0070 - Titus & his Roman legions breached the middle wall of Jerusalem 1783 - Joseph & Jacques Montgolfier made the 1st public balloon flight 1833 - Ada Lovelace (future 1st computer programmer) met Charles Babbage 1944 - Rome celebrated liberation as Allied troops arrive 1967 - Israel launched pre-emptive strike on Egypt 1989 - In Poland, initial results from the election showed growing support for Solidarity
I am disgusted by the picture that was used today. Surely it should read "possibly inflamatory nature"? Do I win a prize for falling into a trap, Thaum?
Jeremy Hardy on "the News Quiz" last night, "by taking away building materials from the Palestinians, are the Israelis are being anti-cementic?"
Really jealous of all of you having a pint in Sheffield today. Have great time, good people.
"Just out of interest, how should we respond to what is, at least as far as I've seen, a single issue poster??"
Of course if you have followed my posts on CiF since July 2006, you'll have seen that I'm far from being a single issue poster. And the last time I checked, many of the later ones were still there.
I don't think my bannings from CiF were right. Firstly because both were without warning or explanation and secondly because compared to other posters, some of whom frequent this site, who regularly post personal abuse aimed at posters below and above the line and at the moderators, and even make threats of violence, out of the thousands of posts I've made, you might find half a dozen that border on being personal.
And even those can be seen as containing within them issues, such as the responsibility of parents towards their children, about which I have posted regularly on CiF, or whether it's right to use terms normally used to describe people with mental health problems as a way of abusing those whose comments they don't like. Witness the recent problems faced by Princesschipchops. Indeed this is an issue you have commented on yourself in your article "Andrew Brown. A legend in his own mind."
Let me point you to an article on CiF in June of last year during which the Untrusted All stars came up against me, following Anne Perkins' article - "Beyond Malvolio".
Here was thaumaturge, JayReilly, Montana, kizbot, scherfig and Dotterel posting their best and each receiving polite, informed, well researched responses, some of which I suspect made them wish they'd not engaged in the first place.
But when you compare my record to the kinds of statements about me that have been posted here and remain here, by people who know almost nothing about my personal life, you might get some idea of why from time to time I come here to make my own statements.
Neither will banning prevent me from returning to CiF as and when I feel like it and adopting a new identity, as I have done continuously since my second banning last December. However when those like BeautifulBurnout, despite her protestation of innocence, AllyF and scherfig identify me out of pure spite to try to prevent me commenting on their contributions, they deserve to be identified as the censor's friends. I notice that even LaRitournelle has taken up this unfortunate behaviour on a recent I/P thread.
It is somewhat ironic that today it is being suggested that one of the things that contributed to tipping Derrick Bird over the edge, was the taunting he received from fellow cabbies about his trips to Thailand. Go and read some of the taunts posted here by HankScorpio and JayReily among others about the fact that my business and charity interests mean me making regular visits to China and South East Asia to assist students who wish to study in western educational institutions. But don't worry, unlike the late Mr Bird, I have a highly satisfactory life style, with no worries, financial or otherwise and no desire whatsoever to be deprived of reading the entertaining and informative comments that get posted here, by diminishing the number of contributors.
It was 11 months from the date it started before I posted on this site and up to then I was quite happy to conduct business on CiF. But there are those here and others on CiF who demand that their popularity should be unsullied by accurate and in some cases devastating critiques of their words of wisdom and who'd rather comment wasn't quite as free as it might be.
Finally could I add my condolences to Montana on her recent loss.
It is somewhat ironic that today it is being suggested that one of the things that contributed to tipping Derrick Bird over the edge, was the taunting he received from fellow cabbies about his trips to Thailand. Go and read some of the taunts posted here by HankScorpio and JayReily among others about the fact that my business and charity interests mean me making regular visits to China and South East Asia to assist students who wish to study in western educational institutions. But don't worry, unlike the late Mr Bird, I have a highly satisfactory life style, with no worries, financial or otherwise and no desire whatsoever to be deprived of reading the entertaining and informative comments that get posted here, by diminishing the number of contributors.
You crack me up, Bitey, you really do. Some here may not be overly familiar with your CiF career, but I am. And i remember very well the pastings you received almost every time you posted. How you interpret that Perkins thread as some sort of victory on your behalf is astonishing.
I'm not sure what exactly it was you said that prompted my reply to you Jay but it must have been pretty scathing about the fashion and clothing industries and those who rely of them for their living. Here's my response so others can judge.
Dear me JayReilly, if you think professional photography and marketing the UK's fashion industries is sordid, your enforced absence from CiF really hasn't improved your judgement.
So as imogenblack and others have said "It was NOT a fashion shoot - it was an interview in a lifestyle magazine in which they took photos - the distinction is important", although clearly not for you who portrays it as if Caroline Flint had featured in the centre pages of a porngraphic magazine. Would you prefer that she denied her appearance, dressed in a sack, refused to cooperate with professional photographers, writers, designers etc so they have no employment and you can bathe in the self-justification and cool glow of your own puritanism? Your disappointment in me comes as some considerable relief.
Others have at least commented on her political output and it is quite clear, and she has never attempted to deny it, that she has shown considerable loyalty and dedication to Gordan Brown and her political record shows this. But just look at the achievement she carved out for herself and the success she has made of her life.
"Flint was born in a North London mother-and-baby home, the daughter of an unmarried 17-year-old". Two years later her mother Wendy married Peter Flint, 25, a machinists son working as a TV service manager. ‘I didnt know he wasn't my biological father until I was about ten, Miss Flint has said. ‘Only when I became older did I realise how difficult it must have been for my mother. I have never contemplated looking for my father. As a teenager, she was a punk with purple hair and sported outfits bought from Camden Market. She has admitted smoking cannabis as a student.
"Flint was educated at Twickenham Girls School (the school transferred to Waldegrave School for Girls in 1977) in Clifden Road Twickenham and Richmond Tertiary College before earning her BA (Hons) in American Literature and History combined with Film Studies from the University of East Anglia. She joined the Labour Party when 17. She was the Women's Officer of the National Organisation of Labour Students for 1982-84." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Flint
I said on another thread and I'll repeat it here for your benefit, Caroline Flint may be 'no political giant' but she has reached high political office from very humble beginnings. In another country across the pond she'd be feted as the embodiment of the American dream as to my knowledge both Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, the former being held out as a classic example of that phenomenon, came from far more privileged backgrounds than Caroline Flint.
