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?

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.

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.

Just answer the question, or drop it.

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.

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

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.”

Come on. Not too difficult is it?