Blog Deathmatch!

Share This

49 will enter… 49 will leave. But in a slightly different order. Keep filling in the survey folks!

On a related note, while this initiative is rooted out of a scepticism that Iain Dale’s list is particularly representative, I really don’t understand Tim Ireland’s vendetta against Dale sometimes. This latest post is a typical example. He is attacking Dale’s refusal to list the “60+” blogs that linked to his latest top blogs project, yet Google Blogs quite clearly shows that 95 blogs linked to it. Not exactly Earth shattering is it?

UPDATE: To all flying monkeys – where do I call anyone a ‘bitch’ on this thread? Answers on a postcard.

68 thoughts on “Blog Deathmatch!

  1. 1) The editor (not “a” contributor) of Liberal Conspiracy called for a boycott, on Liberal Conspiracy. He did not state that it was not a party line and the purpose of the website is to coordinate “liberal left” campaigning. So whether it was an “official” boycott or merely a boycott called for by its editor is utterly irrelevant.

    2) It may well be that one or two people did ‘boycott’ the poll but saying ‘no-one’ did is no more a lie than when a political opponent claims that ‘no-one’ voted for Party X on the basis that it only got 5% of the vote.

    Do you accept that the boycott was a dismal failure or not?

  2. James, the more you post, the more you sound like the ner-ner-ner-ner-ner pointscoring argument that you criticise.

    Here’s a thought: if you don’t want to sound like Tim or Iain, why not just break the cycle and answer the effing question? You accused all of us who criticised Charlotte’s nasty post (over which she’s broken the cycle and apologised, which makes her come out of this looking much better than you, right now) of “abuse”. I thought that was an unjustified smear.

    Well, I’m not Tim; I don’t believe there’s anything here that you can call me to account on to distract from refusing to justify your own mudslinging, but I’ll happily answer any questions you want to fling at me if it’ll get you to say – who said the “abuse,” and what was it? ’Cos it sounded to Tim that it was directed at him, and it sounded to me like it was directed at me, and you know, if you’re slagging people off it’s at least polite to make it clear who should take offence, or we all will 😉

  3. “1) The editor (not “a” contributor) of Liberal Conspiracy called for a boycott, on Liberal Conspiracy. He did not state that it was not a party line and the purpose of the website is to coordinate “liberal left” campaigning. So whether it was an “official” boycott or merely a boycott called for by its editor is utterly irrelevant.”

    Sunny is not THE editor, he is AN editor. I got given editor privileges yesterday, FFS, so it’s not like they are picky about who gets to be an editor. And Sunny was never sole editor anyway – Aaron has been one since the beginning and there are several more of us now.

    And yes, Sunny called for a boycott, but I also posted a link to and promotion of the Beauty Contest, on the same day. Sunny did edit it out, it’s true, but when he did there was a huge storm of protest and it got edited right back in again.

    Trying to paint the boycott as something promoted by the site is disingenuous at best. The thing about LC, the glorious thing, is that we are a broad church and several different opinions happily coexist on the same site at the same time. This is something that I would have thought you, James, as a Liberal, would be bang alongside.

  4. Alex,

    As far as I was concerned, I was happy to let the whole thing lie. Tim won’t. That leaves me with a choice: let him continue harangue him or killfile him and get harrangued on his blog. So plan B is to bore the fuck out of everyone on this thread. Feel free to unsubscribe.

    I’ll answer the question when Tim dignifies my question with his. Petty? Yes. But I’m beyond caring.

    Jennie,

    If Sunny is merely “an” editor and not “the” editor then you need to do something about your biogs and about us page rather than accusing me of being disingenuous – I can’t mind read.

    In any case, how is it disingenuous to say that “whether it was an “official” boycott or merely a boycott called for by its editor is utterly irrelevant”? For the purpose of my disagreement with Tim it is irrelevant since the point about it being an official boycott or not was only raised 24 hours after Tim started claiming it was all a lie.

  5. James, I don’t give a rat’s arse about you and Tim willy-waving at each other, I just want you to be able to willy-wave armed with the correct facts.

    I think I shall take you up on the offer you made to Alex of unsubscribing from this increasingly tedious and pointless thread, though.

  6. You accuse me and then say your justifying it’s down to what someone I’ve met once will say? For pete’s sake! Grow up.

    OK, James, I won’t bother reading your blog from here on. Clearly, you want to satirise Tim and / or Iain by being more pig-headedly unreadable than either.

