confident in his ability to argue what he believes and is a very good example of a TUV member.
The question in this thread is, Reading Blogs; why?, maybe the answer is so we dont misunderstand what was said in the blog. I think Mick Fealty has been doing a good job of trying to keep the blogs to a high standard, you all must agree it is difficult to try and keep things real in a format like Slugger.
There is a lot of very passionate people on Slugger and it is unique for that. Maybe if some of those contributers came at issues from a different angle it might help to get their point across better and make for more informative debates!
Much of this thread has resulted in the discussion of people and personalities. That’s both dull and a breach of the commenting policy.
Of course people are entitled to criticise our bloggers (regardless of their politics). But that criticism would go a lot further if it took account of the rules of evidence in the court room. Suppositions have to be supported not just asserted as articles of belief.
TS has asked for his account to be taken down which has the regrettable effect of wiping out his comments. But I am more than happy to comply with his wishes. And am more than happy to do the same for OA.
Mick,
Why does someone leaving the site have to result in all previous comments being deleted?
That smells suspiciously like shredding “incriminating” documents.
It seems like vandalism to delete their accounts if that also deletes their comments along with it. Poor Turgon will look like he is completely nuts, as if he was debating with his inner demons on this thread.
It just looks like a couple of folks who were successfully indoctrinated with an intolerance for opinions that dissent from state-approved (peace processing) propaganda and who were trying to bully dissenting bloggers into silence and to promote the view among readers that their contributions should be ignored or treated with suspicion.
Why the need to make a big song and dance about deciding to no longer post on a message board? No need unless their last tactic is to gain sympathy by presenting themselves as martyrs to free speech rather than would-be censors of it.
Gotta love the internet…
In this case, it is entirely unnecessary. TS asked me to remove his/her ‘account’. I have also stated that I would happily extend the same ‘courtesy’ to OA, if s/he also requires it.
I’m going to post a draft moderation policy for people to comment on tomorrow. I want to be able to develop it further in response to those comments. It should include what we mean by yellow cards and red cards with some thoughts on what is in and what is out under the man playing rule.
The site we are going to will give us a lot more flexibility than Expression Engine currently gives us. But, in either case, if someone requests their account be expunged then it will inevitably result in ‘document shredding’.
But please understand this clearly: it is not me who’s shredding the evidence.
Mick,
In that case be a gentleman and offer TS and Only Asking to simply suspend their accounts.
Feel free to tell me it’s none of my business.
Turgon,
I find your own wailing of “he lied about me, Mick, the spectator and only asking lied about” very amusing. I’m paraphrasing of course, not lying about what you said just to pre-empt you. This isn’t a school playground, what you say recorded, I’m impossible to lie about you. Only asking may have made a few ill judged sweeping statements but they did not form the substance of what they were saying.
You and Mr Baker were mentioned because you are not merely contributors as I am for example. You write articles and therefore set the agenda for debate. I think personally that you should be able to take it, in fact invite it. Any effective blog or discussion board has to have some method of feedback. That was all TS and OA did. They gave feedback, and negative feedback is the most useful kind.
I don’t think you beat anyone.
Only asking,
Like myself you have one of the few who have asked for “justice” and the normal “rules of evidence” during the Slugger Gerry Adams feeding frenzy this past few weeks. I, personally, would like you to hang around for that reason on its own.
You have, indeed, posed interesting questions.
Joe, there is no need for me to suspend his account. That’s what he asked for. I could do as you say, but I’d be refusing to comply with his request.
OA, I thought you’d left? (…mumbles something inaudible about Frank Sinatra and come backs to himself…)
OA, I thought you’d left? (…mumbles something inaudible about Frank Sinatra and come backs to himself…)
Like waking up in the city that never sleeps..?
Joe,
Let me give it some thought overnight…
Ah shure go on, go on..
Mrs Doyle on joe’s account.
OK , Mick.
I, for one, would appreciate it. We need differing points of view.
We also need people who can tell the difference between the man and the ball. OA is skating on extremely thin ice the whole way through this thread and has been given a warning of a yellow card.
For the record, I simply don’t understand any of TS’s esoteric arguments.
As for peacemakers, there would be no need for them if people played by the rules. The aim of debate here is not synthesise people into some woolly, hippy consensus, but to ‘slug’ it out over matters they care passionately about.
The proposition is simply: play by the rules or bugger off. And you can leave your mess behind you so others can judge you by what you’ve said.
Yesterday was quite surreal although as I was reading through it today, it’s quite clearly orchestrated. Planned contriteness backed up by the big stick.
Lionel Hutz @ 09:55 AM:
On the contrary: the whole saga, I am sure, left most of us cold. I certainly switched off as soon as it became clear that it was the odd individual getting his rocks off, trying to provoke, and largely succeeding.
I regard myself as a guest here; and enjoy the privilege of being allowed back from time to time. That does not give me the right to spit on the floor or be gratuitously offensive to my host.