First of all, you're right, I have issues with moderation, and it's the main reason that I 'flounced' off from the Guardian.
That said, however, even in my more robust defences of 'free-speech', I have often maintained that sometimes, unfortunately, moderation is the lesser of (at least) two evils.
Secondly, I have usually adhered to a policy of not getting involved in discussions between posters who have clearly had 'previous', and further, to try and keep an open mind (or not take sides) when this didn't involve me, and especially when I may not 'have all the facts'!!
However, coming to your response, one cannot help but notice two particularly glaring ironies. Namely, that a) in your defence against my observation that you are a single-issue, you, erm, return to the single-issue that I was thinking of, and
b)Despite the verbiage of your response, you still didn't actually answer the question of how one should respond to you!!
Now, a couple of observations from myself, if I may be so bold.
As far as I can tell, the accusation that you repeatedly throw at BeautifulBurnout, that she reported you to CiF moderation HQ, has already, if I remember correctly, been 'admitted' to by another poster on here, yet you continue to maintain that it was BB.
Secondly, given that in the period of time I've been reading the UT, I've seen all of your (repeated) accusations, and, to the best of my knowledge, have never seen one be deleted, your arguments of unfair and unjust moderation seem to cumulatively lose credibility every single time you make them.
So, I'll ask the question again, and this time, I'll make it a bit clearer:
Given that your main accusation to BB has been admitted to by somebody else, and given that you constantly make complaints about moderation/censorship (which, themselves are not moderated), and given that these complaints have already been addressed many times, how else should we respond to the same things repeated over and over again, ad nauseum....?
Make a fresh start. Have a crack at commenting on something new, without throwing 'previous' into it. (I've seen a fair bit of disagreement on the UT, and it seems to, for the most part, be tolerated, and on a slow day, even welcomed). And when issues do arise with people here, it's usually a question of conduct, rather than content.
Because, finally, even though I do try not to get involved in the ongoing stuff here that started 'before my time', including that involving you, I really don't need to be in 'full view of the facts' to see that you're doing more harm than good to whatever cause it is you're pursuing, and that, by and large, the issues you raise have already been covered. At least once.
So just, you know, a few things to think about there....
Hey, Bitey, I didn't suggest that you were a paedophile because you were a frequent visitor to Thailand.
I suggested that you were a paedophile because you posted often and passionately about how the Great British Public had some odd hangups about child sexuality, and that you enjoyed the more enlightened approach in Bangkok.
You're obviously a bit of an oddball too, a loner, someone who has problems forming meaningful relationships with mature adults.
Taking all the evidence into account, and applying my expert psychological skills developed while watching Cracker, I concluded that you were a paedophile.
I've seen you whine about it but I've never seen you deny it.
Incidentally, Bitey, is the much-loved BTH brand still banned from Cif? If so, then your posting history will have disappeared. But you seem to have ready access to some of your pearls of wisdom.
Have you really saved all your own comments onto a personal drive?
A considered response from you James Dixon and not a word of abuse. It's a record and something worth recording.
But flouncing off from The Guardian doesn't help to reform the authoritarian tendencies that have taken over at that great newspaper that was once in the forefront of defending human rights and freedom of speech. If editorial control of its online edition has been handed over to faceless and nameless moderators, who are "only doing their jobs", isn't that a good reason to stay and fight rather than throw in the towel?
And I'm in full agreement with your observation about moderation being the lesser of two evils and am on record posting precisely the same sentiments on a number of occasions. I have no time for those macho males who think posting abuse is an acceptable alternative to carefully reasoned argument.
Now let me remind you of your question:
"Just out of interest, how should we respond to what is, at least as far as I've seen, a single issue poster??"
So who exactly is this "we" whose always "adhered to a policy of not getting involved in discussions between posters who have clearly had 'previous', and further, "to try and keep an open mind (or not take sides) when this didn't involve me, and especially when I may not 'have all the facts'!!" ?
Never mind - I'll take it as a slip of the tongue or a 'royal we' although your defence of free speech seems somewhat too couched in reservations for me to have to rely on you in a time of crisis. Exactly what kinds of facts do you need to decide whether or not you support someone whose been banned from CiF? After all we're not talking about official secrets here or enemies of the state, so why the equivalence? Or is it that you're not really too sure that you support free speech.?
So when you go into an eulogy about CiF's most treasured barrister, I wonder about the truth of your original claim James that you were seeking an answer about "how to respond"? After all you already seem to have decided that MrsB is the centre of the universe, while for me she's a rather second rate newcomer whose 'me me me' attitude has tried the patience of the UT's most benevolent founder members.
As for your cod psychology about "make a fresh start" and the rest of your closing thought for the day, I'll simply say that what UT subscribers say about each other would be enough for many people to resort to homicide and frankly I can do without that kind of mind shattering encounter every weekend.
So if you want to discuss seriously, leave this toy shop and find me on CiF. And stop pretending that you're some kind of saviour. I gave those up when I was five.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE6aCm41aPU Hey Hank - this is for you not bad I think you'll find you old cunt. This btw is from Bitterweed not Sheff. He wanted me to say something much ruder but won't do it.
Their parents pay - and most are very wealthy. Where they're not I work for free, but they still need to find the cash for their fees and living expenses. Sadly my budget doesn't stretch that far. And every student I've ever worked with was at a State school.
"Jaffa cakes: cakes or biscuits, and what it signifies for post-modern wadicalism."
Twat. Its just this sort of false dichotomy I am seeking to examine, exploring the ontological fallacies that privilege "scientific" classifications of confectionaries over the intuitive. Once you can shake off these pretensions to have "real" knowledge of the physical world, you find that what matters is whether you feel its a cake.
There are many equally valid ways of knowing beyond the arrogance of empirical science...
