1. Cassilis on Peter Hain's arse. Well, at least that's what I think he said.
2. Ellee Seymour asks if men are discriminated against, and if bears **** in the woods.
3. Tory Radio has William Hague's speech in the EU debate on Monday.
4. Dr Crippen does some post Guido on Newsnight analysis on journalist bloggers.
5. LabourHome is worried about the party;s £20 million of loans which are having to be rescheduled.
7. Ben Brogan on why Polly Toynbee has turned on Gordon Brown.
8. Ministry of Truth wants the head of the Electoral Commission. Sam Younger is said to be in hiding.
9. Adrian Monck reckons there are four types of blogger. Which one are you? Or am I?!
10. Donal Blaney on how a xenophobic LibDem councillor wants to ban French tourists for Canterbury.
11. James Macintyre hits back on George Galloway on Open House.
12. Taking Liberties explains how to get round the smoking ban.
34 comments:
"got all revved up"...?
Would you care to back that up with something, Iain... or are you feeling too poorly? All I did was ask a quite reasonable and not at all leading question (see the headline). The worst you have me on (if that) is taking Staines' character and past form into account. Would you really like to take us there?
Actually Brogan doesn't say why Toynbee wrote what she did. My guess is that the Largactyl wore off.
Iain says: "A xenophobic LibDem councillor wants to ban French tourists..."
But the story actually says: "Quick to insist that he didn't actually want to ban school trips..."
Ah well, what's a bit of accuracy when you're on the internet hey?
Tim Ireland reads like pidgin legalese, is he a law-school drop-out or just a Hoonie?
Tch. Iain is publishing comments without addressing them again.
OK, if I didn't publish them, then what would you do? I think we all know...
What I said was completely innocuous.Don't pick a fight when there's not one to be had.
So rather than back it up, you're going to pass it off as a throwaway comment? Just checking (and glad you're feeling up to the art of conversation).
PS - Iain, you either have the time/capacity to moderate properly with this current free-for-all system or you don't. If nothing goes through, most people will assume you are away or asleep. If comments are published but you yourself don't respond to any of them (even the ones addressed to you directly) then most people will assume that just don't feel like talking about this or that.
I get a couple of hundred comments a day. You'd like me to respond to all of them? Yeah, cos that'd be, like, really possible.
Face it, you thought Guido had been caught out and were bereft when you were proved wrong. Sure, you asked a question and were just sooooooooo hoping for the right answer.
Night night.
Tim didn't address my point - what is he hiding?
Iain: Forget you and your false dichotomies. I did not ask you to respond to every comment. And you know very well that there are people who abuse this free-for-all of yours and others by contributing under multiple identities. Making the simple responsible move to comment registration - especially in light of the new OpenID facility - would reduce this abuse on both sides considerably. Yes, that would reduce your visible comment data (see: penis, compensation) but it would make it far more manageable and sensible. On your other point, I'm afraid that you might be projecting.
Ed: I was ignoring you because you were clearly talking about me but not to me. I know how to behave in a playground.
And Tim Ireland got all revved up, but then found he had no place to go.
Physician, heal thyself.
Egg and Tim's face were certainly in alignment!
Calm down dear.
So you can't or won't back it up, Iain? You're just going to leave it to your sock-puppets? Fine then.
Back what up ffs? I saod you got all revved up with no place to go. That was a polite way of saying you got very excited about Guido having been found out (otherwise why post about it?!) And then your excitement somewhat abated when it was proven that guido was telling the truth.
As your ally points out above, you lost. Get over it. We all have.
Iain, I did nothing but seek details and ask questions. Staines (once again) received a far fairer hearing than anyone in his (or your) line of fire usually enjoys.
What you have done here (and you're quite fond of doing it) is attempt to turn it into something else.
And I fail to see how it all ends with Staines' (eventual) explanation, as *that* raises some serious questions.
(Shall I waste them on you? I ask that question because the last time we talked you resorted to telling outright lies and playing the victim. Again.)
"As your ally points out above, you lost."
(looks up)
Beg pardon? Who does what where?
Oops, must have been on another thread. Your mate Justin left a couple of comments on this yesterday.
1. Thank you for reinforcing my point about capacity and moderation. (Iain, one day this careless approach to comments is going to bite you on the arse.)
2. So, not even idle curiosity about those serious questions then?
Smarting from the self-inflicted humiliation eh Tim? Just accept you've made a bit of a t*t of yourself and deal with it like a man. All this whining and snivelling is quite unbecoming. Hope this helps.
Ta Ta.
Wouldn't it be more link-worthy when Kevin Maguire doesn't make a twat of himself.