There are plenty of other websites where window-lickers, fruit-cakes and weirdos can indulge themselves.
Joe,
Sorted. I’ve cut TS out of the loop (at his request) without taking down his content. OA has joined him after a robust private email conversation.
LH,
You think I planned this thread? Give me break. I will however be writing up some provisional guidelines on the moderation process, just so we’re all reading roughly off the same page.
GGN
I have tons of half thought out arguments and points, most of which appear in the comments zone
It’s occasionally fun to try and sone of them out more fully and bounce ideas off people. Sometimes it’s nice to highlight interesting stuff just to see what people think. So if it’s fun and you get something out of it, do it. When you get way to busy or bored of it as I do frequently, just stop. The nice thing about Slugger versus a personal blog is that you an happily disappear for months at a time. Plenty of other things going on.
This isn’t quite the same as Pete’s point though. The value of taking comments is to sharpen your argument, your style and maybe learn something. Even uncharitable ones may have some value. If you just want to write to yourself, keep a diary. If you just want to go on polemics, keep a webpage.
TS
I like Kensei’s intellectual honesty; his anger reminds me of Turgon, however.
Lol. Hmmm, I need to tune the style a bit then. I prefered it when I just swore continuously but too many naughty words are more bannable than calling people liars and terrorist huggers excetera. You need to remember the tongue in cheek half the time, and I can’t resist a wind up. I’m aiming for “over the top crank chucking shoe at screen in disgust”.
It’s nice if I’m considered intellectual honest. On many things I have conflicting views or little certainty. The problem with trying to blog that way on anything even slightly controversial, is that you end up in a shitstorm, or at least assailed from predictable quarters. It makes you weary. It’s not that the likes of Turgon would drive me out. Just it takes a lot more effort to write anything when you know you’re unlikely to get anything productive out of it.
Mick
Perhaps it would be wise to rule out somethings as unparliamentary? “Liar” is a very difficult one to deal with, particularly if you simply just see things from a different angle or actually believe what you are saying.
It’s not entirely without precedent. Words have been filtered in the past. I’m not a fan of that route, just an informal rule of polite conversation.
Mick
For the record, I simply don’t understand any of TS’s esoteric arguments.
So as is typical, you just give up on attempting to understand it. Crap, Mick.
Well you see, and this is the last I’ll say on this, for my money Turgon was the one who was so outraged and in turn outrageous in the vomments he made. He just seemed to be springing for a session of your socalled man play. TS made one comment about how he would usually avoided debating with him. OA actually objected to this thread because it invited blogger bashing. Turgon however, went straight for the man, calling them liars and atleast insinuating they were cheerleaders for terror and openly stating that he is happy to take out the man. Yet the other two are gone. Their arguments may have been esoteric but they were both good for the site, as is Turgon.
Re: the orchestration. Well it simply seemed that the yellow cards came out and then suddenly Turgon changed tact, playing victim and being defensive about what he had or hadn’t called others. As i said though, it was very surreal. I have only stayed around because I felt partly responsible for creating this argument.
It’s pointlessly splitting hairs to differentiate between statements such as “That is a lie” and “You are a liar” when the comment fits the definition of a lie. Both statements impugn the character of the man making the objectionable statement.
At the end of the day, if you make a statement that you might or might not believe to be true but that is subsequently shown to be false and you do not retract the statement but again repeat it then you are repeating a statement that you now know to be false, and are therefore lying.
The rest is just semantics.
Alias
Lies and liar are both banned as unparliamentary afaik. The point is
Both statements impugn the character of the man making the objectionable statement.
ie man playing.
It’s not always clear cut. If someone is unambiguously shown to be in error then typically they retract or are censored. I’m not against that for house rules, either.
The presumption should be towards assuming better character. That helps debate in general, even if it is not always true.
I am relatively unkeen to re enter the fray on this issue but since at least some of it is about me I almost feel I should.
There are at least three possible responses:
To say nothing which risks appearing smug
To come on and celebrate victory (after all those who said they were not leaving have gone)
To pretend some form of contrition for what happened yesterday.
I will choose none of those and I am unlikely to respond to any replies or attacks: I will deal with any such in my own time. And yes that is a threat: those who attack and tell untruths about me will be taken on at the time of my chosing. If that is arrogant I care little.
I seek neither popularity or respect on this site. I do what I do. If I gain popularity and respect I am delighted: if I gain contempt, disinterest, hatred or whatever I care little. I am not so arrogant to think that I matter that much to anyone here.
However, I wish to record my sincere thanks to those (many of whom do not share my political views or even fully agree with my style) for their messages of support both on the blog and via private email over the past two days.
To clear up any possibility: there was absolutely no conspiracy between Mick and myself on this issue. Those who refuse to believe me can but that is the simple fact.