Leave Hermione alone for fucks sake.I like her and i,ll tell you why.She makes me laugh.She,s not a bad person.She,s a character and the world would be a duller place without the likes of her.
There,s so many people in this world to be angry with but in the overall scheme of things 'Hermione Gingold' ain,t one of them.Methinks you need to pick your targets more carefully.
"Just out of interest, how should we respond to what is, at least as far as I've seen, a single issue poster??"
So who exactly is this "we" whose always "adhered to a policy of not getting involved in discussions between posters who have clearly had 'previous', and further, "to try and keep an open mind (or not take sides) when this didn't involve me, and especially when I may not 'have all the facts'!!" ?"
You seem to be conflating two things here.
I asked how we (UTers) should respond to you (and your quite combative postings), and I made a completely separate statement about how I try to conduct myself when it comes to involving myself/not involving myself in 'ongoing disputes'.
Secondly,
"And I'm in full agreement with your observation about moderation being the lesser of two evils and am on record posting precisely the same sentiments on a number of occasions."
and...
"although your defence of free speech seems somewhat too couched in reservations for me to have to rely on you in a time of crisis."
Well, I'm having trouble with this to be honest... You agree with me, and have expressed the same sentiments, yet my defence is too couched in reservations. Perhaps you'd like to clarify...
So when you go into an eulogy about CiF's most treasured barrister, I wonder about the truth of your original claim James that you were seeking an answer about "how to respond"? After all you already seem to have decided that MrsB is the centre of the universe, while for me she's a rather second rate newcomer whose 'me me me' attitude has tried the patience of the UT's most benevolent founder members.
Please feel free to point out any 'eulogising' I may have done, because, for the life of me, I can't see it. I merely pointed out that you accuse her of something, yet somebody else has admitted to actually doing the thing you accuse her of.
No eulogy, no decision regarding BB's relative position in the universe, just, you know, the observation that, in the context of your accusations, she seems to be less guilty than you seem to think she is.
"As for your cod psychology about "make a fresh start" and the rest of your closing thought for the day"
Cod-psychology? WTF? Granted, psychology's a 'soft-science', and I only did it at A-level, but unless we're using very different definitions of what it is, I'm again struggling to see me using it. T'was a suggestion. Based on nothing more than my own meandering experience....
Finally,
"And stop pretending that you're some kind of saviour. I gave those up when I was five."
Erm, say what now? Saviour?
If anything, I was perhaps trying to engage you outside of the 'usual context', to see how you'd respond. Like you said, unless of course, you were being ironic, I used no terms of abuse in my post to you, yet you yourself reply with a fair degree of sarcasm, mis-representation and thinly veiled criticism of my integrity.
(Not to mention the fact that you still managed to make a good chunk of your response about BB, your feelings towards her, and the injustice of your treatment here and on CiF).
That is, of course, your prerogative and that, but, it does seem a little bit ironic in the context of our discussion.
Now, I could well use some (cod-)psychology to assess that, but, like I said, I only did A-level....
And Thaumaturge, as you're so confident in your three word answers, here's a slightly longer contribution you made at the same time as JayReilly.
You said in your 'the working class can kiss my arse' mode:
"And given the celebrity culture in which we are immersed (yes, the one that seeks to objectify women), I'm not really worried about the employment prospects of workers in the fashion industry."
Which is not a very comradely thing to say and something I'd have expected more from the likes of Moveanymountain, or even Mr PB - or was he before your time?
So here's what I posted to try to get you on the right path, - you know that one where solidarity is supposed to overcome personal feelings and where women's rights are more important than pathetic dead end, knock your head against the wall class struggle. With the first you actually achieve a great deal - well in my life you do, whereas the latter just gives you a headache.
'OK let's start off with those whose standard of living and quality of life is determined by the fashion industry:
'The clothing industry is particularly important in terms of its widespread location and its high female employment - 70% of its employees are women. It also makes a significant contribution to ethnic minority and inner city employment.
'And the standing of British designers in the rest of the world:
'UK designers sell £750m of clothing at manufacturers prices, of which almost two-thirds is exported. The US, Japan and the major European markets tend to be the main focus in terms of export activity.
'And the impact on the economy:
'In 2005, the British clothing industry produced more than £4 billion worth of goods and employed over 85,000 people. If the textile industry is added, the combined sectors produce over £9 billion worth of goods at manufacturers prices and employ more than 165,000 people. Overseas sales of the apparel and textile industry combined are worth £5.8 billion at manufacturers prices.
At retail level, spending on clothing accounts for 5% of expenditure on all consumer items. In 2005 over £21 billion was spent on womenswear just under £10 billion on menswear and over £6.7 billion on childrenswear.
'The retail value of orders generated at London Fashion Week each season are estimated to be in the region of £40 million.
'It is estimated that London Fashion Week generates over £100 million per annum for the London economy. Worldwide media coverage of London Fashion Week is worth over £50m per season. Overall event sponsorship for London Fashion Week has increased threefold in the last 7 years.
'London Fashion Week has grown from 15 shows/presentations and 50 exhibitors in 1994 to 49 catwalk shows over 6 days and 200 designers in the exhibition in February 2007.
'Over 5,000 visitors attended the most recent London Fashion Week in February 2007 including buyers, TV & radio crews, journalists and photographers.'
http://www.modelhealthinquiry.com/overview.html
And all this because you were quite prepared to sell out the working class for a cheap snipe at Caroline Flint. So now you've won hands down and you've got that nice Mr Cameron instead.
Politics is about people - even the politically disengaged are effected by the political ethos of the time but don't necessarily noticed that things are changing until they themselves are adversely effected.
The majority fall into line - they take the jobs available and accept the economic structures which control their lives. Any group which can gain advantage will do so - very few retain a determination based on belief - even fewer really believe that positive change for the majority is possible.
in terms of anything being achieved through Cif i don't know how much it really matters - in personal terms I suppose we all decide that for ourselves.
In terms of overall public opinion influencing policy Cif is only one of many news and opinion blogs.