Seriously, I'm beginning to suspect that 'Kevin' is actually a teenage girl who finds Beebo far too intellectually challenging. Sadly, I can't strike the boob off my blogroll because he wasn't competent to be there in the first place.
And Mr. Ireland, your Violet Elizabeth Bott impersonation is excellent. Do you do it professionally, because I could do with some entertainment at my next costume party.
Iain: Thanks for answering my question by leaving it to your sock-puppets to take us away from the question (again). I take it that you have no interest.
I couldn't find those comments you mentioned in any recent threads. Did you perhaps imagine them? Or delete them?
Tim, you're right. I have indeed lost interest - if I ever had it in the first place.
Ask Justin McKeating. He either left blog comments or emailed me with the comments. Again, I don't really care. But just for the avoidance of doubt nothing has been deleted and nothing has been invented. Except in your own mind. And not for the first time.
Iain Dale: Tim, you're right. I have indeed lost interest - if I ever had it in the first place.
[bystanders: compare and contrast with the following...]
Iain Dale: As to your other question, if there ever was a ban, the fact that I linked to you here rather indicates it doesn't exist. If it ever did.
All hail the master story-teller.
:o)
Iain Dale: He either left blog comments or emailed me with the comments.
Iain, if you can't bothered to keep up with a conversation (that you're hosting), then it is my advice that you don't bother in the first place.
Again, I don't really care. But just for the avoidance of doubt nothing has been deleted and nothing has been invented. Except in your own mind. And not for the first time.
Sorry, Iain. I have proof that you have deleted comments (including your own) from your own website when the 'debate' wasn't going your way. Unless you'd care to deny that.
[bystanders: Iain cannot deny this, so he will probably do something other than deny it. Like claiming that he doesn't care.]
Later, you pretended that it didn't happen. And yet here you are (again) trying to pass me off as a conspiracy theorist.
You referred to comments on your site - and in part based your argument on those same comments - when those comments do not appear to exist.
So, if you'll excuse me for 'getting all revved up', what's going on here, then?
Again, if you can't be bothered to keep up with a conversation (that you're hosting), then it is my advice that you don't bother in the first place.
So, just to clarify, there is no way that you are in any way interested in any questions that may arise from Paul Staines' use of the this Tory email forwarding system?
[HINT: I know, for example, that you have difficulty identifying spam when you see it... even when you're sending it yourself. So please do tell me how one opts in - and out - of this list.]
FYI: Here are some of the questions that occurred to me.
Note that the manner in which Staines released his explanation (at 6pm on a Friday afternoon) made it impossible to ask these questions in a timely manner. Given that the original post at Bloggerheads was, throughout, a chase for straight answers to fair questions, yes, I was left with 'nowhere to go' on Friday, but only because Staines attempted to close matters down with a Friday evening release that would have done Alastair Campbell or Karl Rove proud. He's not quite the straight-shooter he makes himself out to be, is he?
As usual, there's no rush to answer, Iain. If you leave it for a bit, a few of your resident sock-puppets can lay into me (and/or lay the ground for you) before you reply.
Sorry, but you are mistaking me for someone who gives a damn.
OK, just so we're clear... you don't give a damn about anY of the possible issues raised here?
Ok, just so we're clear, I don't give a damn about you asking questions - anyway, you've asked CCHQ, not me. Contrary to popular rumour, I don't answer for them.
Ah. So you only have no interest in the questions raised just because I raised them? Just so we're ab-so-lute-ly clear.
PS: "Contrary to popular rumour, I don't answer for them."
ORLY?
You've presented the content of one of their press releases as your own words.
And you can't seriously be telling me that you've forgotten the Grant Shapps sock-puppeting affair?
Iain, like Paul Staines, you have a relationship with CCHQ that you seek to deny in one breath and dismiss as "Iain Dale supports Tories shock" in another. You can't have it both ways.
PS -
I said: "Sorry, Iain. I have proof that you have deleted comments (including your own) from your own website when the 'debate' wasn't going your way. Unless you'd care to deny that. [bystanders: Iain cannot deny this, so he will probably do something other than deny it. Like claiming that he doesn't care.]"
Then you said: "Sorry, but you are mistaking me for someone who gives a damn."
Gotcha.
:o)
It would have been dreadfully simple for you to deny it if it weren't the truth.
As you are well aware, thgat comment was related to the previous one at 10.57. I never bother to deny your ridiculous (and often libellous) allegations because they are so far fetched it's not worth the effort.
You've wasted enough of my time on this thread already. Consider it now closed. Go and pester some other poor sod. You've obviously got nothing better to do.
Iain, you've declared this thread closed, but your site still invites me to publish my comment. I've sent you a short email explaining how you can correct this.
Cheers
Post a Comment