‘Shut up woman, don’t you know grownups are talking’?


by Sunny
16th November, 2009 at 2:20 pm    

Laurie Penny of PennyRed fame wrote an article for the new blog The Samosa about Harry’s Place. Her main problem was:

Whilst most contributors to sites such as Harry’s Place or MPACUK attempt to maintain at least a façade of tolerance, a scan of the comments to the average article reveals reams of virulent and poorly understood dogma, much of it founded on ignorance, racism and religious intolerance.

It is a truth universally acknowledged by anyone who has spent time moderating blog comments that as well as being a brilliant place to share ideas and force the pace of social change, the blogosphere has a tendency to lure idiots, bigots and bullies from their hiding places. Such is the case in comments threads of both camps in this debate. Not content with hosting frothing wingnuts, however, Harry’s Place has pursued what has been seen as a ‘witch-hunt’ against any Muslim or Muslim-ally who does not fit the site editors’ strict definitions of ‘moderation’; to whit, near non-involvement in politics.

Can’t really argue with that. Of course, Marcus does, with hilarity. The best way to sum up his response is actually done by Neil Robertson, who says:

In other words: “sit down you silly little girl, this is grown folks business”. Whilst I wouldn’t care to speculate about the age of this particular author, the argument Marcus makes here is often used by people who’ve gotten too old to remember how seethingly furious they were when someone directed it at them. Well, they say we all turn into our parents one day.

As for the crass jibes about her background, these are the kinds of resentments & class jealousies which only nullify any argument you’re trying to make: when you can’t tell whether the writer’s statements are born out of logic & rationality or some disdain for people from a different background, there’s really no incentive to accept them as valid or relevant. Really, it’s little more than an exercise in self-defeat.
….
But it’s posts like this which give HP the reputation for bullying and sectarianism which Laurie was decrying. The habit of singling individuals out and ‘exposing’ them as morally or intellectually deficient doesn’t speak well of the site, particularly when the writers claim to be interested in some of the big international debates of our time.

In other words Marcus ironically fulfils the precise job-description that Laurie actually points at. Marcus clearly can’t do irony that well.

Speaking of witch-hunts, I can point most recently to the pathetic smear-attempt of Mehdi Hasan at the New Statesman, which failed so badly the only people who cite it without a hint of embarrassment are the traditional bunch of neo-con loons.

But on to the main point, which Marcus only half-heartedly tackles:

Like good anti-racists we don’t care what colour these people are either. This stance used to be pretty non-controversial on the left.

But the same could go lefties who weren’t supposed to make excuses for states that: shower innocent people with White Phosphorous, do not allow investigation of war-crimes, demand censorship, attack humanitarian missions, keeps building illegal settlements that de-stabilise the entire region… etc etc.

Or perhaps we can all accept there are shades of grey here. Israel sometimes acts legitimately and sometimes illegally. Muslims groups sometimes make mistakes and sometimes there are loons, sometimes lefties make mistakes in allying with some Muslim groups but most of the time they only want to ensure anti-Islamism is not being used as a cover for racism.

Which is why it’s impossible to classify, for me, Harry’s Place as a leftie blog, because their primary enemy is the left. Most of the writers and commenters there have convinced themselves that the left is in bed with Islamists (and that Islamists are everywhere) to the point that attacking Muslims and lefties is now 90% of their content.

Last year they were even attacking the left for not speaking out about Sri Lanka enough, while doing exactly the same. Similarly, they keep attacking others for having an obsession about Israel, while at the same time running a blog that is obsessed by Muslims.

The attack on Laurie, not really addressing her points but attacking her for being some sort of a leftie they don’t like (oooh look at her, she went to Oxford! How dare she call herself an authentic leftie? It’s only salt-of-the-earth working class boys like us can do that!) is precisely why that blog no longer makes entertaining and useful reading that it once did. Sad really. But Marcus just reinforces the stereotype.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Blog,Islamists,Media,Race politics






140 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Lee Chalmers

    RT @pickledpolitics: Blog post:: 'Shut up woman, don't you know grownups are talking'? http://bit.ly/1GeO7P


  2. pickles

    Blog post:: 'Shut up woman, don't you know grownups are talking'? http://bit.ly/1GeO7P




  1. Leon — on 16th November, 2009 at 8:42 am  

    Ok blog traffic raising 101

    1) Start a beef with HP, it's easy, there's plenty of nasty crap on there in the comments and sometimes above the line
    2) Sit back under moral superiority which gives you cover becauase you're wasting everyones time with this crap but you know it's 'their' fault so screw it
    3) Ignore backlash against said HP attacks
    4) See 3
    5) See 3
    6) See 3
    7) See 3
    8) Tell everyone off, claiming they're trying to control you
    9) See 3
    10) Pretend to admit you've gone overboard, keep doing 8.), then resort to 3)

  2. Leon — on 16th November, 2009 at 5:25 am  

    The Samosa's site makes my eyes hurt. There's too much content thrown at you at once.

    Not sure how different it is from PP tbh other than it's rather tepid line about 'bridging media and blogging' and something about arts…that said wish it well, will read with interest and hope they get a decent layout designer in one day. :)

  3. chairwoman — on 16th November, 2009 at 5:38 am  

    For goodness sake Sunny, life is not all about foreign policy.

    Do you think that HP is a supporter of British right wing parties.

    Your obsession with Harry's Place and I/P is becoming unbecoming.

    Politics begins at home.

  4. douglas clark — on 16th November, 2009 at 5:51 am  

    chairwoman,

    Have you read the comments on the HP thread?

    I'm just asking.

    They have form for this sort of thing….

  5. cjcjc — on 16th November, 2009 at 7:03 am  

    They support Israel do they?

    Fascists!

  6. Laban — on 16th November, 2009 at 7:40 am  

    “The habit of singling individuals out and ‘exposing’ them as morally or intellectually deficient doesn’t speak well of the site”

    M. Pot, may I introduce Mme Kettle ?

  7. Laurie Penny — on 16th November, 2009 at 7:55 am  

    Thanks Sunny That piece made me cross too. I was so cross, I slapped nanny right in the face when she brought me my afternoon milk and biscuits. :D

  8. Brownie — on 16th November, 2009 at 7:59 am  

    Have you read the comments on the HP thread?

    If Penny had restricted herself to observations about HP comments threads and those who inhabit them, then her article would have elicited a great big fat “so what?”, at least from me. We've done that argument – the one about how laissez-faire the moderation should be on any blog – to death. You pays your money and all that. But Penny didn't stick to the comments. She also said this:

    Not content with hosting frothing wingnuts, however, Harry’s Place has pursued what has been seen as a ‘witch-hunt’ against any Muslim or Muslim-ally who does not fit the site editors’ strict definitions of ‘moderation’; to whit, near non-involvement in politics.

    Here, she's talking about the editorial line. She's claiming we come down hard on any and all Muslims who have the temerity to rasie their heads above the political parapet. It's an out-and-out lie and even some of our fiercest criticis would recognise it as such. She's effectively labelling us anti-Muslim bigots – that's the authors, not the commenters. In response, some people have referred to her as a “poor little rich girl”, or words to that effect. Given she's writing bare-faced lies about us, I'd say she's getting off lightly, whatever the de/merits of such comments about her.

    An evidence-free hatchet job and misrepresentation of the political motivation of the HP site authors, versus snidey comments about her (self-acknowledged) privileged background?

    truly, my heart bleeds.

  9. Brownie — on 16th November, 2009 at 8:03 am  

    Oh, and it's “to wit”, Laurie. “To whit” is something an owl might say.

  10. Leon — on 16th November, 2009 at 8:43 am  

    Bollox, done that in haste and fucked the numbers, how the hell do you edit on this new bloody comment thing?! Screw, the point I'm making is clear…

  11. BenSix — on 16th November, 2009 at 8:56 am  

    Oh, let's not be sensible! Without inter-blog catfights, what are these damn things for? On which subject, I hear Laurie once held a door open for somebody who looked like a member of the SWP…

  12. Refresh — on 16th November, 2009 at 9:21 am  

    Thanks for the link to Samosa – It looks like a blog worth keeping an eye on.

    Laurie's article is actually very good, although she is far far too gentle on HP.

    It troubles me to think that even now there seem to be some who seem to wish to rehabiliate that 'warmongers' charter', known as the Euston Manifesto (HP commenter).

    Laurie's own blog is excellent – or at least the article on the knicker girl is excellent (note though I am still not settled on a view whether, knicker girl should or should not have been sacked as a teaching assistant) for the way she takes on Quentin Letts.

  13. douglas clark — on 16th November, 2009 at 9:34 am  

    Brownie, Marcus let loose the dogs of war, and you know it. My disagreement with the way you conduct your web site is that you know exactly who your fans are, and you know exactly what they are likely to say. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

    Isn't Graham one of your authors?

    By the way your web site is running a parallel campaign against Osama Saeed, who seems to have fairly mainstream – near BMSD – attitudes. Would you like to tell everyone here, why exactly?

  14. Refresh — on 16th November, 2009 at 9:51 am  

    Douglas,

    What is this parallel website called? I was guessing The Spittoon, but perhaps there is another?

  15. douglas clark — on 16th November, 2009 at 10:04 am  

    Refresh,

    No, it's just another thread on Harrys' Place. See here:

    http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/11/16/osama-sa

    Although the Spittoon has had a go at him too.

    This is a recent speech by Osama Saeed.

    http://scottishislamic.wordpress.com/2009/09/22

  16. Rumbold — on 16th November, 2009 at 10:23 am  

    I don't know why people are being so hard on HP. Marcus had to get permission from his mine supervisor to go t' surface and write this piece.

