THE HEAT OF THE FRYING PAN
Apparently Stephen Fry has now reconsidered his decision to quit the micro-blogging Twitter website. He is a big hitter of that world, with 900000 followers, and was instrumental in using that influence to turn the tide in the recent controversy over homophobia, following the offensive Daily Mail reaction to Stephen Gately’s death.
A few days ago, Fry said he would quit after another tweeter wrote: “I understand @stephenfry’s tweets but, much as I admire and adore the chap, they are a bit…boring…(sorry Stephen).”
Mr Fry, responded to the comment by writing: “You’ve convinced me. I’m obviously not good enough. I retire from Twitter henceforward. Bye.”
He then wrote on his page: “Think I may have to give up on Twitter. Too much aggression and unkindness around. Pity. Well it’s been fun.”
Now Stephen Fry is in an unusually vulnerable position of being both constantly in the media spotlight, and also biplor and prone to depression. Nevertheless the issue raised is a much wider one.
I am often surprised at the sheer naked aggression with which people respond to my blog posts, simply because I disagree with them, or because I express a point of view they are unfamiliar with. Naturally the culture of left politics doesn’t help either, where some small groups jealously guard the frontiers of orthodoxy, and justify their existence by believing they have access to special wisdom; anathematization of those who disagree with them is part of their group think.
However, there is a wider issue to do with keyboard rage. Face to face human interaction generates hormonal response, with the generation of low levels of Oxytocin that makes people like being with each other. Human interaction mediated by technology lacks that aspect of social bonding, and people become excessively rude.
What is more the rudeness generates a self-referential culture, where people are rude because other people are rude - it is a learned social expectation.
It is difficult to know what to do about this, I have tightened up the moderation policy, but deleteing comments sometimes just increases the determination of individuals to disrupt debate - and in the worst case, one right wing commenter used to post sexual offensive comments about my wife all over the blogs - and this wasn’t even in response to anything I had done, it was because Jim Jepps had banned him from the Daily(Maybe) blog! Something completely unconnected with me.
The Internet has massively opened the possibilities for debate, but it also has the danger of closing it down, by privileging those who use unrestrained rudeness to dominate and exclude other voices.
You’re just not hard enough for this racket, Andy. I think you need a guru in the fashion of Malcolm Tucker to roundly abuse you, especially when you start posting about your favourite television shows or whatever’s obsessing the twitterati at the moment.
Comment by lenin — 2 November, 2009 @ 11:24 am
Hey Andy when you promote crap tv and hunting cats you love it when we lay into you, even those of us like me who blog with you, socialist unity it thrives on a good fight.
Picking on Stephen Fry is another matter, I have just started twittering but I do get more abuse here than elsewhere…
Comment by Derek Wall — 2 November, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
Why should decent theists live under a secular law that gives people like Fry the right to free speech on the internet or television? I’m afraid it’s just another example of militant atheism and the racist enforcement of enlightenment values on religious believers, many of whom experience a divinely ordered obligation to prevent homosexuals from articulating their views and values in the public sphere.
Secularism is the new racism! Andy Newman - stop insulting Faith communities.
Comment by Dora Kaplan — 2 November, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
I recall someone’s observation in an earlier post that the left often acts in a similar way to religion, where there’s an orthodoxy that nobody dares to challenge. Some theory is beyond question because some philosopher is considered infallible, and for no other reason. Of course, disregarding the fact the philosopher is one person with an opinion.
Comment by excrow — 2 November, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
#3 - That’s because we live in a democracy, mate.
Comment by excrow — 2 November, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
Dear Andy
Firstly I would like to say thank you how much I enjoy my little visits to the SU blog myself I find it a place where you can really catch up and see what is going on ,
there are some things that you would never ever see on the mainstream media and its nice to see people have a civilised chat on how we can Save The World..
You go on to say that it is “a learned social expectation that people are rude because other people are rude” I agree somewhat’ but I feel people are rude because of there anonymity and they can reflect the person that they really are within there blogs thus saving the embarrassment on letting people know of their true identity
The only things I find quiet difficult within blogs is how some people are so raciest hateful and bigoted these are people who most of us see and work alongside everyday.
It is difficult to know what to do about this, I know you have tightened up the moderation policy, but it seems when you delete there comments it just increases the determination of these sick individuals to disrupt debate or they just go off to Harrys place or other dark places to spout off on how the left suppressed free speech.
I find it quiet sickening that there are people who would post sexual offensive comments about your wife all over the blogs - and this wasn’t even in response to anything you had done. and even so your wife should not be responsible for what you may or not have said.