    Just why, I – for obvious reasons – won’t hazard a guess.

  7. Clearly, you want to satirise Tim and / or Iain by being more pig-headedly unreadable than either.

    Only on this thread, but when it comes to being pigheaded, let he who is without sin…

    James, I don’t give a rat’s arse about you and Tim willy-waving at each other, I just want you to be able to willy-wave armed with the correct facts.

    Fine – then publish them on your effing blog instead of bollocking me for relying on it for information.

  8. “I was happy to let the whole thing lie. Tim won’t.”

    No, I was unhappy that you were willing to let your claim of abuse stand, as it is unfounded in my view and it works all too well into accountability-dodging narratives used by Dale, Dorries, and a whole bunch of other bullies who love playing the victim when it suits them.

    In what I regarded to be a pointless diversion I even accepted that perhaps you had a point and maybe Iain didn’t lie but instead “accidentally miss-spoke in a manner that was favourable to him.”

    When doing so I even generously let slide the fact that there is no way in hell that you can prove that what Iain *imagines* happened at Liberal Conspiracy has anything to do with my objection(s) to his polling methods.

    (Iain would have you think that I object to his polling method – as I did last year – purely because of the way he saw somebody else objecting to his poll this year? WTF?)

    So if you wouldn’t mind pointing out the abuse you mentioned or admitting that your claim of abuse was unfounded, *then* maybe we can all get on with our day.

  9. Just answer my question Tim – do you accept that the boycott was a dismal failure or not? – and then I’ll answer yours.

    Come on. Not too difficult is it?

  10. *sigh*

    James, you just directed Alex to do what you did not want me to do:

    “Fine – then publish them on your effing blog instead of bollocking me”

    “That leaves me with a choice: let him continue harangue him or killfile him and get harrangued on his blog.”

  11. Just a yes or no answer Tim. I tell you what – I won’t even ask you to justify it. Go on, you know you can squeeze it out.

    For what it’s worth, I’ve already written the answer to your “abuse” question. Just waiting for you to utter the magic word…

  12. “do you accept that the boycott was a dismal failure or not?”

    When did I say it was one or the other? And why should I have to?

    Perhaps I won’t have any indication of its success or otherwise until I look through the list of blogs that Iain provi*

    Oh, wait….

    James, the thrust of Iain’s comment had to do with the motivation behind my objection. I described it as a *clumsy* lie because the circumstances he described in his comment were so flawed. Where you are taking us has more to do with the word ‘clumsy’ than any ‘lie’. It’s a pointless diversion.

  13. Pointless diversion is in the eye of the beholder. In my original post I suggested that harranguing Iain Dale about how many blogs linked to his poll was a pointless diversion, but you won’t accept that. Well, in that case, I don’t accept that my question is a pointless diversion. You don’t have a monopoly on what is pointless or not.

    Just answer the question, or drop it.

  14. Your question is pointless. Even if I stupidly run with Iain’s framing of this and make it about the success or otherwise of one man’s call for a boycott, I have made it clear that it has nothing to do with my motivation, and to back that up I can easily show that I expressed similar concerns the year before that call for a boycott.

    So take your pick:
    – Yes it was
    – No it wasn’t
    – It’s irrelevant*

    (*Please note that this answer to your question has been on the table for quite some time.)

    And I did not harangue Iain about the number of blogs that linked to the poll. The number of blogs is only an issue so far as the resilience/reliability/richness of the sample goes (and I have the exact number of people who voted for that).

    What matters is the nature of the links to the poll (casual? keen? boycott? begging?) and the political orientation of the blogs involved. Which is why I asked Iain to provide a list or even just agree that the list generated by the Google Blog Search link you provided was adequate.

  15. Your question is pointless.

    You entire line of reasoning throughout this thread is pointless, so I guess that makes us even.

    Nonetheless, despite the fact that you won’t answer the question, I give up and will answer yours.

    I alleged that Charlotte had received a lot of abuse on this thread, and so she has. She made a crack about you being obsessive, which caused you to post a link to said comment (not the actual post, I note) on your own blog with the predictable result that a horde of your flying monkeys came over here, in attack formation, and started laying it on with a trowel.

    Then again, using this post’s comment thread as a proxy, you proceed to attack her for comments made on her own blog.