    Any reasonable criticisms of Laurie's post just got lost in an unpleasant hatchet piece by HP.

  17. Libertyphile — on 16th November, 2009 at 10:26 am  

    I think a problem with Laurie Penny’s article lies in her statement:

    <quote>Whilst most contributors to sites such as Harry’s Place or MPACUK attempt to maintain at least a façade of tolerance, a scan of the comments to the average article reveals reams of virulent and poorly understood dogma, much of it founded on ignorance, racism and religious intolerance.<unquote>

    On the one hand she says “MOST [emphasis added] contributors to sites such as Harry’s Place … attempt to maintain at least a façade of tolerance” yet “a scan of the comments to the average article reveals REAMS [emphasis added] of virulent and poorly understood dogma, much of it founded on ignorance, racism and religious INTOLERANCE [emphasis added]“

    Some contradiction in there, I think. Possibly her attempt to be fair has made her undermine her own attack.

    As a regular reader of HP, PP and MPACUK I would say their proportions of outrageous commentators (as I see it) are much the same, par for the course. That's the blogosphere.

    Though all three sites are obsessed with a particular issue (which I won't mention because you can guess what it is).

  18. David O'Keefe — on 16th November, 2009 at 10:30 am  

    I feel for HP, everyone and when I say everyone, I'm talking about myself has made a idiot of themselves on a blog, but they don't seem to learn anything. HP is behaving like a millenarium sect, they have a manichean view of the world, their are a eurabian conspiracy theorists in the comments to most posts and they want to censor/sack the non-believers, Its all gone a little bit Waco.

    Rumbold: How did he pay the mine owner?

  19. Fojee Punjabi — on 16th November, 2009 at 10:43 am  

    HAR HAAAR! :D

  20. Roger — on 16th November, 2009 at 11:17 am  

    “it’s impossible to classify… Harry’s Place as a leftie blog, because their primary enemy is the left.”

    Surely that is proof that they're lefties? Look at any leftie blog and their main targets are other so-called lefties.

  21. katynewton — on 16th November, 2009 at 11:57 am  

    The attack on Laurie, not really addressing her points but attacking her for being some sort of a leftie they don’t like … is precisely why that blog no longer makes entertaining and useful reading that it once did. Sad really.

    I think I might just have died of irony.

  22. chris y — on 16th November, 2009 at 12:13 pm  

    Good grief, is Old Harry's Place still going, I had no idea? What a sad waste of bandwidth.

  23. chris y — on 16th November, 2009 at 12:14 pm  

    Good grief, is Old Harry's Place still going, I had no idea? What a sad waste of bandwidth.

  24. Sunny H — on 16th November, 2009 at 12:29 pm  

    She's claiming we come down hard on any and all Muslims who have the temerity to rasie their heads above the political parapet. It's an out-and-out lie

    I just gave the example of Mehdi Hasan above.

    And then there's other examples like criticising Obama's rep for having the temerity to appear on a TV channel you guys don't like (forget what she actually said, she appeared on it!) etc etc. I can offer plenty more such examples.

  25. douglas clark — on 16th November, 2009 at 12:42 pm  

    I can offer plenty more such examples.

    I think most folk know how Harrys' Place works these days. Apart, obviously, from Brownie…..

  26. Graham — on 16th November, 2009 at 12:55 pm  

    To have Douglas Clark (who often arrives at HP screaming and cursing and looking for a fight and does an encore of misinterpreting what everyone is saying before throwing out insults which would be rejected by an eight year old) commenting on what nasty bullies Hp are is just about the funniest thing I have read this week.

    Keep it up please!

  27. Sunny H — on 16th November, 2009 at 1:10 pm  

    Do you think that HP is a supporter of British right wing parties.

    Your obsession with Harry's Place and I/P is becoming unbecoming.

    Given the sneering that regularly takes place there at feminists and especially environmental protesters or any student politics, I'm not merely referring to right-wing parties.

    Besides, just saying you're for Labour doesn't make you left-wing. There's a big difference.

  28. Brownie — on 16th November, 2009 at 1:12 pm  

    By the way your web site is running a parallel campaign against Osama Saeed, who seems to have fairly mainstream – near BMSD – attitudes. Would you like to tell everyone here, why exactly?

    You're kinda making one of my points but I'm not exactly astonished to see that you don't relaise this.

    What I know about Osama Saeed you could write on the back of a pack of Embassy. I'd say the same goes for Graham and Gene and one or two others. We do, however, have two Scottish authors on the blog who are, would you believe it, mildly interested in Scottish politics. Of course, thanks to our totally open comments policy, you are free to comment on any post attacking Saeed and put up the stalwart defence you think he deserves.

    The point is that, contrary to the mistaken belief that PP likes to promote, there is no editorial line at HP, only a collection of authors – some more active than others – who share a loose left/centre-left affinity but all of whom have different interests and even disagree from time to time.

    Whacky, eh?

  29. douglas clark — on 16th November, 2009 at 1:19 pm  

    Oh! Hello Graham.

    Is this tag team between you and Brownie?

    Here is a quote from the incisive, brilliant Graham about Laurie Penny. Are we all sitting comfortably? Now I'll begin:

    Oh fuck right off. This nonsense was posted in my thread yesterday without any reference to what I have personally argued about religion or Islam. I will criticise this spoilt little girl in any way I want.

    Graham, as Brownie won't tell me, are you still on their roster? Do they still accept your posts?

    Graham, fuck right off. You are a very spoilt little boy and I will criticise you in any way I want.

    It is impossible to misrepresent a complete utter idiot.

  30. Brownie — on 16th November, 2009 at 1:21 pm  

    I just gave the example of Mehdi Hasan above.

    Sorry to break it to you, Sunny, but the accusation was that we don't brook politcal commentray from any Muslim. That we think the only good Muslim is a quiet Muslim who knows his or her place. Pointing out that some Muslims have been on the receiving end of HP posts falls a very long way short of proving what you think it does.

    If someone accused me of disagreeing with every post that's ever appeared at PP, how many examples of support for PP posts do you think I need to produce to utterly and successfully refute such a claim?

  31. Graham — on 16th November, 2009 at 1:23 pm  

    It is impossible to misrepresent a complete utter idiot.

    see what I mean? Childish ad hominems!

    Thanks for proving my point (and the blatant absurd hypocrisy of this post) Douglas.

  32. Graham — on 16th November, 2009 at 1:25 pm  

    By the way me talking about “my thread yesterday” ought to give you a clue as to whether they accept my posts.

    Duh!

  33. douglas clark — on 16th November, 2009 at 1:26 pm  

    Graham,

    Err….

    The original ad hominems were yours.

    Case closed.

  34. Graham — on 16th November, 2009 at 1:29 pm  

    Douglas.

    Aren't you forgetting something? I don't give a crap about ad hominems – it is you and PP who are getting on your high moral horse about language.

    Jesus where did you dig him up from? Really?

  35. Brownie — on 16th November, 2009 at 1:33 pm  

    Brownie, Marcus let loose the dogs of war, and you know it.

    Sunny 4 days ago in one of his posts:

    I was going to make a joke the other day, going by some of our more rabid commenters

    “Some of our more rabid commenters”? Whatever does he mean, Douglas?

    Sunny, can you help out Dougie? Who are these rabid commenters infesting your comments boxes? And how many are they? Be sure to let me know when I'm entitled to conflate the utterings of the more “rabid” members of your commentariat with the editorial line and political motivation of you, Rumbold et al. I wouldn't want to miss that.

  36. Sunny H — on 16th November, 2009 at 1:36 pm  

    Pointing out that some Muslims have been on the receiving end of HP posts falls a very long way short of proving what you think it does.

    Sorry Brownie, but the comparison doesn't hold up. There aren't that many high-profile Muslims in the media or public life. And of the few there are, you've taken a pot-shot at most. Especially if they speak out against the war in Iraq or Israel's attack on Lebanon/Gaza.

    Perhaps you could name one or two people to the contrary?

    In fact pointing out that a few like Mehdi Hasan have been on the receiving end shows exactly what I mean – you guys dedicated a three part series to smearing someone on the basis of a quote that was twisted out of context and used to generalise and make loads of assumptions that don't hold true. People were calling him an Islamist on the basis of that. That kind of shoddy blogging says that you're more interested in hit-jobs than serious discussions.

  37. douglas clark — on 16th November, 2009 at 1:51 pm  

    Graham, No you don't give a crap about ad hominems when you are handing them out. That is fucking obvious. Graham, lets try it this way around. Try making a case rather than being the complete utter ballsy little turd that you are. And try making it here…

    Bet you couldn't put an arguement together. All you do is vituperation and shit like that. Lets see you out of your comfort zone. Where not everyone is stupid, nor your choir.

  38. douglas clark — on 16th November, 2009 at 1:56 pm  

    I posted a comment about Brownies apology for himself, and it has completely disappeared!

    I tried to say this:

    Brownie:

    What I know about Osama Saeed you could write on the back of a pack of Embassy.

    And that give you some sort of editorial right to print stuff?

    I'll ask you again. Why?

  39. Graham — on 16th November, 2009 at 1:56 pm  

    Graham, No you don't give a crap about ad hominems when you are handing them out. That is fucking obvious

    And what else would be obvious (if you had actually read the thread you are commenting on) would be that I don't care when anyone hands them back either!

    My case for your hypocrisy is proved – I don't feel the need to trouble this place any longer!

  40. Graham — on 16th November, 2009 at 1:58 pm  

    Sorry Brownie, but the comparison doesn't hold up. There aren't that many high-profile Muslims in the media or public life. And of the few there are, you've taken a pot-shot at most.