I was quiet shocked one day to find that my 12 year old granddaughter was doing a Google search on my name and she found some rather nasty blog all about me it even wished my downfall the saddest thing is these people who create such vehement nasty posts are people that we know. and this one must have known me personally.
They hide behind there elaborate writing skills and are supposedly quiet well educated people But sadly I feel that these types feel they are above criticism because they have an Ology! or were privileged to attend a fee paying establishment to show them how to cut people down with long meaningless words. perhaps they need to get out more and see the real world and not sit the land of make believe that they have created for themselves. My goodness you only have to see some of the names they call themselves to see how deluded they really are.
As you say the Internet has opened the possibilities for debate, but it also has the danger of closing it down,
by privileging those who use unrestrained rudeness and get away with it Perhaps some of these people who continuously troll the blogs need to go and do something worthwhile.
Please keep up the posts and the blogs and don’t let the ******* grind you down
Comment by Carole Swords — 2 November, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
Excrow, poltical democracy is simply one component of a racist enlighentment discourse that never really got beyond the bayonets of the Grande Armee or the limits of Port Royal. Just ask Andy.
And please refrain from expressing your ethno-cultural prejudices on a socialist blog!
It’s called post-modernism, mate.
Comment by Dora Kaplan — 2 November, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
It’s not a prejudice - it’s experience. And what exactly is racist about enlightenment?
Comment by excrow — 2 November, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
Excrow, there’s nothing racist about secularism or democracy. I’m just parodying some of Andy’s absurdities from a previous post.
Comment by Dora Kaplan — 2 November, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
I knew that.
Comment by excrow — 2 November, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Carole, I couldn’t agree with you more. It is sad when you see the level of vitriolic abuse that is heaped on one. I think many ageing lefties become embittered as they’ve spent so many years arguing for one particular current, only to see their comrades dwindling and steadily losing the will to carry on the struggle. It is hard sometimes, but I find that if you get involved in campaigns like Stop the War or UAF you will be respected for the good work you put in.Of the left blogs out there I find this one and David Osler’s to be easily the best. Dave has a very even handed, genial style, but knows when to stick the boot in when necessary - see his recent post on Redmond O’Neill. It is hard sometimes, but I find that if you get involved in campaigns like Stop the War or UAF you will be respected for the good work you put in.
Comment by SWP_John — 2 November, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
Well said Andy! I’ve only been surfing the blogosphere for a short while and am rather taken aback at the lack of civility. Sometimes it’s misunderstood humour or passionate zeal but mostly it’s just plain nastiness. I worry also that there is a “bleedover” effect into day-to-day interaction as I’ve noticed alot more malicious bluntness in the real world as well.
Comment by Omar — 2 November, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
“she found some rather nasty blog all about me”
Presumably you aren’t the same Carole Swords who used to trade vitriolic abuse with Terry Fitzpatrick here? Otherwise your suggestion that you are an innocent in a nasty world would be very hollow.
Good to see Andy Newman posting on the important stuff and ignoring trivia like the row over government drugs advisors.
Comment by tyresome points — 2 November, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
“tyresome points”, in his desperate SWP sectarian rant mode, forgets that it was Terey Fitzpatrick who used to call Carole a “thick trot cunt” and threatened violence against her.
If you go back to those threads, you’ll find that your fellow SWP members were really, really nasty to Carole as well. But it’s typical of the way you lot operate: You will attack someone, then when they hit back, it proves that they’re abusive. “Trade vitriolic abuse” is code for “responded to repeated attacks”.
Comment by external bulletin — 2 November, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
#14
Well let’s not tar everyone with the same brush. Many SWP members do take part on the debate in a civil and constructive way, and it is only a small minority still obsessed with the Respect split. What is more, mant SWP members are constructively involved in real world politices, which does mean that there is some connection with reality.
“tyresome points” is indeed tiresome.
Dora kaplan seems determined to prove my point,
But the problem is not how some one with a rhino-hide thick skin like myself will respond, but the effect it has of intimidating other people from participating in debate.
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 November, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
The problem is knowing the difference between a cutting political remark or observation and a personal one, quite often the two are very close, a reformist, liberal, social democrat are all either nouns or non offensive adjectives, but depending on the context and intended use they can be insulting to some.
While obvious personal abuse should be scorned, and we should all resist the temptation, we should celebrate robust argumentation as a sign of our willingness to engage with political ideas and debate.