The broader question is around how we pressure for change. Posting on Cif - what does it achieve? Do policy makers take any notice? Does it help to build a broad body of opinion around the various areas it asks for comments on be it foreign or domestic polcy /
If it has no effect the is there no point in shouting at Hermione - if it does then perhaps a bit of wooing to gain support might be a better approach ? By that I mean trying to engage with people rather than alienating them.
FFS Hank.I,m not going to fall out with you over this but what has Hermione done that warrants such a venomous attack?What views has she expressed that make her a legitimate target.She,s funny and so what if she,s often at the top of a thread.She,s not actually insulting people the way others do. eg MAM saying those with MH problems should be either sectioned or made to work.That,s fucking offensive Hank.Not the stuff that Hermione comes out with.:-)
You know enough about politics to know that the vast majority
Accept authority when that authority is seen to be legitimate.
Will reject or be overtly aggressive to any group perceived to berejected or blamed by that authority.
Show degree of adherence to accepted social conventions.
Hermione - to you - represents all those you see as betraying the socialist ideal - support New Labour libs etc. I have never known H attack weaker groups - she's conventional, likes banter and is well liked. Attacking her will alienate others from you and your opinions and might well get you banned again, You're cleverer than that I think - however do it your way. x
Thanks for reply - i am interested in discussing the rise of the middle class in China - and other parts of the world - and access to education for all their children and young people - particularly interested in the type - the courses - of tertiary ed which is most popular.
Tonight everybody seems to want to set haystacks on fire or something equally useless.
NuLab/the coalition - not a lot of difference. Both in thrall to their paymasters and both prepared to dump and demonise any socialist or redistributive ideas.
How can you hate someone who,s harmless?The Left is never going to win the battle of hearts and minds with the people of this country by attacking people like 'Hermione Gingold'.Sorry mate but tonight you you made the wrong call.
"Ah ffs, Paul....hermione's full of shit. A wanky middle class liberal who knows nothing but says much"
Hermoine imho, poses as a 'liberal' but is someone who shows a pretty rabid right wing side of herself from time to time, can't stand her myself - reading her comment (that was subsequently removed) on a thread a few months back about the re-arrest of Jon Venables, I was pretty shocked. I personally think she's on a pompous, self-righteous ego-trip and reveals in her percieved 'popularity' on CiF.
Knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
morning all. i take it from the deafening silence that it was a good get-together? heh heh.
had quite fun meself - who'd a thunk hearing a bunch of brass bands playing contemporary hits on temporary stages in the street would have been so much fun? until you've heard 'I don't want your freedom' by Wham played by a marching band, you haven't fully understood the power of music...
Cohen basically equates any critics of Israel as antizionist and therefore they are automatically antisemetic which is obvious rubbish, anyone that is against Israel's use of force is pro Islamic.....again rubbish....
I had my comment removed because: 1. i asked whether he got paid to write such crap 2. that it was his usual antizionist = antisemetic diatribe 3. can he offer any defence therefore of nine protesters being shot some at close range in the back of the head..... frankly if this gets deleted I'm gobsmacked but then again it's the graun
Hi thauma - nice pic!
ReplyDeleteHere's some random stuff about today:
ReplyDelete0070 - Titus & his Roman legions breached the middle wall of Jerusalem
1783 - Joseph & Jacques Montgolfier made the 1st public balloon flight
1833 - Ada Lovelace (future 1st computer programmer) met Charles Babbage
1944 - Rome celebrated liberation as Allied troops arrive
1967 - Israel launched pre-emptive strike on Egypt
1989 - In Poland, initial results from the election showed growing support for Solidarity
1967 - The six day war begins - how ironic! Fingers crossed for the people on the MV Rachel Corrie.
ReplyDelete@MsC
ReplyDeleteThere was another event on this day in 1956 - the public introduction of this...
PeterJ
ReplyDeleteUgh. Not a personal favourite of mine, sorry!
I am disgusted by the picture that was used today. Surely it should read "possibly inflamatory nature"? Do I win a prize for falling into a trap, Thaum?
ReplyDeleteJeremy Hardy on "the News Quiz" last night, "by taking away building materials from the Palestinians, are the Israelis are being anti-cementic?"
Really jealous of all of you having a pint in Sheffield today. Have great time, good people.
Peter: Bit early for choonz isn't it? But then again it's weekend.
ReplyDeleteoops, if you're going to criticise grammar, you really should follow it's rules yourself. Sorry :-)
ReplyDelete"It's", Habib?
ReplyDeleteGo and stand on the naughty step.
Jesus, I don't even get to sit down on the naughty step? What are you, Israeli?
ReplyDeleteI'm already stoned, if that helps. "Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!"
:-)
James Dixon, you ask:
ReplyDelete"Hello bitey,
"(long-time reader, first-time responder here..)
"Just out of interest, how should we respond to what is, at least as far as I've seen, a single issue poster??"
Of course if you have followed my posts on CiF since July 2006, you'll have seen that I'm far from being a single issue poster. And the last time I checked, many of the later ones were still there.
I don't think my bannings from CiF were right. Firstly because both were without warning or explanation and secondly because compared to other posters, some of whom frequent this site, who regularly post personal abuse aimed at posters below and above the line and at the moderators, and even make threats of violence, out of the thousands of posts I've made, you might find half a dozen that border on being personal.
And even those can be seen as containing within them issues, such as the responsibility of parents towards their children, about which I have posted regularly on CiF, or whether it's right to use terms normally used to describe people with mental health problems as a way of abusing those whose comments they don't like. Witness the recent problems faced by Princesschipchops. Indeed this is an issue you have commented on yourself in your article "Andrew Brown. A legend in his own mind."
Let me point you to an article on CiF in June of last year during which the Untrusted All stars came up against me, following Anne Perkins' article - "Beyond Malvolio".
Here was thaumaturge, JayReilly, Montana, kizbot, scherfig and Dotterel posting their best and each receiving polite, informed, well researched responses, some of which I suspect made them wish they'd not engaged in the first place.
But when you compare my record to the kinds of statements about me that have been posted here and remain here, by people who know almost nothing about my personal life, you might get some idea of why from time to time I come here to make my own statements.