    Oh but just before I go I can confirm that I have never as much as once seen brownie take a “pot shot” at any muslim. This kind of “bullying” (for which no proof could ever be found or offered) is becoming the stock in trade here – pity really.

  41. Sunny H — on 16th November, 2009 at 2:06 pm  

    Oh but just before I go I can confirm that I have never as much as once seen brownie take a “pot shot” at any muslim.

    talking about HP, not Brownie specifically.

    As for “rabid commenters” I meant poeple like Reza and Marvin.
    Douglas may get angry but he's never once made racist comments about people. But I can name you several long-standing HP commenters who do regularly. Would you like me to?

  42. douglas clark — on 16th November, 2009 at 2:06 pm  

    Graham,

    For fucks sake, what was I have meant to miss? You are a genius at handing out insults, in fact you are very Victorian when it comes to that. What you cannot take is criticism, for it flows off of an impermeable back. Much like a Victorian in a cape.

    The problem you have Graham is that quite a lot of folk read this blog, and it is up to them to decide whether your lunacy cuts it or not.

  43. Brownie — on 16th November, 2009 at 2:11 pm  

    Sorry Brownie, but the comparison doesn't hold up. There aren't that many high-profile Muslims in the media or public life. And of the few there are, you've taken a pot-shot at most. Especially if they speak out against the war in Iraq or Israel's attack on Lebanon/Gaza

    Someone who speaks out against the war will likely be taken to task by HP authors, but not because they are Muslim if indeed they are. Hence dozens of posts about Galloway and countless other non-Muslims. I can't believe I acutally need to make this point. So far as “Israel's attacks on Lebanon/Gaza”, a faithful reader of HP like yourself will know that there was disagreement between the bloody authors on both the fact Israel moved into Lebanon and also the nature of the repsonse in Gaza. But don't let that stop you.

    Do you agree Ed Husain is a Muslim? If you do, then your and Laurie's claim about what HP authors do has just been holed below the waterline, has it not?

  44. Brownie — on 16th November, 2009 at 2:15 pm  

    And that gives you some sort of editorial right to print stuff?

    I don't need a “right” as it's a blog and I can write what I like within the law. But since you ask, I've never written a single word about Saeed, precisley because I know so little about the bloke. Some of us do that: shut up when it comes to subject we know nothing about, I mean.

    I trust you'll accept that, since I've never typed a word about Saeed at HP, I have no need to answer your question as to “why” I'm engaged in my non-existent campaign against him.

    I'll have whatever you're drinking.

  45. Mark T — on 16th November, 2009 at 2:17 pm  

    “I just gave the example of Mehdi Hasan above.”

    Err, Sunny, the specific allegation was that HP subjected 'any Muslim' (note – any Muslim, not just a few examples you feel like picking out) who does not have 'near non-involvement in politics' to a 'witch-hunt'.

    Are you sure you want to try and continue defending this bollocks?

  46. Brownie — on 16th November, 2009 at 2:18 pm  

    But I can name you several long-standing HP commenters who do regularly. Would you like me to?

    Regularly post racist comments? Will you be supplying evidence with the names, or just the names?

    Sunny. If you do come up with any cast-iron examples of overt racism from commenters, I bet I can find comments in the same thread from authors and other commenters who take the racist commenter to task.

  47. douglas clark — on 16th November, 2009 at 2:19 pm  

    Brownie,

    Fucks sake.

    How desperate are you?

    Your tag team buddy here is Graham.

    Answer the question.

    Why do you – not your collective of the mad Graham, etc – think that Harrys' Place should be quite so anti Osama Saeed?

    You have said you know little about Scottish politics and yet…..

    Advancing the case of Anas Sarwar is hunky dory with you?

    Brownie, I don't actually understand how an honourable man such as you ends up with chums like Graham.

    Explain.

    I really don't.

  48. Graham — on 16th November, 2009 at 2:38 pm  

    talking about HP, not Brownie specifically.

    But as Brownie has pointed out you can't talk about “HP” you need to talk about single posters. I suspect that what has happened is that you and DavidT have had a lovers tiff and because he will not argue in the comments boxes you want to spray grapeshot at everyone.
    And there is your problem with naming HP's racist commenters. Because for everyone you can name I can show you a thread where either I or Brownie have argued with them (you know that because you have been on several such threads yourself.) This scattergun approach is exactly what I objected too with Laurie Penny.

    “The problem you have Graham is that quite a lot of folk read this blog, and it is up to them to decide whether your lunacy cuts it or not.”

    Thanks. I know the majority here are honest people and will be able to clearly read what has been said and make their own judgements.

  49. Brownie — on 16th November, 2009 at 2:41 pm  

    Why do you – not your collective of the mad Graham, etc – think that Harrys' Place should be quite so anti Osama Saeed?

    Shall I say it again? I barely know who the fuck he is. What I know of him I've read at HP. Or rather, I haven't read at HP, as I've skipped most of those posts.

    Given this, any opinion I have – and I don't have one, by the way – about “why” some HP authors are anti-Saeed is utterly worthless. So I've got no idea why you are so insistent I venture what would be a thoroughly uninformed opinion about something I care so little about.

    Seriously, are you for real?

  50. Graham — on 16th November, 2009 at 2:45 pm  

    I have communicated in the past with Osama Saeed in the past and found him very helpful (Alec McPherson will confirm that I was saying this just yesterday). But again as Brownie says I have very little to do with Scottish politics – it is surely best to take to task those who you actually feel are misrepresenting what he says.

  51. douglas clark — on 16th November, 2009 at 2:54 pm  

    Graham,

    You are an annoying little flea, so you are.

    Could you explain whether Harrys' Place took you to it bosom or not? I seem to recall you writing shite above the line. Would that be right Graham?

    Brownie is completelty silent on that issue. Or, frankly, on any issue whatsoever.

    ————————————————————

    I think I can talk about Harrys' Place as an incoherent bunch of fruitcakes.

    I really do.

    For that is what you and Brownie and Harry actually are…

    A bunch of fruitcakes.

    Well, young Graham….

  52. Graham — on 16th November, 2009 at 3:01 pm  

    Douglas. I cannot explain why Harry asked me to write for HP. Perhaps he thought that as someone who actually worked with the disadvantaged I would provide a foil for the increasingly media-wannabe blogosphere who appear to think “the left” is their London media friends rather than those who attempt to do something for the actually deprived.

    I was as surprised as you when he asked and have always expected HP to find someone better. I have never been convinced that you can change much by way of a blog rather than getting your hands dirty and so have never taken childish blog wars very seriously. If someone appears on HP who seems to be a twit such as yourself, Lee John Barnes of the BNP or Laurie (who it must be said seems less of a twit now she has shown up) I see no reason to waste time debating them – laughing is the best weapon don't you think?

    Anyway cocoa time tara

  53. douglas clark — on 16th November, 2009 at 3:10 pm  

    Yup.

    laughing is the best weapon.

    who seems to be a twit such as yourself,

    Charmed me off a fence that did….

  54. Refresh — on 16th November, 2009 at 3:16 pm  

    I always get the feeling a new thread on HP is like feeding time at the zoo. You have posters who know what will have their pet piranhas nibbling and crocodiles scurrying into the pit that is the comment section.

    I personally don't care whether a blog is open to muslims or not. Those lines were drawn too long ago for me to get agitated about. I mean we had our own little Sid who would call anyone an islamist if he ever was cornered (I think in the end it was everybody, that probably included Sunny). I see Sid is now out there prospering, with Effendi, sat around the Spittoon gobbing at each other – with HP patronage.

    HP succeeded in one thing, promoting war: They promoted the war in Iraq, helped blunt the anti-war voices and started the groundwork for an attack on Iran.

    Their characteristic vindictiveness developed out of the need to silence anti-war dissent. As does their choice of topics and guests.

    The best thing they ever did, was to develop and promote an ideology. An ideological framework for guilt-free warmaking. It was called the Euston Manifesto. That one single act did for them. The generous would put them in the Kooks category; I would have them under permanent surveillance.

  55. KB Player — on 16th November, 2009 at 3:39 pm  

    In fact pointing out that a few like Mehdi Hasan have been on the receiving end shows exactly what I mean – you guys dedicated a three part series to smearing someone on the basis of a quote that was twisted out of context and used to generalise and make loads of assumptions that don't hold true. People were calling him an Islamist on the basis of that.

    Three parts were too much. One would have been enough. It’s odd that people were calling him an Islamist since the posts quite explicitly said he wasn’t. He himself responded though that he had been accused of being an Islamist. I thought the whole affair threw interesting light on a) his reading skills and b) that he thought a good defence for abusing non-believers as inferior was that it wasn’t him saying so, but the Qu’ran. Very weird behaviour for the Politics Editor (Senior) of the New Statesman. But, yes, three posts were too much.

    (BTW, hate to moan, but this new comments format is very fussy – I preferred your old one).

  56. Brownie — on 16th November, 2009 at 3:40 pm  

    An ideological framework for guilt-free warmaking. It was called the Euston Manifesto.

    Yeah, this is going to come as something of a surprise to those signatories who were implacably and publicly opposed to the war, but what does logic have to do with anything you've written?

  57. Mark T — on 16th November, 2009 at 3:45 pm  

    Embarrassing behaviour from Laurie on her blog, spraying around utterly misplaced accusations of sexism at Brownie, and then shutting down the comments when her errors are pointed out to her.

  58. Brownie — on 16th November, 2009 at 3:46 pm  

    I dobut anyone's interested, but Laurie Penny has just spent the last couple hours at her blog defneding a false accusation that I called her “a silly cow”. When finally cornered on this, she chose to close the thread rather than retract.