I have to say, that in my opinion Andy does nothing to discourage the use of offensive terms, no doubt he will argue
that ultra-left, sectarian, cultist, and whatever other demeaning adjectives he throws around are all part of robust debate.
I am not, and would not defend anybody saying anything about his wife etc, that is clearly unjustifiable. I just think if Andy is serious about this then he can start by setting a good example, glass houses and stones, pots and kettles come to mind.
Comment by non-partisan — 2 November, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
With all due deference and respect to hormonal synergy, Andy’s definition of ’sheer naked aggression’ and ‘keyboard rage’ used to include the mildest criticism of the former GDR.
I’m afraid that the Trots aren’t the only Leninoid cult with a penchant for anathemitsation and the aggressive defence of a ‘narrow orthodoxy.’
Comment by Dora Kaplan — 2 November, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
This goes to show about bloggers using other names.
It is rather strange that one would post with this name Dora Kaplin Could be your real name? never this goes to show that names people choose for themselves within the blogs they try to emulate a character or perhaps it is your real name?
Being a child of a Jewish mother an Scottish catholic father like so many children from the 40s and 50s in the Eastend this name is from one of my ancestors my grandfathers family who were of Russian Jewish decent had a cousin who was called Fiega RoytmanThey called her Fanny (Dora Kaplin)
I do know she was supposed to once tried to assassinate Lenin
well not much has changed with the Kaplin clan ha a
Now to tiresome points yawn!!!!!
You may feel it was amusing that someone wished my downfall within the blog but like yourself they hid there real name unlike me when there is a post that is making an attack on a person I will put my real name to it because I want them to know who I am what I really feel.
You Presume that I am not the Carole Swords who used to trade vitriolic abuse with Terry Fitzpatrick here? Do not presume my friend I have never bleated to be an innocent in that nasty hollow world you know.
I Have posted on Terry and it was to say that how much he has changed I knew Terry from around 35 years ago .myself I remained the same with the same socialist principles he sadly changed and become someone who sadly Left he left behind and became embittered with things Its a shame because he was once not a bad chap (could be the drink that done it)
You complain that Andy’s posts have not yet posted things over the row over government drugs advisers!!
You can just see all those people who will crawl from the woodwork with a huge spliff in there mouths with an opinion SCARY!!!!!!!
we only need the radio and TV on for that.
Comment by Carole Swords — 2 November, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
Dora Kaplan was, I understand, the name of the woman who shot and wounded Lenin in 1918, though the first name is often given as Fanya.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 2 November, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
#17
“Andy’s definition of ’sheer naked aggression’ and ‘keyboard rage’ used to include the mildest criticism of the former GDR. ”
This is of course a simple lie. I am highly critical of the DDR myself, but also seeking a dispassionate evaluation of what was good and bad in those societies.
What we see here is unrelenting hostility from this “Dora kaplan” character, hiding behing a pseudonym, nd vasically just trowing shit about. Is that what people really want from Internet debate?
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 November, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
#16
“Andy is serious about this then he can start by setting a good example, glass houses and stones, pots and kettles come to mind.”
Non-partisan is another serial reoffender of siimply nit picking over individual words or phrases, or essntially just insulting other people in an apolitical way.
Sometimes i get fed up with the abuse,and respond in kind. The relentless apolitical abuse is very wearing.
IT is pretty low to argue that I do nothing to try to prevent the rudeness. There are never artciles here simply being abusive of other socialists, and mostly I am good tempered. But the idiocy and spiteful sectarisanism of some of the people commenting here is extradordinary, and it simply is the case that the worst of it comes from members of the smaller Trotskyite sects, outrageed that a non-orthodix opinion is being offered.
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 November, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
As someone who lives overseas but uses SU as a way of keeping up with events and debates on the UK Left, I’m curious about something: how do the interactions on this site and others contribute to your “real-life” political activity? What percentage of people who post on SU are active in the movement, as opposed to just being keyboard warriors? Do most of you know each other in real life–Britain is after all a smallish country with a smallish left.
Comment by James — 2 November, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
There are never artciles here simply being abusive of other socialists,
I guess this depends on what words like “never”, “abusive” or “are” mean. Generally, the “they started it” defence is a bit weak, in that it destroys any possibility of reducing the amount of rude behaviour (assuming that’s the goal).
Comment by christian h. — 2 November, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
Andy,
“The Internet has massively opened the possibilities for debate, but it also has the danger of closing it down, by privileging those who use unrestrained rudeness to dominate and exclude other voices.”