I will accept that my reaction to The Spectator was sharp: maybe too sharp. However, in response a series of incorrect statements were told; made about me by both The Spectator and Only Asking. In each case the person making the statement failed to retract them. The Spectator showed no evidence that I had called him a cheerleader and Only Asking stated that he was ignoring evidence in the form of 1 set of comments and 7 blogs to the effect that I have condemned loyalists.
As such I accused both of these individuals of lying and when they repeated the statements I continued to repeat my accusation (of lying).
Overall I accept that I debate in an extremely robust style with certain contributors to this site. I ask for no quarter and give none. I also debate in a polite and reasonable style with other commentators. It would be difficult to find a thread of mine in which I am not polite in debate to some of the contributors. Some may say what I do when I am being caustic is not proper debate: again I do not care and unless Mick bans me am not going to stop.
I do not want anyone’s sympathy but several of those who regularly use this site have pointed out that I am attacked regularly and often in a very caustic fashion. I do not ask for that to stop.
Anyone can come on here and take me on: I will fight with them tooth and nail. I may tread a fine line between playing the ball and the man. On one occasion Mick told me I had gone to far and I apologised. If I go too far again I will also apologise. However, there is a difference between concious man playing and demolishing someone’s arguments, exposing the contradictions and inheretnt flaws in their argument and also holding to account those who would try to wipe the slate of the past clean. If I keep pounding them and they feel bruised I do not care.
Many of you know I am into naval history: At Jutland four Queen Eliazbeth battleships kept the whole German fleet at bay for over an hour smashing ship after ship. They did not stop becuase the Germans’ fire was slackening and they were damaged. In a way that is an analogy to how I debate. I am usually outnumbered; if yo want try to sink me fine. However, the 15″ guns will be fired at you time and again and some of you know this to your cost.
Alternatively some of you may want civilised debate: you can have that too: what one person does not get with me is both. Chose what you want and I will respond.
Many who comment here may not like that. However, there is a considerable body of people in NI for whom that is a major part of their political view. We also see it in the assembly from Nelson McCausland and Gregory Campbell amongst others. I am unlikely to ever be in front line politics (the family are dead against it); if I ever am I can assure you all that I will bring exactly the same style to bear there.
A further semi related set of points I think should be made.
I am the only overtly unionist blogger left on Slugger. Mick has tried to address that with limited success. I do not wish to break confidences but a number of potential and actual unionist bloggers have been put off by the attacks on them by republicans on this site. This site is seen by many unionists as a nationalist / republican site.
Those who care about the long term welfare of Slugger need to think about that. New bloggers always get a hard time: I know that and I have also had a go at new bloggers before. However, I state: if unionist bloggers are driven away or new ones refuse to come on board because of the attacks then slugger will suffer far more than from any damage I may inflict on certain commentators.
I ask for no sympathy but when one has spent sometimes hours crafting a blog; attacks on the person are not especially pleasant. In addition attacks on style are also pretty insulting: they are quite close to playing the man because the style a blogger uses is in many way the most personal bit they put into the blog.
As I said I expect and ask no sympathy. I am unlikely to be going away but if you want unionist views other than one particular one (mine) it might be wise to think about the level of invective which has been heaped on unionists in the past.
If and hopefully when (though I have no inside information) a new unionist blogger starts why not keep the man playing and insults for me. As you all know I am well fit for them and will deal with the culprits in my own fashion.
As a final note. I am actually sorry if the above seems high handed and arrogant. However, since this thread became essentially about blooging and commenting here and much of it centred around me I think I should state my sort of blog and commenting credo without any false modesty or pretence to be anything other than what I am.
Turgon
Overall I accept that I debate in an extremely robust style with certain contributors to this site. I ask for no quarter and give none. I also debate in a polite and reasonable style with other commentators. It would be difficult to find a thread of mine in which I am not polite in debate to some of the contributors.
?? Um, to be considered “polite” you have to be polite to all the commentators not just the onjes you agree with.
Alternatively some of you may want civilised debate: you can have that too: what one person does not get with me is both. Chose what you want and I will respond.
Not to be negative, but there is a gap between your perception and reality, there. You simply won’t tolerate certain things you disagree with and will go straight to man playing and yells of cheerleader. This is what people mean with a lack of engagement. You can win arguments by defeating the points and not yelling at the dude.
As I said I expect and ask no sympathy. I am unlikely to be going away but if you want unionist views other than one particular one (mine) it might be wise to think about the level of invective which has been heaped on unionists in the past.
What? You reckon I don’t get it? I haven’t done a top level blog in a couple of months and people are still telling me what I think and what I mean in the comments zone. This is not a sectarian issue.
pretence to be anything other than what I am.
Are you an animal? A dog can’t help what it is. A man should strive to be better, even if he fails.
Can it be noted that the withdrawal of OA’s post from this thread was effected by OA, and not by me.
Ken,
I’ll take that suggestion on parliamentary language into account when I write my piece on moderation.
kensei,
We all know what you think of me and I of you. I thought you had given up responding to my comments: you have told me you would on at least four occasions.
Ball, guys. Ball!