    Who is it being witch-hunted again?

    She also opened her final comment to me with:

    “No darling”.

    I asked her how much slack I'd have been cut had I done something similar. Her response was to delete.

    Classy.

  59. Refresh — on 16th November, 2009 at 3:55 pm  

    Brownie,

    Who are these who signed your charter, but are/were opposed to the Iraq invasion?

    They would make for a very interesting study.

  60. Graham — on 16th November, 2009 at 3:58 pm  

    I've been blogging so long that I'm now being attacked by Catherine Bennett's Grandaughter…

  61. Brownie — on 16th November, 2009 at 4:11 pm  

    Refresh,

    If you're planning on conducting a study, you'll probably want to get used to that search engine of yours.

    But I doubt the study wil be nearly as interesting as you think, given, you know, that there is nothing whatsoever contradictory about supporting the EM and opposing the war in Iraq. That you think there is is your own confusion.

  62. Sunny H — on 16th November, 2009 at 4:16 pm  

    Sunny. If you do come up with any cast-iron examples of overt racism from commenters, I bet I can find comments in the same thread from authors and other commenters who take the racist commenter to task.

    Oh gimme a break. I could spend the whole day here posting examples of comments that make generalisations about Muslims and ethnic minorities generally that would get deleted immediately if they were about Jews (quite rightly). And yet because Muslims as a 'community' are somehow classed a religion (Islam is the religion, not Muslims, in the same was Judaism is the religion and Jews are a community – I'm sure you're aware of this already) – people get away with it. Josh Scholar and Morgoth are the two that immediately spring to mind.

    Saying you condemn them isn't really good enough. You know why? Because HP regularly links to places like CIF as examples of anti-semitism, but the same happens there (anti-semites are condemned, as well as deleted). You have a blog called CIF Watch – regularly promoted on HP, which not only spends most of its time attacking Jews on CIF for being too centrist, but also for picking up anti-semitic comments as example the entire Guardian is one big conspiracy. And yet if the same standards were to be applied to HP, you guys start complaining. I'm sorry, it rings very hollow.

    This scattergun approach is exactly what I objected too with Laurie Penny.

    This doesn't really work because in fact you condemn others for exactly the same. CIF is the prime example. The Guardian and the BBC generally are portrayed as media organs who are against Jews without any nuance at what's going on. Organisations such as HRW and Amnesty are also regularly smeared without looking at the context.

    You can't really point at soecific authors because tis sort of content eminates from everyone. Graham, you and Brownie rarely write for it any more. Instead we have a range of conspiracy nuts who post as 'Your View' (Lucy Lips is a good example) that end up tarring others with the same brush.

    So either HP stops painting broad brushes, or you don't complain when others do the same with you.

    In this case Marcus' incredibly pathetic jibe at Laurie's background and the ad hominems I expect only reinforce that stereotype. And that doesn't even include the constant barrage of invective supposed lefties like Brett hurl an environmentalists or student politics.

    You know, the thing about Trots is they dislike others who do things differently to them. The problem with some HP posters is they take this further – they not only dislike lefties who do things differently to them, but also dislike it if those said lefties aren't following their exact agenda as well.

    Perhaps you two, along with Venchika and Wardytron, would form a blog for ex-HP writers who go back to basics.

    It’s odd that people were calling him an Islamist since the posts quite explicitly said he wasn’t. He himself responded though that he had been accused of being an Islamist.

    I have emails leaked to me, from a person who regularly is offered a spot on HP, that called him much worse than an Islamist. Behind the scenes people were calling him all sorts of things… let alone the HP comments boxes.

  63. Ben — on 16th November, 2009 at 4:21 pm  

    Actually, I wanted to apologise for saying she was in the Labour Party when in fact she simply writes about it from a position of seemingly critical support, and on Labour List. But the blogoshere moved onto new cud whilst I was pottering around the real world. I hate it when that happens.

    Anyway, I don't like inaccuracies, you see. Which is one of the reasons I don't like this thread. The accusations against HP and its authors (and indeed the vast majority of impeccably anti-racist, anti-bigotry commenters) here are frankly laughable. Parts of the Left are so convinced of their moral superiority that they don't have too much trouble playing fast and loose with facts about what opponents think. HP is much less bad with respect to this than the harder left it often criticises.

    Hilarious that Penny has run away from debate on her blog; one imagines this is because her initial accusations were utterly outrageous. But she is especially one for belief in the shining righteousness of her own position.

  64. marvin — on 16th November, 2009 at 4:24 pm  

    As for “rabid commenters” I meant poeple like Reza and Marvin.

    Being a right-leaning centrist, that puts you out pretty far left Sunny.

    I've been blogging so long that I'm now being attacked by Catherine Bennett's Grandaughter…

    I met Catherine once, shortly after she had attended the 'dancing slags' trial. She, I shit you not, asked me if I'd see Stand By Me. I had indeed. She said she had felt the men on trial for the attempted slaughter of clubbers were like the boys in that film.

  65. Brownie — on 16th November, 2009 at 4:34 pm  

    You have a blog called CIF Watch

    Do we?

    – regularly promoted on HP,

    Is it?

    which not only spends most of its time attacking Jews on CIF for being too centrist, but also for picking up anti-semitic comments as example the entire Guardian is one big conspiracy. And yet if the same standards were to be applied to HP, you guys start complaining.

    Sunny, the same standards ARE applied to HP. YOU ARE APPLYING THEM.

    Let's try this out:

    I agree that condenmation of the entire Guardian online enterprise because of both the presence of some self-avowed anti-Semites at CiF and also its occasional platforming of Islamists and Islamist sympathisers is out of order. I don't do it and most of our more sensible commenters don't do it. but insofar as some do – and I know they do – I think they are idiots. I actually work with some of the Guardian online staff now and again (although they have no idea who I am) and I am fairly certain they are not part of an anti-democratic conspiracy.

    Now, will you reciprocate? Will you accept that a misrepsentation of HP on the back of some of the things its more militant commenters might say is likewise unfair? Some of these commenters might be more active than others but they are few in number when the whole community is considered.

    So where do you stand? I'm clear that this sort of extrapolation from the extremes is disingenuous in the extreme, whether the Guardian or HP is the victim. What say you?

  66. Brownie — on 16th November, 2009 at 4:40 pm  

    So either HP stops painting broad brushes, or you don't complain when others do the same with you.

    This is where your argument falls apart, Sunny. You decry the use of a broadbrush as it is applied to the Guardian, the BBC, etc.., but use it against HP. In other wrods, you're not even defending the validity of your own position (pace broadbrushes being 'bad'); you're just doing it because you say HP does it. What sort of argument is that?

  67. Graham — on 16th November, 2009 at 4:41 pm  

    This doesn't really work because in fact you condemn others for exactly the same. CIF is the prime example

    I don't think I have ever criticised CIF (for the simple reason I don't usually have time to read it.) I do read the Guardian and have probably laughed at the BBC for its middle-class content. But on the whole I'm with Venichka rather than Morgoth on its benefits.

    You can't really point at soecific authors because tis sort of content eminates from everyone.

    How can it eminate from everyone if we rarely post? Basically what pissed me off about Penny was that I posted a thread totally unconnected to anything you have mentioned and someone turned up and plonked her nonsense down in the middle of it. You are targetting and arguing with people who don't even know who “Lucy Lips” is. As for “backgrounds” as I pointed out on Marcus' thread that people were getting called “council house scum” without a word being said on another thread. In that context it is pathetic to argue that Marcus' gentle ribbing was “bullying” this person. If that were the case then (as we have seen with Douglas) a good two thirds of the blogosphere would be “bullies”.

  68. Sunny H — on 16th November, 2009 at 4:47 pm  

    Basically what pissed me off about Penny was that I posted a thread totally unconnected to anything you have mentioned and someone turned up and plonked her nonsense down in the middle of it.

    Wait a second. She didn't mention Graham or Brownie did she? Neither did I. In fact there are regularly comments made about Pickled Politics on HP even though Rumbold and I disagree on a range of things. So why don't they get picked up.

    On HP everyone else is seen through broad brushes. When someone fails to offer a blow-by-blow account of all the offensive comments and blog posts on HP, and name names, then the two least offensive writers turn upand claim they feel hurt.

    Guys you kwnow what they say. You lie down with dogs and you'll catch fleas.

  69. Brownie — on 16th November, 2009 at 4:48 pm  

    Sunny,

    When Hasan wrote about the HP attack on his blog, he claimed we'd called him an “Islamist”. We hadn't, although one or maybe two commenters did.

    So,

    1 – Hasan makes a speech.
    2 – We write a critical blog about the speech (like KB, I thought one post was enough)
    3 – Hasan repsonds to the comments.

    See the problem?

    I have emails leaked to me, from a person who regularly is offered a spot on HP, that called him much worse than an Islamist.

    Private emails are private emails. No doubt everything you've ever said about HP and its authors has been printed at PP, but the fact is it's totally out of order to invoke private correspondence in defence of misrepresentations by Hasan when there's no way he had evidence that worse was being said about him in private correspondence. He was supposed to be responding to our critique of him, and instead he selected the loopiest comments he could find in the threads and claimed this fairly represented our position.

    Transparently disingenuous.

  70. Sunny H — on 16th November, 2009 at 4:49 pm  

    Brownie: . I don't do it and most of our more sensible commenters don't do it. but insofar as some do – and I know they do – I think they are idiots.

    I suggest you start reading your own blog a lot more. In fact this is done regularly. And CIF Watch is promoted regularly and they do exactly that too. Your attempts to say 'wasn't me guv' – just don't stand up at all when applied to HP editorials.