Echoes (albeit faint ones) of the old feminist notion of ‘the tyranny of structurelessness’
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html
It’s not a defence of bad manners or even trollery abuse or threats, but this is the downside of the non-hierarchical nature of hinterwebs debate. If you were Prof Andy Newman and this were a seat of learning, you’d be able to wave your hefty diplomas in people’s faces.
There isn’t a reputation management system for blog commenters ….. yet!
Comment by Paul Evans — 2 November, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
I side with the likes of Andy and Carole here. Most of the vile abuse that you see in comments come from people who hide behind pseudonyms (people like TerryFitz tend to be untypical). I can understand there may be valid reasons for using pseudonyms but the negatives outweigh the advantages. As well as the abuse you can also get the sock-puppets. The way things are going I wouldn’t be surprised if Andy made people register to post comments.
Comment by Matthew Stiles — 2 November, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
” was quiet shocked one day to find that my 12 year old granddaughter was doing a Google search on my name and she found some rather nasty blog all about me it even wished my downfall”
“I have never bleated to be an innocent in that nasty hollow world you know.”
How identical these statements are!
“You complain that Andy’s posts have not yet posted things over the row over government drugs advisers!!
You can just see all those people who will crawl from the woodwork with a huge spliff in there mouths with an opinion SCARY!!!!!!!”
Your hero George Galloway often reads out texts from bigots, and then makes fun of their repeated inabilty to spell simple words or show any level of grammatical acumen.Are you worried that if Mr.Newman did post anything on the sackings it would be those who agree with you that couldn’t string a sentence together in a rational way?
#18 “(could be the drink that done it)”
#21 “The relentless apolitical abuse is very wearing.”
Again, the similarity of meaning between Andy and Caroles’ comments is eye-opening.
#25 “The way things are going I wouldn’t be surprised if Andy made people register to post comments.”
I think part of the reason he chooses not to is that would cut down the site-s traffic, and he would have to find other ways to reinforce his sense of humbleness.Secondly it might disproportionately affect Respect members if the comment form were more complicated. Thirdly a disproportionate number of the trolls,sock-puppets and abusers posting under aliases are Respect members:
#14 “Comment by external bulletin “
Comment by tyresome points — 2 November, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
#19. Fanni Efimovna Kaplan (real name Feyga Khaimovna Roytblat) (1888-3.9.1918). Seamstress, member of an anarchist-communist group. On 22.12.1906 a bomb exploded in a room she had rented in Kiev, injuring her and the caretaker. Sentenced by court-martial to hard labour for life 30.12.1906, from 1907 at Nerchinsk, where she associated with the SR prisoners Mariya Spiridonova and Aleksandra Bitsenko. Released on parole 3.3.1917 by Justice Minister Kerensky. In 1917 Kaplan was a follower of Kropotkin. In 1918 she lived illegally near Moscow, and associated with Left SRs as well as the fighting group around the far right SR Savinkov. Her precise role in the 30.8.1918 attempt on Lenin’s life remains unclear, although she took full responsibility when arrested. After interrogation she was shot by P D Mal’kov, the Kremlin commandant.
Overall, she really was quite a character.
Comment by Francis King — 2 November, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
Good satire, Tyresome points. A brilliant demonstration of how to launch an ad hominem attack. Even better when educated chaps are putting the jackboot into a working class woman. Great stuff!
Comment by Paper Tigger — 2 November, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
Andy *21- that is simply a lie, can you show examples? to claim that i insult people in a non-political way.
i find that accusation offensive and kinda proves my point
Why did you feel the need to say this? It is not true, if you can please post examples to prove me wrong, then i will apologise…
otherwise you are not being serious.
I disagree with your nationalism, at any level i think it is an accomodation to to bourgoeios thought, but nevermind, i also disagree with your ‘lesser evil strategy’ but i agree with voting labour in the absence of a real w/c alternative, I also agree with your defense of planned production as containing the seeds of an alternative society without agreeing with your need to aplogise for the Stasi.
show me where I have insulted people in a non-political way,
or prove my point,
you my friend should learn that which you pretend to teach others.
Comment by non-partisan — 2 November, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
I understand Bitsenko, a Left SR, was part of the Soviet delegation at Brest-Litovsk. A German general who talked to her there thought her rather simple, and inclined to regale people with stories about her attacks on Tsarist officials. The German thought the Tsarist authorities must have been rather liberal to not have executed her after they caught her.