Neither will banning prevent me from returning to CiF as and when I feel like it and adopting a new identity, as I have done continuously since my second banning last December. However when those like BeautifulBurnout, despite her protestation of innocence, AllyF and scherfig identify me out of pure spite to try to prevent me commenting on their contributions, they deserve to be identified as the censor's friends. I notice that even LaRitournelle has taken up this unfortunate behaviour on a recent I/P thread.
It is somewhat ironic that today it is being suggested that one of the things that contributed to tipping Derrick Bird over the edge, was the taunting he received from fellow cabbies about his trips to Thailand. Go and read some of the taunts posted here by HankScorpio and JayReily among others about the fact that my business and charity interests mean me making regular visits to China and South East Asia to assist students who wish to study in western
educational institutions. But don't worry, unlike the late Mr Bird, I have a highly satisfactory life style, with no worries, financial or otherwise and no desire whatsoever to be deprived of reading the entertaining and informative comments that get posted here, by diminishing the number of contributors.
It was 11 months from the date it started before I posted on this site and up to then I was quite happy to conduct business on CiF. But there are those here and others on CiF who demand that their popularity should be unsullied by accurate and in some cases devastating critiques of their words of wisdom and who'd rather comment wasn't quite as free as it might be.
Finally could I add my condolences to Montana on her recent loss.
Sorry, bitey, a bit bored, so I read a couple of sentences.
ReplyDelete"Of course if you have followed my posts on CiF since July 2006"
I just became too depressed to carry on.
"Of course if you have followed my posts on CiF since July 2006"
ReplyDeleteOh bitey - You are so funny sometimes...
Anyway, it's a lovely day...our social beckons so I'm off. Laters everyone.
It is somewhat ironic that today it is being suggested that one of the things that contributed to tipping Derrick Bird over the edge, was the taunting he received from fellow cabbies about his trips to Thailand. Go and read some of the taunts posted here by HankScorpio and JayReily among others about the fact that my business and charity interests mean me making regular visits to China and South East Asia to assist students who wish to study in western
ReplyDeleteeducational institutions. But don't worry, unlike the late Mr Bird, I have a highly satisfactory life style, with no worries, financial or otherwise and no desire whatsoever to be deprived of reading the entertaining and informative comments that get posted here, by diminishing the number of contributors.
For fuck sake.
Les mots justes, Duke...
ReplyDeleteYou crack me up, Bitey, you really do. Some here may not be overly familiar with your CiF career, but I am. And i remember very well the pastings you received almost every time you posted. How you interpret that Perkins thread as some sort of victory on your behalf is astonishing.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what exactly it was you said that prompted my reply to you Jay but it must have been pretty scathing about the fashion and clothing industries and those who rely of them for their living. Here's my response so others can judge.
ReplyDeleteDear me JayReilly, if you think professional photography and marketing the UK's fashion industries is sordid, your enforced absence from CiF really hasn't improved your judgement.
So as imogenblack and others have said "It was NOT a fashion shoot - it was an interview in a lifestyle magazine in which they took photos - the distinction is important", although clearly not for you who portrays it as if Caroline Flint
had featured in the centre pages of a porngraphic magazine. Would you prefer that she denied her appearance, dressed in a sack, refused to cooperate with professional photographers, writers, designers etc so they have no employment and you can bathe in the self-justification and cool glow of your own puritanism? Your disappointment in me comes as some considerable relief.
Others have at least commented on her political output and it is quite clear, and she has never attempted to deny it, that she has shown considerable loyalty and dedication to Gordan Brown and her political record shows this. But
just look at the achievement she carved out for herself and the success she has made of her life.
"Flint was born in a North London mother-and-baby home, the daughter of an unmarried 17-year-old". Two years later her mother Wendy married Peter Flint, 25, a machinists son working as a TV service manager. ‘I didnt know he wasn't my biological father until I was about ten, Miss Flint has said. ‘Only when I became older did I realise how difficult it must have been for my mother. I have never contemplated looking for my father. As a teenager, she was a punk with purple hair and sported outfits bought from Camden Market. She has admitted smoking cannabis as a student.
"Flint was educated at Twickenham Girls School (the school transferred to Waldegrave School for Girls in 1977) in Clifden Road Twickenham and Richmond Tertiary College before earning her BA (Hons) in American Literature and History combined with Film Studies from the University of East Anglia. She joined the Labour Party when 17. She was the Women's Officer of the National
Organisation of Labour Students for 1982-84."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Flint
I said on another thread and I'll repeat it here for your benefit, Caroline Flint may be 'no political giant' but she has reached high political office from very humble beginnings. In another country across the pond she'd be feted as the embodiment of the American dream as to my knowledge both Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, the former being held out as a classic example of that phenomenon, came from far more privileged backgrounds than Caroline Flint.
Bitethehand
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you're right, I have issues with moderation, and it's the main reason that I 'flounced' off from the Guardian.
That said, however, even in my more robust defences of 'free-speech', I have often maintained that sometimes, unfortunately, moderation is the lesser of (at least) two evils.
Secondly, I have usually adhered to a policy of not getting involved in discussions between posters who have clearly had 'previous', and further, to try and keep an open mind (or not take sides) when this didn't involve me, and especially when I may not 'have all the facts'!!
However, coming to your response, one cannot help but notice two particularly glaring ironies.
Namely, that
a) in your defence against my observation that you are a single-issue, you, erm, return to the single-issue that I was thinking of, and
b)Despite the verbiage of your response, you still didn't actually answer the question of how one should respond to you!!
Now, a couple of observations from myself, if I may be so bold.
As far as I can tell, the accusation that you repeatedly throw at BeautifulBurnout, that she reported you to CiF moderation HQ, has already, if I remember correctly, been 'admitted' to by another poster on here, yet you continue to maintain that it was BB.
Secondly, given that in the period of time I've been reading the UT, I've seen all of your (repeated) accusations, and, to the best of my knowledge, have never seen one be deleted, your arguments of unfair and unjust moderation seem to cumulatively lose credibility every single time you make them.
So, I'll ask the question again, and this time, I'll make it a bit clearer:
Given that your main accusation to BB has been admitted to by somebody else, and given that you constantly make complaints about moderation/censorship (which, themselves are not moderated), and given that these complaints have already been addressed many times, how else should we respond to the same things repeated over and over again, ad nauseum....?