  71. Graham — on 16th November, 2009 at 4:57 pm  

    Wait a second. She didn't mention Graham or Brownie did she? Neither did I

    The comment concerned was this:

    Sectarianism and bigotry is rife on certain websites engagging in mutal loathing and demonisation of communites and cultures. http://www.thesamosa.co.uk has a piece re this.

    If that was put in one of your threads you would (quite rightly IMHO) suspect it was aimed at you. Likewise if somebody said “the tory party are all racists” you might find it was the few members who were very active in anti-racism who would object most strongly?

    Surely that is simple?

    And who exactly are these “dogs” we are supposedly lying with anyway? And what is an HP editorial?

  72. Sunny H — on 16th November, 2009 at 5:15 pm  

    1 – Hasan makes a speech.
    2 – We write a critical blog about the speech (like KB, I thought one post was enough)

    That's quite funny. If you'd simply published a blog saying we want to ask what Mehdi Hasan thinks about this, that would be VERY different to a announced 3 part series that claims to show how one of UK's oldest left-magazines is now employing a guy who thinks al non-Muslims are cattle…

    You really expect me to buy this 'we just blogged about it guv' line? The whole thing was a hatchet job comparable to The SUn's hatchet job on Prof Nutt's sons. Even regular HP readers said they were embarrassed by it. Don't try and play it down.

    he could find in the threads and claimed this fairly represented our position.

    Oh you have a joint position now do you? I thought some anonymous dude came to some HP editor and they published it without exercising any judgement… and you guys were just bystanders?

    The position, if there was one, was that the New Statesman had abandoned its traditional left-liberal anti-religious route and jumped in bed with a guy who thought non-Muslims were cattle. That much was pretty obvious.

    Likewise if somebody said “the tory party are all racists” you might find it was the few members who were very active in anti-racism who would object most strongly?

    I'll await the day that writers on HP stop making generalisations about other Muslim and human rights groups…. then this sort of complaint would make sense.

  73. Graham — on 16th November, 2009 at 5:23 pm  

    I'll await the day that writers on HP stop making generalisations about other Muslim and human rights groups…. then this sort of complaint would make sense.

    What would make more sense is if you actually targetted the people that you have disagreements with – then the rest of us wouldn't waste your time with arguments like this. I mean I can see how Penny needs the exposure of aiming a big blunderbuss at HP – but you surely dont.

  74. Brownie — on 16th November, 2009 at 5:31 pm  

    Sunny, I've been clear that I object to the application of broadbrushes that attempt to smear by association. You seem to be equivocating at best. You definitely think it's wrong when used against the Guaridan or BBC, but you're less concerned when the target is HP. Do you want me to take you seriously, or don't you care?

    Quickly on Hasan, I've already said here and said at the time that I thought there was insufficient material for 3 blogs on Hasan. I didn't think there was much of an expose to be had. One post was enough. But Hasan claiming the HP position was something said in a comments box is a cheap trick and although you won't admit it, you know I'm right about that.

    Also, the last post on anything written by Hasan was supportive and went out, ooh, last week. Not that there's a snowball in hell's chance this will register anywhere in your consciousness.

    As for lying down with fleas, you did a post a few days ago in which you talked about your more “rabid” commenters. Who are they? How many are they? Will you let us know when they reach the critical mass that justifies using these rabid commenters as a proxy for the thoughts of the blog authors? What is it about your comments moderation policy and editorial content that means you attrack “rabid” commenters?

    It it's a choice between fleas and rabies, I'll take my chances with the fleas.

  75. Brownie — on 16th November, 2009 at 5:40 pm  

    I suggest you start reading your own blog a lot more.

    No, Sunny, to arrive at the same conclusions as you I need only start to read as selectively.

    You've decided X, so off you trot to HP lookng for eveidence of X. When you find Y, you think you've stumbled upon proof of X when you've merely clsoed the loop on your self-fulfilling prophecy.

    G'night.

  76. Refresh — on 16th November, 2009 at 5:46 pm  

    Brownie,

    I believe the rabid commenters Sunny referred to are the ones we would expect to see unchallenged on HP and most likely encouraged.

    With regards the Euston Manifesto I read it at the time, with great interest; and noted that it was backing the neocon agenda to the hilt and then some. So how people who were anti-war and against the invasion of Iraq could have backed it is beyond me. So naturally it would be counter-intuitive for me to use the search engine to look for people who signed up to your charter and opposed the war. So help me out, give us a clue.

  77. douglas clark — on 16th November, 2009 at 7:31 pm  

    Perhaps. Perhaps also Brownie didn't seem to realise quite what a cheap piece of shite you actually were. I'd be interested if this post actually survived whatever editing processes appear to be in place. The whole point of saying Graham is a piece of shite seems to have been lost somewhere about here.

  78. douglas clark — on 16th November, 2009 at 7:59 pm  

    Sunny,

    What the fuck is going on? I have quoted the rather idiotic Graham a few times. These quotes seem to have disappeared.

  79. Libertyphile — on 16th November, 2009 at 10:07 pm  

    Regarding Mehdi Hasan's speech has anyone actually listened to the whole of it? The last part is downright scary! Archbishop Cranmer gives a good write up at:

    http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/09/

  80. Sunny H — on 17th November, 2009 at 12:02 am  

    douglas – no idea, but it may have been moderated out by one of the others for bad language.

    No, Sunny, to arrive at the same conclusions as you I need only start to read as selectively.

    Heh. That's your answer to everything. But then, there's a lot of people saying it, so I don't feel I'm out on a limb here. If you do, fair enough, doesn't change my assessment though.

    What would make more sense is if you actually targetted the people that you have disagreements with – then the rest of us wouldn't waste your time with arguments like this.

    Well, in this post I actually did. And usually – I actually do. I've objected to various posts by Brett, Marcus (incl here), Lucy Lips and a range of other people. But you know, most of the time I dont bother writing it up because it looks petty. But in this case I clearly pointed out that Marcus' pathetic riposte to Laurie fell into the exact stereotype she pointed out. If you don't buy it for yourself – fine – but you weren't explicitly named.

  81. douglas clark — on 17th November, 2009 at 12:06 am  

    So, Graham, you are a commentator above the line on Harrys' Place?

    I too, think that is a bit of a laugh when you write shite below the line. Which you do. It tends to break down the Harrys' Place meme that polite chaps write above the line and only rude boys write below it. For you apparently do both.

    Would this be you, perhaps, writing in the comments?

    Oh I have seen it all now. Douglas Clark (the Pickled Politics attack dog who sometimes slimes over here just to insult and misinterpret everyone) is on Laurie’s blog complaining about bullying on HP!

    I have not had as big a laugh since that beach ball appeared on the pitch and scored a goal at liverpool!

    Neither have I!

    Eh!

    Slimes? Not really. I think you are slime, but saying that doesn't make me so. You really are a bit of a tit.

  82. douglas clark — on 17th November, 2009 at 12:20 am  

    Graham, Just in case the linked comment left you by, or excused your lack of a competent answer, much like Brownie who defends Harrys' Place through ignorance of what is said there. You know the script. You, probably know too how pathetic it seems when you are dragged out into the daylight and away from your friends of the night. You probably can't answer for your pathetic barbs. Harrys' Place has become a cess pool for people like you.

    Anyway, this is you:

    Oh well looks like a silly little girl demanded the right not to be called a silly little girl, stamped her feet a bit and ended up looking more like a silly little girl than ever.

    I don't think so.

  83. douglas clark — on 17th November, 2009 at 12:28 am  

    Sunny, Err.. yes on the bad language front. Graham tends to do that to me. What a complete utter fucking lunatic….

  84. Reza — on 17th November, 2009 at 1:46 am  

    At least you get discussion and debate on HP. Most people attack the argument rather than the person.

    Here, you get only sniping and bitching. Always the same pattern.

    Sunny posts an article and bitches inarticulately about it.

    Anyone that disagrees is either insulted or called a Nazi.

    His sorry band of paranoid conspiracy theorists all join in the bitching and ad hominem attacks.

    So pathetic. So boring.

  85. douglas clark — on 17th November, 2009 at 1:55 am  

    Brownie,

    Why do you – not your collective of the mad Graham, etc – think that Harrys' Place should be quite so anti Osama Saeed?

    Shall I say it again? I barely know who the fuck he is. What I know of him I've read at HP. Or rather, I haven't read at HP, as I've skipped most of those posts.

    Given this, any opinion I have – and I don't have one, by the way – about “why” some HP authors are anti-Saeed is utterly worthless. So I've got no idea why you are so insistent I venture what would be a thoroughly uninformed opinion about something I care so little about.

    Seriously, are you for real?

    It is you, sir, that attempts to come on here and argue pro Harrys' Place and apparently doesn't know what is said there. It is a wonder to me how you can do that, but there you go.

    Quite frankly, the 'above the line', 'below the line' arguement that you have perpetrated for so long falls apart completely when authors are also commentators. See your good chum Graham admitting as much here.

    Frankly Brownie, I think better of you than as an apologist for Harry's Place. But the evidence for that viewpoint is tending to sag.

    It is, perhaps, beholden to me to ask, are you for real?

  86. douglas clark — on 17th November, 2009 at 2:12 am  

    Reza, That was satire, right? We are talking about a woman being attacked on Harry's Place for being, err, a woman, and young and a graduate from some posh Southern University. Is that what we are talking about or not? There is no confounding evidence that folk there don't attack the person rather than the arguement. Unless they are a
    wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie.

    Then, of course, one would fit right in and ignore the aggression.