Re Kaplan, she seems to have been considered insane by the Cheka who questioned her after the attempt (see “Lenin and the Bolsheviks” by Adam Ulam), though this was not considered a reason not to execute her.
In 1984 I saw the overcoat Lenin was wearing at the time of the attack, on display in the Lenin Museum in Moscow. There was some damage to the coat’s shoulder area, said to be caused by the bullets.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 2 November, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
to continue 29*
defending myself is not really the point, though i am aggreived at the idea that i insult people…..
nevermind, what i really think is agitating Andy, is that he thinks it is ok to pour scorn on those he thinks have no effect, on politics,(everyone he disagreees with) while his contributions inform or at least are a part of creating a new dynamic of ‘reasoned’ ‘actual’ debate, that informs ‘actually existing workers movement’ the truth is of course our ideas have resonance in proportion to the posibility of changing society (that is revolution) now. So those most in favour of ‘revolution’ are the least popular, while those most accepting (however begrudgingly of actually existing reality)strangely find we have a bigger audience…mmmmm
untill of course, times change, and struggles erupt, and old leaders are flushed away and new ones forced to prominence, and then…but who knows? then…maybe Andy is right, and the best we an hope for is Harriet Harman as the replacement for Brown as an actually existing improvement on the really existing current situation?
if i have been nitpicking or unpolitically offensive ..you can have my apoligies now Andy
Comment by non-partisan — 2 November, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
Well guys Thank you so much for the interest.
But sadly I have to let you know that I am not a puppet for any person or group and unfortunately all posts on the SU are all of my doing.
Perhaps my non use of the thesaurus to give twenty different meanings of the same word really is not for me and to be quiet honest I would never pretend to be something that I am not.
I know who I am and to be honest I am very happy with myself.
There are many who feel that being a Respect member makes me some kind of a lesser person all I can say is that I really do feel sorry for the likes of those who feel this way because I chose to do my own thinking and do not follow the party line and never will no matter how crooked it appears to be (take that as you will)
Whenever I have posted always I have been honest and truthful unlike so many trolls that lurk around the blogs
I do know that the sheer contempt for me started when I wrote to the SWP about the things I witnessed but as I was brought up to tell the truth and brought up my children to do the same I have no problems with any of your tripe.
I only stated that it was not very nice for my granddaughter to find such a hateful post wishing me gone.
The posts on getting personal is exactly what this post of Andy’s has tried to signify
And it has shown to be true that there are really some not very nice people out there and they will continue to hide behind there keyboards being the wankers they are.
Comment by Carole Swords — 2 November, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
There are people living in Tower Hamlets who have a roof over their heads thanks to Carole Swords.
It’s instructive that for all the can’t about ‘the class’ from so many toy Bolshevis they gang up, like at the Eton wall-game, against the genuine article.
The lines of division between who may contribute to a new left and who is too poisoned to do so are very clear.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 2 November, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
XXX bless you Kevin
Comment by Carole Swords — 2 November, 2009 @ 11:54 pm
Derek Wall refers to the hunting of cats.
Rod Liddle in the ‘Times’ incautiously praised someone who mixed tuna-meat with anti-freeze and put it under the hedge for the neighbour’s Abyssinain [asylum seeker?] cats, thus hastening their entry to Pussycat Heaven.
Oh my, the response!
If you wish to destroy someone’s reputation in England, claiming that he is cruel to cats is probably more damaging that claiming that he is fond of watching, or even making, kiddieporn videos.
Comment by Otto — 3 November, 2009 @ 3:26 am
Concerning Trotsky - references to whom inevitably crop up here from time to time - what became of the story that the fatal icepick was being offered for sale?
Did Tariq Ali buy it?
Where is it now?
Comment by Otto — 3 November, 2009 @ 3:29 am
Surely there’s a mistake in the title to this thread shouldn’t it be:
‘The Heat of the Fry Panning’?
Comment by paulm — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:13 am
“It’s instructive that for all the can’t about ‘the class’ from so many toy Bolshevis they gang up, like at the Eton wall-game, against the genuine article.”
Except, of course, only one person made an unfair comment about Carol. No-one was ganging up (ooh, those nasty Bolshie Russian dolls in their ultra caucused gangs!), there was no “Eton wall-game” (ooh, those middle class bastards, not monks living modest, humble lives like me and George!). But why let reality get in the way of another crude straw man that allows you to bash former comrades. You can even pose as being noble, allowing you to eschew the pseudonym you usually employ when getting your hands grubby. Bless.
“The lines of division between who may contribute to a new left and who is too poisoned to do so are very clear.”