Make a fresh start.
Have a crack at commenting on something new, without throwing 'previous' into it.
(I've seen a fair bit of disagreement on the UT, and it seems to, for the most part, be tolerated, and on a slow day, even welcomed).
And when issues do arise with people here, it's usually a question of conduct, rather than content.
Because, finally, even though I do try not to get involved in the ongoing stuff here that started 'before my time', including that involving you, I really don't need to be in 'full view of the facts' to see that you're doing more harm than good to whatever cause it is you're pursuing, and that, by and large, the issues you raise have already been covered. At least once.
So just, you know, a few things to think about there....
Great work, Bitey, consider the argument won.
ReplyDeleteAhhhh the wonders of modern technology ! Away now with friends. See ya all later.
ReplyDeleteBitey
ReplyDeleteDo you recruit from International schools or from the state secondary schools ?
Are the fees paid by student or are they supported by the Chinese gvt?
hi everybody not at the great together.
ReplyDeletethose meeting tonight have a great time and send news + pics to the rest of us.
Hey, Bitey, I didn't suggest that you were a paedophile because you were a frequent visitor to Thailand.
ReplyDeleteI suggested that you were a paedophile because you posted often and passionately about how the Great British Public had some odd hangups about child sexuality, and that you enjoyed the more enlightened approach in Bangkok.
You're obviously a bit of an oddball too, a loner, someone who has problems forming meaningful relationships with mature adults.
Taking all the evidence into account, and applying my expert psychological skills developed while watching Cracker, I concluded that you were a paedophile.
I've seen you whine about it but I've never seen you deny it.
Incidentally, Bitey, is the much-loved BTH brand still banned from Cif? If so, then your posting history will have disappeared. But you seem to have ready access to some of your pearls of wisdom.
ReplyDeleteHave you really saved all your own comments onto a personal drive?
How fucking sad are you?
The Sheffield contingent here.
ReplyDeleteParty time! We have: SheffPixie, Annetan, MsChin, Bitterweeed, Chekhov, Deano, thaumaturge, Princess-left-early-with-hubby-and-friend.
We are all pissed (except Anne and MsC) and swaying to Cuban music on Sheff's balcony, which has a lovely view over the city.
Bitterweed has been dancing and we have proof.
Welcome back, contingent!
ReplyDeleteHave some of this!
(It was apparently number one on the day I was born...)
Hank
ReplyDeleteYou should be here - we miss you you curmudgeonly old bastard. thauma is going to phone you so make sure you pick up.
"Have you really saved all your own comments onto a personal drive?"
ReplyDeleteHe's probably backed them up onto numerous drives.
Jay - don't talk to us - you'd promised to be here. - thauma
ReplyDeleteNo i never, i got a disseration due in Friday so i'm plodding through that all weekend, you do tell some porkies...
ReplyDelete"Jaffa cakes: cakes or biscuits, and what it signifies for post-modern wadicalism."
ReplyDeleteCan't wait to read it, Jay.
A considered response from you James Dixon and not a word of abuse. It's a record and something worth recording.
ReplyDeleteBut flouncing off from The Guardian doesn't help to reform the authoritarian tendencies that have taken over at that great newspaper that was once in the forefront of defending human rights and freedom of speech. If editorial control of its online edition has been handed over to faceless and nameless moderators, who are "only doing their jobs", isn't that a good reason to stay and fight rather than throw in the towel?
And I'm in full agreement with your observation about moderation being the lesser of two evils and am on record posting precisely the same sentiments on a number of occasions. I have no time for those macho males who think posting abuse is an acceptable alternative to carefully reasoned argument.
Now let me remind you of your question:
"Just out of interest, how should we respond to what is, at least as far as I've seen, a single issue poster??"
So who exactly is this "we" whose always "adhered to a policy of not getting involved in discussions between posters who have clearly had 'previous', and further, "to try and keep an open mind (or not take sides) when this didn't involve me, and especially when I may not 'have all the facts'!!" ?
Never mind - I'll take it as a slip of the tongue or a 'royal we' although your defence of free speech seems somewhat too couched in reservations for me to have to rely on you in a time of crisis. Exactly what kinds of facts do you need to decide whether or not you support someone whose been banned from CiF? After all we're not talking about official secrets here or enemies of the state, so why the equivalence? Or is it that you're not really too sure that you support free speech.?
So when you go into an eulogy about CiF's most treasured barrister, I wonder about the truth of your original claim James that you were seeking an answer about "how to respond"? After all you already seem to have decided that MrsB is the centre of the universe, while for me she's a rather second rate newcomer whose 'me me me' attitude has tried the patience of the UT's most benevolent founder members.
As for your cod psychology about "make a fresh start" and the rest of your closing thought for the day, I'll simply say that what UT subscribers say about each other would be enough for many people to resort to homicide and frankly I can do without that kind of mind shattering encounter every weekend.
So if you want to discuss seriously, leave this toy shop and find me on CiF. And stop pretending that you're some kind of saviour. I gave those up when I was five.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE6aCm41aPU
ReplyDeleteHey Hank - this is for you not bad I think you'll find you old cunt. This btw is from Bitterweed not Sheff. He wanted me to say something much ruder but won't do it.
Just posted on waddya.
ReplyDeleteLeni
ReplyDeleteTheir parents pay - and most are very wealthy. Where they're not I work for free, but they still need to find the cash for their fees and living expenses. Sadly my budget doesn't stretch that far. And every student I've ever worked with was at a State school.
Hank - BW has responded
ReplyDelete"Jaffa cakes: cakes or biscuits, and what it signifies for post-modern wadicalism."
ReplyDeleteTwat. Its just this sort of false dichotomy I am seeking to examine, exploring the ontological fallacies that privilege "scientific" classifications of confectionaries over the intuitive. Once you can shake off these pretensions to have "real" knowledge of the physical world, you find that what matters is whether you feel its a cake.
There are many equally valid ways of knowing beyond the arrogance of empirical science...
hello Hank
ReplyDeletetrust all is well with you - why the windup for Hermione ?