  87. Reza — on 17th November, 2009 at 2:24 am  

    Douglas

    “We are talking about a woman being attacked on Harry's Place for being, err, a woman, and young and a graduate from some posh Southern University.”

    Sure it happens. In the heat of a debate, there's been times I've attacked you personally and visa versa. And it's always wrong and I regret it. But you and I sometimes actually debate. Generally, you will find a degree of debate on HP.

    Here, you’ll seldom find debate. It's either Sunny’s ethnic lefties agreeing with each other or joining together in ad hominem attacks against those who don't agree with them.

    Surely you've noticed that?

    You don't get that infantile mob mentality at HP.

    And you won't find such a bitching and pathetic subject for debate as this one there either.

  88. Rumbold — on 17th November, 2009 at 2:29 am  

    I don't see Marvin as an extremist commentor. He just disagrees a lot.

    Graham and Marcus:

    The problem wasn't so much that you responded to Laurie by defending HP (which I rather like most of the time), but that it came off as a deeply personal attack. You sneered at her background, invalidated her views because of her age (which is bizarre- either you think someone has a good point or not, whether they are five or fifty), and generally came across as very unpleasant.

  89. Reza — on 17th November, 2009 at 3:07 am  

    Rumbold

    “…but that it came off as a deeply personal attack….”

    It’s difficult to imagine HP being so petty and undignified as to start a debate on Sunny’s propensity to insult or personally attack those who disagree with him.

  90. paulmoloney — on 17th November, 2009 at 3:31 am  

    Pickled Politics & HP; it's this season's Socialist Unity & SWP.

    P.

  91. Random Guy — on 17th November, 2009 at 3:38 am  

    HP is where all the bullshitters go to play and reinforce their own points of view. Its a dead-end for any type of debate. And really, 'dignity' should not be used in the same sentence as HP as far as I am concerned.

  92. Brownie — on 17th November, 2009 at 6:24 am  

    I've given up with Dougie given he regards my lack of intimacy with Osama Saeed and his writings as somehow indicative of my guilt. I mean, what do you say to such a charge? Except “see you later, pal”, I mean?

    But Rumbold:

    The problem wasn't so much that you responded to Laurie by defending HP (which I rather like most of the time), but that it came off as a deeply personal attack.

    Depp breaths…at best, she implied we – the authors – were anti-Muslim bigots. At worst – and this is a more accurate interpretation of her article – she called us racists.

    On your scale of what is a “deeply personal attack”, where exactly does a false charge of racism/bigotry sit?

    Given I suspect you're not in the business of “rather liking” blogs authored by bigots and racist, I take it I can assume you regard Laurie's central charge against HP as complete and utter bullshit? To focus on a handful of (admittedly) unpleasant remarks about Laurie whilst remaining silent on the baseless accusation that kicked off this shitstorm is just a little suspect, wouldn't you say?

    I mean, you're obviously free to comment on whatever you like, but there are obvious conclusions to be drawn when someone determines a false charge of racism/bigotry is unworthy of comment but the angry response it elicits is.

  93. Jai — on 17th November, 2009 at 6:24 am  

    His sorry band of paranoid conspiracy theorists all join in the bitching and ad hominem attacks.

    A very recent example of one of “Reza's” own paranoid conspiracy theories :

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6505#co

    So that’s your answer isn’t it? Race replacement. Only when the indigenous British become a minority can your bitter, revenge-motivated Utopia come to pass. Then you’ll get even. For colonialism. For the fact that the culture and values of your parents or grandparents weren’t the ones that created this advanced society. For the fact that this country is a far better place to live than the backward sh*t-holes most of your ancestors hail from. For all the sins of ‘whitey’. You’ll get even.

  94. douglas clark — on 17th November, 2009 at 6:37 am  

    Reza, Sure, you and I disagree a lot. There have also been the odd occasions when we have agreed with each other. As far as I recall, I haven't called you nasty names nor vice versa. We have both attacked each others opinions and it would be a dull world if we didn't. But neither of us have a huge number of followers willing to disrupt that debate.

  95. douglas clark — on 17th November, 2009 at 6:40 am  

    Brownie,

    I'll say it again. You came on here to defend Harrys Place, and you don't even know what you are defending.

  96. Brownie — on 17th November, 2009 at 6:45 am  

    You came on here to defend Harrys Place, and you don't even know what you are defending.

    On the general point that HP is palyground for bigots and racists that exist above and below the line, I'm defending HP, yes. On the specific question of what HP is saying about Osama Saeed, I said:

    a – I wasn't aware there was a camapgin, and
    b – Who is Osama Saeed?

    There are upwards of a dozen posts on HP some days and literally hundreds of comments. I'm not intimately acquainted with every subject. So shoot me.

  97. persephone — on 17th November, 2009 at 6:58 am  

    I'm feeling quite sorry for Brownie.

    Brownie comes to visit PP from another place but receives a hostile welcome for retaining his/her beliefs from said place.

    And Brownie, I am sure you are not racist. As I am sure you are named after either a delicious chocolate cake or a Girl Guides organisation.

  98. Reza — on 17th November, 2009 at 6:59 am  

    douglas

    But unfortunately, the default MO of many on this blog is to attack the person rather than the argument. (As yet another of Jai's pathetic posts below exemplifies.)

    That attitude begins with the blog owner and trickles down to his impressionable minions, throwing out offensive insults such as “Nazi”.

    All in all, this creates an unpleasant atmosphere that promotes escalating hostility. I know that I’ve succumbed to that myself and worded comments in a confrontational and hostile style that I’ve subsequently regretted.

    Perhaps this blog is a microcosm of the political environment people create when they embrace the ad hominem. A situation that I see far more often on left-wing blogs.

    Ultimately I expect people will go away feeling that the left haven’t got an argument.

    That’s certainly the conclusion I’ve come to.

  99. persephone — on 17th November, 2009 at 7:27 am  

    This greivance of ad hominemism is an interesting one.

    Especially when a commenter uses their self volunteered personal details to project an image to gain validity for their stance on said debate. As no one forces a commenter to reveal details about themselves it leads to the debate and the personal becoming inextricably linked.

    I suppose the moral of the story is not to give out personal details when debating to retain focus on what is being discussed. Since, in a true and genuine debate, it should not matter what a person is when they present a view.

  100. Jai — on 17th November, 2009 at 7:35 am  

    But unfortunately, the default MO of many on this blog is to attack the person rather than the argument. (As yet another of Jai's pathetic posts below exemplifies.)

    So, we have another example of the default MO of “Reza”:

    1. “Reza” claims that people opposing him on this blog are guilty of engaging in “paranoid conspiracy theories” and “ad hominem attacks”.
    2. Someone provides a direct quote by “Reza”, containing one of his own paranoid conspiracy theories and explicitly racist ad hominem attacks.
    3. “Reza” then complains that this is a “pathetic post” involving…..an ad hominem attack.

    With absolutely no sense of irony.

  101. Reza — on 17th November, 2009 at 8:02 am  

    persephone

    “I suppose the moral of the story is not to give out personal details when debating to retain focus on what is being discussed. Since, in a true and genuine debate, it should not matter what a person is when they present a view.”

    I couldn't agree more.

    However, I introduced my (now hotly disputed) ancestral background in response to accusations of being a ‘white’ BNP stooge or ‘Nazi’ white supremacist thrown out at the onset of my commenting on PP.

    Sunny started it. You and a few others perpetuated it in a surreal environment of paranoid conspiracy. But I’m going to end it.

    I know who I am, where I was born and the life experiences that have shaped my views.

    I couldn’t give a damn what you think. Your opinion is worthless to me.

    I’ll continue to post here from time to time because I don’t believe that it’s healthy for lefties to believe that their views have any consensus among the majority.

    And I don’t believe that the bitching, denial and irrational and unsubstantiated pronouncements making up the bulk of Sunny’s posts should go unchallenged.

    But, unless you feel moved to refute my points in reasoned debate, I’ll ask you to simply ignore me.

  102. RedSeaPedestrian — on 17th November, 2009 at 8:16 am  

    “”I always get the feeling a new thread on HP is like feeding time at the zoo. You have posters who know what will have their pet piranhas nibbling and crocodiles scurrying into the pit that is the comment section.”

    I know. So why does Sunny keep posting them?

  103. Ravi Naik — on 17th November, 2009 at 9:08 am  

    Sunny started it. You and a few others perpetuated it in a surreal environment of paranoid conspiracy. But I’m going to end it.

    Surreal? Paranoid? You wrote this:

    So that’s your answer isn’t it? Race replacement. Only when the indigenous British become a minority can your bitter, revenge-motivated Utopia come to pass. Then you’ll get even. For colonialism. For the fact that the culture and values of your parents or grandparents weren’t the ones that created this advanced society. For the fact that this country is a far better place to live than the backward sh*t-holes most of your ancestors hail from. For all the sins of ‘whitey’. You’ll get even.

    Let's talk rational here. Can you explain how an Iranian who moved to this country when he was young, who married an English woman, has mixed-raced children, tells others that they are trying to replace the racial composition of this country? And why an Iranian immigrant would use the clueless white supremacist narrative that non-Europeans did not contribute anything – including arts and science – to this country? And the things you say about Iran are absolutely astounding, like when you said that Islam is indigenous to Iran.

  104. Refresh — on 17th November, 2009 at 9:37 am  

    RedSeaPedestrian – so sharp, so funny.

    Brownie, I do think Laurie is one of the few bloggers that has captured the essence of HP.

  105. Reza — on 17th November, 2009 at 9:37 am  

    Look Jai, you keep addressing me so I’ll try to answer you.

    I’ve already apologised to you for the tone of that statement. It was deliberately offensive and aggressive.