Tyresome points is out, everybody else is in. Viva the New Left!
Comment by Handy Strawman — 3 November, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
‘Viva the New Left!’
Another new left. Wow. Who are they again?
Comment by Ger Francis — 3 November, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Ask Kevin O. He mentioned a new left first.
Comment by up the posties!! — 3 November, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Handy Strawman
(ooh, those nasty Bolshie Russian dolls in their ultra caucused gangs!), there was no “Eton wall-game” (ooh, those middle class bastards, not monks living modest, humble lives like me)
Mate listen to yourself.
I think you need to go and see a wizard
And dont forget to wear your ‘Red shoes’
Comment by Carole Swords — 3 November, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Andy Newman is right Shock! Horror! I think a significant amount of the abuse doled out on the blogosphere is a technical thing as well as degenerate politics.When you communicate person to person your communications are regulated by looks,body language,tone of voice etc even the telephone lets you whisper,growl,moan cajole etc.The complete disembodiment of this medium means that weaker people are more likely to vent their spite as this can be done with ease.(It is easy to be hard sitting behind a keyboard in your home!)I have also noticed similar problems with texting.
Comment by Scot in London — 3 November, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
One problem has to be that you don’t have a requirement for people to be registered to post. I suggest you make people register with a traceable email (not hotmail etc) in order that they then know that anything which is really dodgy or illegal can be dealt with appropriately. I do this on my own site and it’s pretty much stopped any serious trouble.
I suppose some might say that this is blocking free-speech, but if they’re not prepared to say who they are then why should a site-owner give them any freedom at all?
Comment by faceless — 3 November, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
So true, “faceless”, which I presume is your real name? This is getting a bit silly…
Comment by christian h. — 3 November, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
My site is linked into my user name, so you can check it should you feel the need to lessen your foolishness. I’ve been known as faceless for 15 years.
You’re far more anonymous ‘Christian’, if that’s really your name.
Comment by faceless — 3 November, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
You’re far more anonymous ‘Christian’
That may or may not be the case, but then I don’t go around complaining about other people’s anonymity. See this is quite elementary: if you whine about a type of behaviour you should not, then, yourself be guilty of it. The fact you have been guilty of it for 15 years does not, somehow, lessen your hypocrisy.
Comment by christian h. — 3 November, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
Is there a statue anywhere to Fanni Kaplan or Roitblat?
I see nobody has anything to say about the icepick in Mexico City.
Comment by Otto — 3 November, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
HERE SHE IS!
Kidding, really!
http://www.zeinalov.com/htm/e/bell/kaplan01.htm
But what are all our lives but a cartoon strip without enough funny parts?
Comment by Otto — 3 November, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
HERE SHE IS AGAIN!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanya_Kaplan
She really deswerves REAL commemoration, just as George Elser does - he was the ‘loner’ who nearly assassinated Hitler
Comment by Otto — 3 November, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
Who’s whining about anything except you, ‘Christian’? I only pointed out the stupidity of your comment and before that offering suggestions as to how to solve the problem Andy has.
What’s your suggestion along these lines? Do you have years of experience upon which to base an opinion or are you just commenting because you’ve got fuck all else to do?
Please stick to whatever it is you know about.
Comment by faceless — 3 November, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
You are certainly an expert on rude online behaviour, faceless - anyone can see that. But you’re right - I’m winding you up because I have a couple free minutes on my hand, and you are just too tempting a target what with all the pomposity you display. If you managed to take yourself a bit less seriously for a minute you’d be so much less hilarious. So please don’t!
Comment by christian h. — 3 November, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
I quite agree Andy.
Robert Fisk describes the internet as an ‘arena of hate’ - hence the reason he takes nothing to do with it, not even using emails.
The internet selfish macho bullshit is one of the reasons there aren’t that many lady bloggers or lady commenteers, I believe. Maybe I’m wrong.
Of course, there are blogs which do enjoy the more ‘robust’ approach to discussion and debate, and that’s all part of the cultural diversity that comes with freedom of expression.
However, when confrontation and agression is all there is on the internet, it does get a bit much.
all the best
Comment by joe90 kane — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
“You are certainly an expert on rude online behaviour”
The real shame here is that you can only focus on my lesser skills.
Run along.
Comment by faceless — 4 November, 2009 @ 1:06 am
Excellent post. This book explains more of the phenomenon:
http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=134279&SubjectId=1366&Subject2Id=1377
Comment by Digimodernist — 4 November, 2009 @ 11:14 am