As for having a say in editorial policy why would I want that? I just blog occasionally (you are not part of some incredible world-historical event here you know – you are just typing a few words on a screen). So who cares if I am “left holding the baby” (always given there is a baby to hold) but since you have not defined what you think the baby is we are still communicating in the abstract – which is pointless. You may have some great metanarrative about what is going on in your mind but I don't so it is probably best the rest of us leave you to thinking up great punishments for what is going to happen to bloggers when the terrible hand of justice strikes for whatever “crimes” you have imagined up.

Anyway it has been ….diverting.

For a loaded question, I thought I responded directly and to the point. BTW I do think that would be the response you'd get if we thought your were being 'difficult' with your wife.

Coming back to the question of plausible deniability – would it not make sense to actually insist that you have a say in editorial policy than be left holding the baby. Or resign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

Anyway I'm bored now – off for some intellectual stimulation – tara

“You now Douglas is loony, and yet only few short comments back you were inviting him to be your best buddy. And even invited him to address the Pit with your blessing.”

Well the buddy thing was obviously ironic and it was Brownie who offered him a post so I gues you get about half a point right from the two available.

http://www.spittoon.biz/

I would not dare. And you wouldn't harm a hair on yours if she was around! She'd have your nuts thrust down your throat without a second thought. So do you really want to tell me when you beat yours?

You now Douglas is loony, and yet only few short comments back you were inviting him to be your best buddy. And even invited him to address the Pit with your blessing.

Name and shame, I say.

Dunno, never read it (and the only time I ever conversed with Sid he was doing a very poor impression of an interagtor which was not dissimilar to your own.

Could also be argued that it is just the trueh – then you could counter-argue that we were just dupes of some higher power that had an editorial policy. Pretty soon we would have written a science fiction novel (and that would be a much better use of typing than this!

“Given the nature of HP, it would seem to an observer that the target fitted the profile HP seeks to undermine.”

Only it is you who has both defined nature of HP and decided the profile it seeks to undermine – so given that there is no room for anyone to have a meaningful discussion with you.

“Claiming, 'nothing to do with me guv' is a tactic, but not a good one.”

It is however honest and a slightly better tactic than inventing straw men and then trying to get others to agree with you that they are in fact real.

And I am afraid Douglas is a loony.

Douglas is saying that denying that there is NO editorial policy is a very poor defence, and in fact it could be reasonably be argued is a policy in itself.

However, the 'no editorial' policy cannot be true given that people invited to post have the propensity to mobilise the pit. As for whathisname is concerned, he must have been given the space because it targetted an individual in this case Osama Saeed, a candidate for the SNP.

Given the nature of HP, it would seem to an observer that the target fitted the profile HP seeks to undermine.

Claiming, 'nothing to do with me guv' is a tactic, but not a good one. If you claim what you claim, then it would be better to name and shame the hidden hand that did authorise the attack. Otherwise you are doing what Douglas says, defending HP come what may. But still asking for everyone to be nice.

One thing Douglas is not is a loony, what he can be though is stubborn on points of principle.

I am really quite annoyed that I now have to post a second time, as my failure to log on would make me anonymous….

Anyway:

The complete lack of an editorial stance by Harry's Place allows what?

It allows both Brownie and Graham to deny any responsibility for a post, one by Alexander Melegrue Hitchins, to pass any understanding or concept of decency. It allows them to come on here and lecture us on the mere idea of standards.

For Harry's Place doesn't have them, and thus, no-one should.

It is ridiculous.

Graham says:

Douglas is acting like a complete loony in order to get us to loosen up and admit that HP editorial policy is agreed beforehand with Gordon Brown, Sarah Palin and Daffy Duck in a dark-smoke filled room above a Little Chef near the Watford gap.

Well, hardly.

I think that there is a genuine problem with what Harry's Place tends to publish. I'd assume that their judgement there assumes that Daffy Duck is worth a laugh. Although one can not be too sure…

It is pretty obvious that Alexandre Meligrou whatever his name is has an axe to grind. That is beyond Graham or Brownie to see.

Indeed they are completely innocent of publishing this sort of shite and have no responsibility for it.

Why, then do they defend it?

Why indeed?

Its a damned fiendishly clever ploy.

Foiled again!

Er? What editorial policy?

For fucks sake:

I don't think that there is anything wrong in speaking out about sexism as long as you realise that it comes in many forms. To attack a phrase which is in pretty-much non-pejorative usage amongst large communities in the UK whilst ignoring a commenter who persistantly “talks down” and patronises female commenters (for instance) seems to me rather silly.The whole imagined (and continually re-inforced by some)idea that the internet is representative of society as a whole is largely to blame. Marcus mentioned some young women who he knew who used highly sexist language amongst themselves (and Amie in turn talked about internalised oppression,) but the larger point is that such women (and men for that matter) arriving at a website and seeing such a fuss made about a phrase such as “silly cow” by a commenter at HP, or even the rather worse “silly bitch” by a commenter at PP, would just laugh and consider these sites were not for them – nothing like the world in which they live and exist and use such terms without a thought of what others perceive as their harmful nature. So what you do by turning the users of such terms into internet social pariahs is to drive them away and consolidate a virtual world where only those with the social advantages of language and education are allowed to be. And baring (as I said above) in mind that it is quite possible to be sexist (or racist) without being explicit you still don't get rid of actual sexism. Whereas if people arrive on websites using terms such as silly cow are gently confronted or are able to see that having a little more respect for people produces better and more fruitful outcomes to arguments then you actually ARE making a difference and not excluding large sections of society in the process.

In what way would you think that expressed anything other than your stupidity? It has nothing to do with Marcus, it has everything to do with a defence of Harry's Place…

Which I think is ignorant and stupid.

Still, Graham, you stand on that side of the debate and I don't.

Bet you signed the Euston Manifesto, you wally…

Eybdoog.

You however want to discuss a thread that I have told you that I have not seen by an author who's name you cannot remember.

It would be very curious if I didn't already know you were completely nuts.

It will not do.

What is the point of bringing Marcus into this? He is irrelevant to the point.

You cannot say this:

Well quite obviously we are defending something we have seen and not defending something we have not.

when you follow it up with this:

We saw Marcus' threads and we didn't see (or alternatively read, take notice of) the one you are on about which was written by this author who's name you can't remember.

Either you are twisting the English language beyond belief, which appears to be your modus operandi, or you are what I say you are.

Got it now?