    I made it in a debate that became increasingly unpleasant due to the constant personal attacks being made against me.

    I also acknowledged soon after that I believe that Iran is a “relative shithole”. That’s why my parents relocated to Britain. (Not that that would have any effect on someone who believes my claimed ancestral origin is bogus.)

    So I oppose mass immigration, multiculturalism and RAPID demographic change. I don’t believe that only ‘white’ people can have a monopoly on those views. Because if ‘racism’ still has any meaning, it’s surely ‘racist’ to believe that.

    I also post evidence, over and over again, to demonstrate that the majority of British people share my view.

    I like living in Britain. I’d like it to continue to feel ‘British’. But rapid mass immigration IS changing its character.

    As Christopher Caldwell demonstrates in “Reflections on the Revolution In Europe”, you can’t have the same society with different people in it.

    That’s what I believe. I like belonging to an ‘ethnic’ minority. In time my descendants will dissolve into the ether of British identity. They’ll assimilate.

    I NEVER want to live in a community where the people of my ancestral homeland are in a majority.

    Because that would no longer be ‘Britain’.

    I understand you viewpoint without agreeing with it. I can’t see how you can’t understand mine without assuming that I must be a ‘white’ person pretending to be something else.

    Finally Jai, as I said to Persephone, feel free to refute my views in reasoned debate. And I’ll answer you. But from now on, I’m simply going to ignore personal attacks and paranoid accusations.

    If that’s how you feel, ignore me.

  106. Reza — on 17th November, 2009 at 9:40 am  

    Sorry Ravi, I should have addressed that comment to you and not Jai.

  107. persephone — on 17th November, 2009 at 10:29 am  

    ” I introduced my (now hotly disputed) ancestral background in response to accusations of being a ‘white’ BNP stooge or ‘Nazi’ white supremacist thrown out at the onset of my commenting on PP.”

    The selection, by your own volition, of a commomly known Iranian first name was the actual start of that.

    “But I’m going to end it.”

    So you are going to stop the deliberately incendiary, far right, inaccurate, hate filled messaging.

    “ I couldn’t give a damn what you think. Your opinion is worthless to me.”

    I realise that. Since I do not fit the engineered profile of an Islam hating, leftie asian it does not serve your purpose… if my opinion is worthless why the wish to silence me…

    “ And I don’t believe that the bitching, denial and irrational and unsubstantiated pronouncements making up the bulk …. should go unchallenged.”

    That is why you are where you are now.

    “ unless you feel moved to refute my points in reasoned debate, I’ll ask you to simply ignore me.”

    As this site is a progressive site you need to think long and hard about your 'commentary' as many commenters will not let you drive a backward dialogue. And silencing me and others is not debate.

  108. Jai — on 17th November, 2009 at 10:33 am  

    Persephone, Ravi,

    However, I introduced my (now hotly disputed) ancestral background in response to accusations of being a ‘white’ BNP stooge or ‘Nazi’ white supremacist thrown out at the onset of my commenting on PP……Sunny started it. You and a few others perpetuated it in a surreal environment of paranoid conspiracy.

    That quote by “Reza”, amongst numerous others, is a prime example of the issues with his perceptions and behaviour. Because it's not even remotely an accurate description of the sequence of events or the timeframe involved.

    It was actually several months before anyone started questioning “Reza's” claims about his background. And at that point, Sunny certainly wasn't the first person to comment on it — several other people did, after which Sunny briefly voiced similar suspicions.

    It's like when “Reza” recently accused several commenters (myself included) of repeatedly insulting his parents……even though not one single commenter on this website has ever made any disparaging remarks about his parents at all.

    “Reza” subsequently withdrew the accusation aimed at me when I challenged him to provide URL links and specific quotes, although he maintained that he “remembered” other commenters making offensive remarks along those lines.

    Again, this is indicative of a deeper psychological problem — assuming that “Reza” wasn't deliberately lying, it's a sign of either “false memory syndrome” or even incidents of psychotic hallucinations. And that's on top of repeated episodes of “psychological projection”, as demonstrated on this thread along with numerous others on previous occasions.

  109. persephone — on 17th November, 2009 at 11:04 am  

    I think theres another malady he shares with Fojee Punjabi (who on the ex soldier with gun post mistook Kulvinder for Dalbir) in that Reza mistook Ravi with you.

    Its either because all asian names look the same or they are commenting on so many different sites that they are getting confused.

    He also maintains he has been called a Nazi on this site but I cannot recall that, far right yes, but not Nazi.

  110. Rumbold — on 17th November, 2009 at 11:16 am  

    Marcus:

    Laurie was wrong to accuse you of attacking Muslims indiscriminately. It was a lazy reading of a site that does a lot of good, and her criticisms smack more of a snap judgement based on HP's reputation than a proper reading of it. But that doesn't make it right to then go and tear into her character, her age, her background etc. You should be able to respond to people's points rationally. Either ignore her or point out where she was wrong. You overstepped the mark.

  111. Jai — on 17th November, 2009 at 11:34 am  

    Persephone,

    All this actually reminds me of the Glenn Beck-style “I'm just speaking for the common man” approach which was recently so brilliantly parodied on South Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dances_with_Smurfs ).

    For example:

    Reza: Are Muslims inherently unassimilable and secretly plotting to take over this country as commanded by Islam and as indicated by “explosive demographic growth”, regardless of their own religious beliefs, regardless of what version of Islam they believe in, regardless of which part of the world their ancestry actually lies in, regardless of the history of Muslims in that region, and regardless of class & socioeconomic background ? Maybe. Maybe not. But how can we know ?

    X: White people make up 90% of the population of this country. Non-white Brits, Muslim or not, aren’t going to “take over” Britain or outnumber the majority population.

    Reza: Yes, but “explosive demographic growth” —

    X: So you keep saying.

    Reza: I think you’ll find that my views are a far more accurate representation of what the vast majority of ‘indigenous’ British people really think compared to minority multi-culti lefties like you.

    X: You're making wild claims to speak for “the silent majority” just like Anjem Choudary does when he claims that Al Muhajiroun represents the voice of most Muslims in Britain.

    Reza: No I'm not. My views really do represent what everyone else is really thinking.

    X: You've also made explicitly racist remarks on this website.

    Reza: I may have occasionally got carried away in the heat of the moment, but I still stand by my basic points. And I hate the BNP and their racist views.

    X: You said “So that’s your answer isn’t it? Race replacement. Only when the indigenous British become a minority can your bitter, revenge-motivated Utopia come to pass. Then you’ll get even. For colonialism. For the fact that the culture and values of your parents or grandparents weren’t the ones that created this advanced society. For the fact that this country is a far better place to live than the backward sh*t-holes most of your ancestors hail from. For all the sins of ‘whitey’. You’ll get even.”

    Reza: But I didn't specifically call anyone a “P*ki”.

    X: Are you claiming that quote isn't racist ?

    Reza: What's racist about it ?

    X: You seriously don't know ?

    Reza: Look, I'm sick of lefties like you…..

    X: I'm not a leftie.

    Reza: …..with your paranoid conspiracy theories, unsubstantiated pronouncements and ad hominem attacks.

    X: That quote by you is an example of one of your paranoid conspiracy theories.

    Reza: No it isn't.

    X: It also contains unsubstantiated pronouncements.

    Reza: No it doesn't.

    X: And it includes ad hominem attacks.

    Reza: That's not true. Why can't you lefties…..

    X: I'm not a leftie.

    Reza: If you contradict me then you must be a leftie. Or an Islamist sympathiser. Or both. As I was saying, why can't you lefties discuss anything without resorting to paranoid conspiracy theories, unsubstantiated pronouncements and ad hominem attacks ?

    X: I'm pointing out that you're repeatedly guilty of that kind of behaviour yourself.

    Reza: That statement in itself is a paranoid conspiracy theory, an unsubstantiated pronouncement and an ad hominem attack. And stop calling me a “Nazi”.

    X: I've never called you a Nazi.

    Reza: I sense a deep resentment, bordering on hatred, of the 'indigenous' people, culture and history of Britain. The kind of mindset that results in a resentment and envy of indigenous British people, their history, culture and values and the desire to change, undermine and even destroy them.

    X: You don't think that statement is a paranoid conspiracy theory, an unsubstantiated pronouncement, and an ad hominem attack ?

    Reza: Look, if you're just going to resort to denial and insults instead of debating the topic at hand, just ignore me.

    X: I see.

    Reza: That response alone shows what an unassimilable foreigner you really are, with your deep resentment and hatred of the host nation, your deep envy of the client state, your desire to impose your alien minority culture and religion on the indigenous people of this country, your multi-culti agenda, and your parasitic beliefs imported from the backward sh*tholes that most of your ancestors hail from.

    X: Interesting.

    Reza: I’m not a racist.

  112. marvin — on 17th November, 2009 at 11:42 am  

    I don't I don't see Marvin as an extremist commentor. He just disagrees a lot.Marvin as an extremist commentor. He just disagrees akyh hy.

  113. Rumbold — on 17th November, 2009 at 1:25 pm  

    No, you haven't Marvin. I think Sunny was just jesting.

  114. Sunny H — on 17th November, 2009 at 2:51 pm  

    As I said above: Harry's Place content is now 90% about with Muslims or about attacking the left.

    The amusing thing with that its authors regularly attack others, most notably the Guardian, for being *obsessed* with Jews, and by extension being an outlet for anti-semitism. And yet the same rules are not applied to their own editorials.

    Hey, people can be obessed with Muslims if they want. But that doesn't mean people will look at you funny. And furthermore, a blog can attack the left if it wants with gusto every day. But that doesn't make it left-wing I'm afraid.