Net curtains. Timothy spall. Stained vest. Pants. It all says no does'nt it.
ReplyDeleteHello everyone at the 'do'.
ReplyDeleteHope you're having fun!!
Evening all........sounds like you're all enjoying yaselves.....good!
ReplyDeletehank
shame Jess and co won't be able to respond no doubt they'll be supping a mocktail on Islington Green having "done" an evening at the ICA.....
Jeez Hank
ReplyDeleteLeave Hermione alone for fucks sake.I like her and
i,ll tell you why.She makes me laugh.She,s not a bad
person.She,s a character and the world would be a
duller place without the likes of her.
There,s so many people in this world to be angry with but in the overall scheme of things 'Hermione Gingold'
ain,t one of them.Methinks you need to pick your
targets more carefully.
Paul
ReplyDeleteShe is a bit of a cock though. You have to admit.
Now,
ReplyDeleteBitethehand
"Now let me remind you of your question:
"Just out of interest, how should we respond to what is, at least as far as I've seen, a single issue poster??"
So who exactly is this "we" whose always "adhered to a policy of not getting involved in discussions between posters who have clearly had 'previous', and further, "to try and keep an open mind (or not take sides) when this didn't involve me, and especially when I may not 'have all the facts'!!" ?"
You seem to be conflating two things here.
I asked how we (UTers) should respond to you (and your quite combative postings), and I made a completely separate statement about how I try to conduct myself when it comes to involving myself/not involving myself in 'ongoing disputes'.
Secondly,
"And I'm in full agreement with your observation about moderation being the lesser of two evils and am on record posting precisely the same sentiments on a number of occasions."
and...
"although your defence of free speech seems somewhat too couched in reservations for me to have to rely on you in a time of crisis."
Well, I'm having trouble with this to be honest...
You agree with me, and have expressed the same sentiments, yet my defence is too couched in reservations.
Perhaps you'd like to clarify...
So when you go into an eulogy about CiF's most treasured barrister, I wonder about the truth of your original claim James that you were seeking an answer about "how to respond"? After all you already seem to have decided that MrsB is the centre of the universe, while for me she's a rather second rate newcomer whose 'me me me' attitude has tried the patience of the UT's most benevolent founder members.
Please feel free to point out any 'eulogising' I may have done, because, for the life of me, I can't see it.
I merely pointed out that you accuse her of something, yet somebody else has admitted to actually doing the thing you accuse her of.
No eulogy, no decision regarding BB's relative position in the universe, just, you know, the observation that, in the context of your accusations, she seems to be less guilty than you seem to think she is.
"As for your cod psychology about "make a fresh start" and the rest of your closing thought for the day"
Cod-psychology? WTF?
Granted, psychology's a 'soft-science', and I only did it at A-level, but unless we're using very different definitions of what it is, I'm again struggling to see me using it.
T'was a suggestion. Based on nothing more than my own meandering experience....
Finally,
"And stop pretending that you're some kind of saviour. I gave those up when I was five."
Erm, say what now? Saviour?
If anything, I was perhaps trying to engage you outside of the 'usual context', to see how you'd respond.
Like you said, unless of course, you were being ironic, I used no terms of abuse in my post to you, yet you yourself reply with a fair degree of sarcasm, mis-representation and thinly veiled criticism of my integrity.
(Not to mention the fact that you still managed to make a good chunk of your response about BB, your feelings towards her, and the injustice of your treatment here and on CiF).
That is, of course, your prerogative and that, but, it does seem a little bit ironic in the context of our discussion.
Now, I could well use some (cod-)psychology to assess that, but, like I said, I only did A-level....
And Thaumaturge, as you're so confident in your three word answers, here's a slightly longer contribution you made at the same time as JayReilly.
ReplyDeleteYou said in your 'the working class can kiss my arse' mode:
"And given the celebrity culture in which we are immersed (yes, the one that seeks to objectify women), I'm not really worried about the employment prospects of workers in the fashion industry."
Which is not a very comradely thing to say and something I'd have expected more from the likes of Moveanymountain, or even Mr PB - or was he before your time?
So here's what I posted to try to get you on the right path, - you know that one where solidarity is supposed to overcome personal feelings and where women's rights are more important than pathetic dead end, knock your head against the wall class struggle. With the first you actually achieve a great deal - well in my life you do, whereas the latter just gives you a headache.
'OK let's start off with those whose standard of living and quality of life is determined by the fashion industry:
'The clothing industry is particularly important in terms of its widespread location and its high female employment - 70% of its employees are women. It also makes a significant contribution to ethnic minority and inner city employment.
'And the standing of British designers in the rest of the world:
'UK designers sell £750m of clothing at manufacturers prices, of which almost two-thirds is exported. The US, Japan and the major European markets tend to be the main focus in terms of export activity.
'And the impact on the economy:
'In 2005, the British clothing industry produced more than £4 billion worth of goods and employed over 85,000 people. If the textile industry is added, the combined sectors produce over £9 billion worth of goods at manufacturers prices and employ more than 165,000 people. Overseas sales of the apparel and textile industry combined are worth £5.8 billion at manufacturers prices.
At retail level, spending on clothing accounts for 5% of expenditure on all consumer items. In 2005 over £21 billion was spent on womenswear just under £10 billion on menswear and over £6.7 billion on childrenswear.
'The retail value of orders generated at London Fashion Week each season are estimated to be in the region of £40 million.
'It is estimated that London Fashion Week generates over £100 million per annum for the London economy. Worldwide media coverage of London Fashion Week is worth over £50m per season. Overall event sponsorship for London Fashion Week has increased threefold in the last 7 years.
'London Fashion Week has grown from 15 shows/presentations and 50 exhibitors in 1994 to 49 catwalk shows over 6 days and 200 designers in the exhibition in February 2007.
'Over 5,000 visitors attended the most recent London Fashion Week in February 2007 including buyers, TV & radio crews, journalists and photographers.'
http://www.modelhealthinquiry.com/overview.html
And all this because you were quite prepared to sell out the working class for a cheap snipe at Caroline Flint. So now you've won hands down and you've got that nice Mr Cameron instead.