    And what’s all this about? A couple of cracks about the state of your mental health? Why is that such a big deal for someone who thinks nothing about labelling people “idiots” (you might want to look it up), “syphillitic,” “mad” and “clinically insane.” We all make unfortunate comments about people’s mental health from time to time, no-one is really in a position to judge others about this… except you seem to think it gives you some God given right to start ranting at someone and stalking them round the internet.

    Is abuse the right word? It seemed like it at the time and I only intended it in the narrow sense of the word (“treat badly”). Interestingly though, rather than just let it lie, you had to turn it into another of your stalking expeditions. Why? What could that possibly achieve?

    To sum up: I don’t like you coming on his blog playing your creepy stalking horse act with me, and I certainly don’t like coming here to do it by proxy with somebody else. Since Alex Wilcock approves of your actions so much, maybe you should use his blog in future?

    Oh, and for the record: I’m letting you make one last comment here – with no further questions permitted – and then I’m ending this thread. If you want to turn that into some evil conspiratorial act of net censorship on your own blog, feel free.

  16. :: “I alleged that Charlotte had received a lot of abuse on this thread, and so she has.”

    Where in this thread? You’ve yet to point it out.

    :: “She made a crack about you being obsessive”

    Charlotte did not make a ‘crack’ or a joke, and I even submitted a comment to her site (since deleted) asking if that’s what this was:
    http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/08/29/blog-deathmatch/#comment-198842

    Charlotte responded by insisting that it was not a joke or a jest but “advice… sincerely given and meant”

    That, and your average ‘crack’ or zinger isn’t normally 200 words long.

    :: “your flying monkeys came over here, in attack formation, and started laying it on with a trowel.”

    Just for starters, my flying monkeys know how to conduct themselves, thank you. None of them engaged in personal attacks or abuse.

    :: “you proceed to attack her for comments made on her own blog”

    No, I pointed out that what she claimed here was somewhat undermined by what she had deleted at her weblog.

    And as for your ‘good for the gander’ case, well you can file it all under ‘F’ for ‘fail’:

    Only reference to Nads being ‘mad’ is made by somebody else, and I registered my disapproval of the tag for the nth time:
    http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2008/05/nadine_dorries_4.asp#comments

    An obvious jest at the expense of Richard Littlejohn, and the type of joke that I would hope I am more wary of making 3 years down the line:
    http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2005/07/let_me_show_you.asp

    Unless of course there’s a valid point to be made; this post was obviously part of a multi-weblog response to Staines’ use of the ‘mental’ tag and I’m staggered that you would try to throw it back in my face here:
    http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2008/08/gordon_brown_we.asp

    “Idiots” is only offensive if you (wrongly) assume that ‘idiot’ was meant in an archaic and offensive sense (i.e. to describe a person with severe mental retardation):
    http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2008/08/julie_moult.asp

    :: “We all make unfortunate comments about people’s mental health from time to time, no-one is really in a position to judge others about this… except you seem to think it gives you some God given right to start ranting at someone and stalking them round the internet.”

    Ranting? Where?

    Stalking? I mentioned it here (where she started it) and at her blog (where she blogged about it).

    Again, you’re making false claims about the nature and severity of my response, and I object.

    Which is my right.

    :: “Is abuse the right word? It seemed like it at the time and I only intended it in the narrow sense of the word (”treat badly”).”

    Ah, I see. You meant the watered-down version of ‘abuse’ where I didn’t hurl harsh and hurtful language at Charlotte but instead came in ranting at her and stalking her an*… waaaait a minute!

    No… I take that back… we all make mistakes in our use of language. And it’s not as if I used the word ‘idiot’ and you played this game in reverse and tried to suggest I was not using the word in its most common sense but instead using the archaic and offens*… waaaait a minute….

    :: “To sum up: I don’t like you coming on his blog playing your creepy stalking horse act with me, and I certainly don’t like coming here to do it by proxy with somebody else. Since Alex Wilcock approves of your actions so much, maybe you should use his blog in future?”

    Alex is here of his own volition. No-one was asked to intervene on my behalf. Except you, of course, but I had high expectations of the host of the conversation who initially appeared to disapprove of use of the ‘mental’ tag. Perhaps (see: ‘creepy’, ‘stalking’, ranting’, etc.) I was wrong.

    :: “Oh, and for the record: I’m letting you make one last comment here – with no further questions permitted – and then I’m ending this thread.”

    Gosh, thanks.

    :: “If you want to turn that into some evil conspiratorial act of net censorship on your own blog, feel free.”

    And no-one of sound mind would think anything that, would they?

Comments are closed.