  115. Ben — on 17th November, 2009 at 4:01 pm  

    But suggesting that minority ethnic groups should vote Conservative is a fine example of progressive values in action…

  116. Reza — on 18th November, 2009 at 2:41 am  

    “He also maintains he has been called a Nazi on this site but I cannot recall that, far right yes, but not Nazi.”

    Here’s an example from Sunny:-

    “Nazi fuckwit.”

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6318#co

    There have been other instances, but that’s one can I remember off the top of my head.

  117. Refresh — on 18th November, 2009 at 2:42 am  

    I have a feeling, what really hurt HP was being told that they are a mirror of MPACUK. I expect MPACUK would be equally displeased with being compared to HP.

    Both are ghettos. Laurie has challenged them both to break out. HP came out snarling.

  118. Ravi Naik — on 18th November, 2009 at 3:48 am  

    There have been other instances, but that’s one can I remember off the top of my head.

    There is a classic Seinfeld episode where Seinfeld thinks his dentist converted to judaism so that he could tell jokes about Jews. And I think that's what you tried to do – pose as a non-white so that you could get away writing racist neo-nazi crap like this:

    So that’s your answer isn’t it? Race replacement. Only when the indigenous British become a minority can your bitter, revenge-motivated Utopia come to pass. Then you’ll get even. For colonialism. For the fact that the culture and values of your parents or grandparents weren’t the ones that created this advanced society. For the fact that this country is a far better place to live than the backward sh*t-holes most of your ancestors hail from. For all the sins of ‘whitey’. You’ll get even.

    See if you understand: the neo-nazi crap wrote is WRONG no matter who tells it, and being (in your case pretending to be) non-white is no excuse to use this language.

  119. persephone — on 18th November, 2009 at 4:13 am  

    I see now. You are referring to that occasion (after months of posters being very civil with you) but you make it sound as if it is an oft repeated allegation to your innocent debating when in reality you make far right pronouncements & introduce conspiracy theories – as per the example given by Ravi Naik.

    There is no justification that a sane, well balanced and progressive audience should tolerate such hatred.

    And any stance built on such outright hatred is not a good basis for a long term strategy.

  120. Jai — on 18th November, 2009 at 7:29 am  

    There have been other instances, but that’s one can I remember off the top of my head.

    Apart from the single incident involving Sunny several months after “Reza” started commenting on this website, there have been no other instances where “Reza” has been called a “Nazi” by any other commenters on Pickled Politics (prior to Ravi's usage of the term “neo-nazi” on this thread).

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=site:www

    As I said earlier, the fact that “Reza” claims that there have been multiple other instances (albeit not any that he can remember “off the top of his head”) is indicative of a deeper psychological & behavioural problem on his part.

  121. Graham — on 18th November, 2009 at 11:55 am  

    ” But that doesn't make it right to then go and tear into her character, her age, her background etc. You should be able to respond to people's points rationally. Either ignore her or point out where she was wrong. You overstepped the mark.”

    Thanks Rumbold.

    Can I remind you that the worst thing I called Laurie Penny was “a silly little girl” and that in response one of her supporters called me a paedophile?

    Keeping things in proportion can be deeply unpleasant :-)

  122. douglas clark — on 18th November, 2009 at 12:44 pm  

    Graham,

    Well you did rather compare her to a sexually transmitted disease, but perhaps you forgot that:

    Harrys Place, 16th Nov 2009, 4:50pm

    “Graham and Marcus, in a multitude of senses, you are the disease you seek to cure.”

    No. We are the vaccine and you are a particularly annoying STD which has disguised itself as a different ailment entirely.

    Now when you turn up and express shock and all your wally-vill middle-class “niceities” that someone on these threads is being called “council house scum” I might be willing to listen to you – until then fuck off and eat your tofu burger because as far as I’m concerned you are toast.

  123. Brownie — on 18th November, 2009 at 12:55 pm  

    But that doesn't make it right to then go and tear into her character, her age, her background etc. You should be able to respond to people's points rationally. Either ignore her or point out where she was wrong. You overstepped the mark.

    What could constitute a greater attack on one's character than a suggestion one might be a racist, a bigot, or a bully? “Respond to her points”? You make it sound like she was disagreeing with the font used at HP. She frickin' smeared us!

    “That's right, officer. I simply kicked away the blind man's stick and spat in his face when an angry mob began directing invective towards me”.

  124. Graham — on 18th November, 2009 at 1:12 pm  

    Douglas

    Try again

    That comment was made to Tom wotsisname – the Tory MP lookalike from Woking – now please stop being dishonest you have made a big enough fool of yourself on this thread already.

  125. Graham — on 18th November, 2009 at 1:14 pm  

    Can Rumbold perhaps tell us where the mark is? At the point where someone is called a paedophile (which I always see as an admittance of utter total defeat) or at the point where they are called silly?

    Just so I can get an idea of his morality like.

  126. douglas clark — on 18th November, 2009 at 1:19 pm  

    Graham,

    Here's your whole post:

    Graham
    16 November 2009, 4:50 pm

    Being attacked because of my age, sex, class and background is something that I’m used to, especially when people can’t find enough points in my actual writing to disagree with.

    Got you both ways this time then didn’t we :-)

    Secondly, whether or not she is is of total irrelevance to the value of the points she makes and is a transparent attempt to conduct this conversation on an ad hominem basis, i.e. avoid the real issues.

    Thirdly, bullying comments based on age and class should have no place in this movement.

    What movement? I’d rather be part of a bowel movement than share anything with the likes of you.

    the real issue to me is (as pointed out above) that someone posted this stinking heap of cow manure on my thread yesterday without as much as taking into account what I had said about Islamism and islam in the past.

    Graham and Marcus, in a multitude of senses, you are the disease you seek to cure.

    No. We are the vaccine and you are a particularly annoying STD which has disguised itself as a different ailment entirely.

    Now when you turn up and express shock and all your wally-vill middle-class “niceities” that someone on these threads is being called “council house scum” I might be willing to listen to you – until then fuck off and eat your tofu burger because as far as I’m concerned you are toast.

  127. douglas clark — on 18th November, 2009 at 1:21 pm  

    Are you telling me that some Tory MP wrote that?

  128. Graham — on 18th November, 2009 at 1:22 pm  

    So now you are suggesting that I said “Graham and Marcus, in a mulititude of senses , you are the disease you seek to cure” ?

    That's part of my post?

    Bwahahaha!

    If you are going to edit Dougie at least make it look credible

  129. Graham — on 18th November, 2009 at 1:29 pm  

    Let's try and help you out:

    Tom Miller 16 November 2009, 2:44 pm

    “Spoilt little girl seems to me to be a simple description which does exactly what it says on the tin. Interesting that people seem to be using Political Correctness to defend class interests.”

    What a load of rubbish. Firstly, Laurie is hardly well off.

    Secondly, whether or not she is is of total irrelevance to the value of the points she makes and is a transparent attempt to conduct this conversation on an ad hominem basis, i.e. avoid the real issues.

    Thirdly, bullying comments based on age and class should have no place in this movement. If an MPAC article called her a silly little girl, you lot would be up in arms.

    Fourth, the left will fail overall as soon as it endorses arbitrary identity discrimination against its own, and as long as it continues to disrespect participants in debate by focussing on their person rather than their arguments in themselves.

    Graham and Marcus, in a multitude of senses, you are the disease you seek to cure.

    Graham 16 November 2009, 4:50 pm

    (Quoting Tom Miller) :”Graham and Marcus, in a multitude of senses, you are the disease you seek to cure.”

    No. We are the vaccine and you are a particularly annoying STD which has disguised itself as a different ailment entirely etc….

    Dear oh Dear Dougie

  130. douglas clark — on 18th November, 2009 at 1:40 pm  

    OK, so you called someone else a sexually transmitted disease. Feel better now?

  131. Graham — on 18th November, 2009 at 1:45 pm  

    Yes. I called someone a disease in response to being called a disease.

    Wow :-)

  132. douglas clark — on 18th November, 2009 at 2:31 pm  

    Graham,

    I accept that you did not call Laurie Penny an STD, although that is less than obvious from your post of 19th Nov @ 4:50pm. I had to read a lot of background to give you the 'Get Out of Jail' card I've just given you. Perhaps you could be bothered to allocate quotes when they are from different people?

    But you are still quite a happy camper in the gross insult, the grossness of just being a rudeboy, aren't you?

  133. Graham — on 18th November, 2009 at 2:42 pm  

    What jail? As I said long ago above I don't care in the slightest about online insults – it is you and Rumbold who are moralising about them (in your case rather hilariously!)

  134. Graham — on 18th November, 2009 at 2:45 pm  

    Anyway (and whether he believes it or not) I have too much respect for Sunny to hang around here indulging in a pointless spat.

  135. douglas clark — on 18th November, 2009 at 3:25 pm  

    Graham,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEnJDaqT3-0&feat

    For I do not believe in you……

  136. Ben — on 18th November, 2009 at 4:05 pm  

    Did Douglas Clark just say he was going to stalk Graham, through the medium of music?

    Wow.

    Did he run over your cat, Douglas?

  137. Graham — on 18th November, 2009 at 4:54 pm  

    “Don't stand, don't sand, don't stand so close to me”

    And certainly you don't have to put on the red light…

    Please!

  138. Rumbold — on 19th November, 2009 at 2:54 am  

    Graham:

    I was referring to Marcus' post, not a single comment. I do think devoting an entire post to attacking someone's background and character is going over the top. No, I cannot define exactly where the line is crossed, but if you devote a whole post to it, it is too much.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.