Hank
ReplyDeleteHermione is harmless.You don,t seek to annihilate
people who are harmless unless you,re a total
shithead.Politics has got nothing to do with it.
Hank
ReplyDeletePolitics is about people - even the politically disengaged are effected by the political ethos of the time but don't necessarily noticed that things are changing until they themselves are adversely effected.
The majority fall into line - they take the jobs available and accept the economic structures which control their lives. Any group which can gain advantage will do so - very few retain a determination based on belief - even fewer really believe that positive change for the majority is possible.
very few people take politics seriously.
Hank
ReplyDeletein terms of anything being achieved through Cif i don't know how much it really matters - in personal terms I suppose we all decide that for ourselves.
In terms of overall public opinion influencing policy Cif is only one of many news and opinion blogs.
The broader question is around how we pressure for change. Posting on Cif - what does it achieve? Do policy makers take any notice? Does it help to build a broad body of opinion around the various areas it asks for comments on be it foreign or domestic polcy /
If it has no effect the is there no point in shouting at Hermione - if it does then perhaps a bit of wooing to gain support might be a better approach ? By that I mean trying to engage with people rather than alienating them.
Hank
ReplyDeleteI could understand it if you,d gone for MAM or a
number of others on CIF.But Hermione?Come on.
Thought better of you.
@Paul - what's the point in going after MAM?
ReplyDeleteIf you don't understand why I despise Hermione and all she stands for, then it really doesn't matter what you think of me, Paul.
Hank
ReplyDeleteFFS Hank.I,m not going to fall out with you over
this but what has Hermione done that warrants such a
venomous attack?What views has she expressed that
make her a legitimate target.She,s funny and so
what if she,s often at the top of a thread.She,s
not actually insulting people the way others do.
eg MAM saying those with MH problems should be
either sectioned or made to work.That,s fucking
offensive Hank.Not the stuff that Hermione comes
out with.:-)
Hank
ReplyDeleteYou know enough about politics to know that the vast majority
Accept authority when that authority is seen to be legitimate.
Will reject or be overtly aggressive to any group perceived to berejected or blamed by that authority.
Show degree of adherence to accepted social conventions.
Hermione - to you - represents all those you see as betraying the socialist ideal - support New Labour libs etc. I have never known H attack weaker groups - she's conventional, likes banter and is well liked. Attacking her will alienate others from you and your opinions and might well get you banned again, You're cleverer than that I think - however do it your way. x
No, leni, hermione is a Lib and a fan of the new coalition.
ReplyDeleteBitey
ReplyDeleteThanks for reply - i am interested in discussing the rise of the middle class in China - and other parts of the world - and access to education for all their children and young people - particularly interested in the type - the courses - of tertiary ed which is most popular.
Tonight everybody seems to want to set haystacks on fire or something equally useless.
Hank
ReplyDeleteNuLab/the coalition - not a lot of difference. Both in thrall to their paymasters and both prepared to dump and demonise any socialist or redistributive ideas.
Hank
ReplyDeleteHow can you hate someone who,s harmless?The Left is
never going to win the battle of hearts and minds
with the people of this country by attacking people
like 'Hermione Gingold'.Sorry mate but tonight you
you made the wrong call.
hank
ReplyDeleteBanned already ! Somebody was quick on that one. hey ho. Was that what you were aiming for?
Targetting yourself.
Morning all:
ReplyDeleteHank
"Ah ffs, Paul....hermione's full of shit. A wanky middle class liberal who knows nothing but says much"
Hermoine imho, poses as a 'liberal' but is someone who shows a pretty rabid right wing side of herself from time to time, can't stand her myself - reading her comment (that was subsequently removed) on a thread a few months back about the re-arrest of Jon Venables, I was pretty shocked. I personally think she's on a pompous, self-righteous ego-trip and reveals in her percieved 'popularity' on CiF.
Knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
;)
Hope the 'social' was a hit folks....
ReplyDeleteNow, off to work grrrrrrr......
morning all. i take it from the deafening silence that it was a good get-together? heh heh.
ReplyDeletehad quite fun meself - who'd a thunk hearing a bunch of brass bands playing contemporary hits on temporary stages in the street would have been so much fun? until you've heard 'I don't want your freedom' by Wham played by a marching band, you haven't fully understood the power of music...
morning all! hope you're all recovering
ReplyDeletethauma hank
I agree with you both on the herm issue.....facile, vacuous and often quite right wing views plus tediously boring.....
One of the worst pieces of writing ever this morn by Cohen in the Observer....
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@gandolfo
ReplyDeleteI really don't understand the violent reaction to Cohen's piece today. Could you explain?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA most agreeable event in Sheffield, in fact a cracking do.
ReplyDeleteI second Chekov's comment - a great bunch of civilised comrades whose company I enjoyed very much. I look forward to the next get together
So it's thanks to Sheff/Chin for locating a pub that sold a cracking (new to me) bitter. Fucking nectar.
An extra thanks to Sheff for providing fine food back at her place (that St Agur cheese is always a favourite).
Hoping that PCC is not ill for too long after her heroic wine consumption.
I hope the travelling members of the UT tribe A42/BW/Thauma/Chekhov all have safe journeys back home.
Remeber you bastards - what happened in Sheffield stays in Shefield.
Regards and many thanks for the enjoyable memory.
I'm not going to tell ..................sealed is what my lips are....................
ReplyDeletePeter hi
ReplyDeleteCohen basically equates any critics of Israel as antizionist and therefore they are automatically antisemetic which is obvious rubbish, anyone that is against Israel's use of force is pro Islamic.....again rubbish....
I had my comment removed because:
1. i asked whether he got paid to write such crap
2. that it was his usual antizionist = antisemetic diatribe
3. can he offer any defence therefore of nine protesters being shot some at close range in the back of the head.....
frankly if this gets deleted I'm gobsmacked but then again it's the graun
@gandolfo
ReplyDeleteIt's odd, but that isn't how I read it at all...
Ah well. I'm putting together a response to the original and to @exiledlondoner's essay in return, so maybe we can come back to it later?
glad you had fun, chaps!
ReplyDelete