Blog powered by Typepad

« I deserve a medal, really I do! | Main | Barberism! »

Monday, 18 August 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I am interested in the Little Willy contretemps because a person of whom I was only dimly aware chose to attack me in a blog and then compare this to "Little Willie."

First, I think that censoring comments is not only cowardly but against the whole spirit of blogging as an exchange of ideas.

Second, I'm interested in knowing who lobbed the first personal or Little Willie?

Tangling with an unreasonable and/or psychotic person online is only rewarding up to a point. Although, like you, I am disinclined to let a nutcase have the last word.

'Sister Wolf', a very tough fellow I once served with in the army told me never to interfere in other people's fights - just start, and stick to, your own! So, wimp that I am, there is no way I am going to interfere in a fight between two ladies, the details of which I am not familiar with. Suffice to say that the other lady concerned is an e-friend of mine and I like her.

As to 'Little Willy' and who mounted the first personal attack, feel free to check for yourself on his site. I ask pointed questions of bloggers who appear to be spouting non-truths or half-truths. Most of them give me back very pointed replies but a number, rather more than I imagined when I started blogging, reach instantly for the four-letter expletives followed fairly rapidly by the censor's blue pencil. Of course, this delights me because then I know I'm on the right track and they are on the back foot! For example, 'Little Willy, who is a Green fanatic, was extolling the use of wind turbine farms and when I asked him if it was true that these establishments required normal power stations as back-ups, he censored me. You are right, of course, that tangling with such people is a waste of time but we all need a little comedy in our lives.

Incidentally, anything goes here at Duff & Nonsense - except too much repetition of 4-letter invective. It's not that I require smelling salts for the shock, it's just that I find too much of it ugly and it tends to indicate that the writer cannot actually think.

No one likes a censorious hothead!

My 'blog policy" is the same as yours. And no need to take a side, by the way.

God, that Adolf Hitler was a right bastard wasn't he? Not content with massacring millions of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals, and mercilessly invading his neighbouring states, he had to go top it all by deleting unwelcome comments from his personal website. Why, was there ever seen such villainy?

"God, that Adolf Hitler was a right bastard wasn't he? Not content with massacring millions of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals..."

Not according to the Socialist Workers Party...

Godwin's Law made a pretty early appearance there, ey?

I would have expected something more rigorous in the way of critical analysis from you, 'Teabag', old chap; you being a maths wiz and all that.

If someone runs a blog with 'Comments' enabled, it is "a personal website" only in that the posts themselves are the personal views of the host. If he or she then invites comments, it ceases to be a private site and becomes public. Of course, it is for the owner of the site to lay down conditions (I do so myself), *but* it is then open to anyone to comment on those conditions, either on the site itself or elsewhere. As I have remarked before, opening a blog is the equivalent of standing on a soapbox in Hyde Park - and we all know the reception certain speakers willsometimes receive from their less than appreciative audiences.

'Sister Wolf', who is, I suspect, as far from me politically and socially as you can get, sums it up neatly;

"I think that censoring comments is not only cowardly but against the whole spirit of blogging as an exchange of ideas."

LATE NEWS! Down below in the comments to my post: "Bishop smites HAFs", 'Little Willy' himself has put in an appearance. I have posed him a question. Trembling with anticipation, I await his answer!

I blog for my own amusement, not yours. I also have a political philosophy to advance through it and I reserve the right to delete anything and everything which I feel is either an outright affront to- or irrelevant to it.

A gift for you, Duff.

Ha harrrr, you got seriously pwn3d.

Just for you.

x x x

Well David, even accepting for the sake of argument that "censoring comments is not only cowardly but against the whole spirit of blogging", that still leaves it a little way short of Hitler's crimes, wouldn't you say?

In fact, only in the suppurating, maggoty sponge which passes for your brain, could the deletion of your cretinous outporings count as evidence of generalised people-hatred and Nazism.

And while we're on the subject, it's a bit fucking rich to complain that the use of (*shudder*) naughty words "tends to indicate that the writer cannot actually think", while at the same time calling anyone you disagree with "a creature fit only for running a concentration camp".

I've been called a Nazi several times by you in the past, and it's a pretty low and contemptible tactic. So until you get your own house order, you can shove "the whole spirit of blogging as an exchange of ideas" up your hypocritical old arse-hole.

You've forgotten to take your pills again, Larry! It wasn't the "deletion of [my] cretinous outpourings" that occasioned my description of 'Little Willy' but his own intemperate words and actions.

I know you archive my "cretinous outpourings" with religious fervour in order to spring a quotation at me from circa 1953 but I cannot believe that I ever have called you a nazi, nor indeed, is it my practice to call others nazis. If the term "concentration camp" bothers you, I will happily change it to 'gulag' - will that make you feel better?

Now, go and lie down like the doctor told you!

I cannot believe that I ever have called you a nazi

Here you called me "an excitable little Hitler" for some equally footling reason. (Don't try it on with the "this site disassociates itself" rubbish, that won't wash.)

And that's just for example, you understand.

No it's not the specific term "concentration camp" which bothers me. It's the suggestion that calling David Duff rude names on the internet, or deleting his idiotic comments, or whatever it is which has got your goat, is even vaguely comparable to committing genocide; or that it is remotely indicative of a Hitler-like "boundless hatred for Mankind". These are not sensible things to suggest, see?

The second thing which bothers me is if the same person who habitually flings these sort of accusations around, should then have the audacity to mount his high horse and lecture others about "the whole spirit of blogging" and complain about other people using (*tremble*) rude words.

Let me make this simple:

(i) calling someone an "twat" is not as nasty or offensive as calling them "Hitler". You frequently do the latter, therefore you have no right whatsoever to complain about the former.

(ii) Being rude to David Duff online is indicative of a sensible, sane, and healthy human mind. It is no evidence at all for being "fit only for running a concentration camp".

I'm not surprised, Larry, that I have to teach you the finer, shaded meanings of the English language, you being an 'Algebra Algy' and all that, but calling someone a "little Hitler" is not an indication of their politics but of their personality. Actually you know that perfectly well, you're just being silly - again!

If I had ever indicated that "being rude to David Duff online" was evidence for someone being "fit for running a concentration camp[/gulag]" I would have accused you of it years ago, indeed, I would have offered you a promotion to Camp Commandant! It is 'Little Willy's' own words that give away so much about him - just go and read his blog and his re-action to anything that does not accord to his own views. Perhaps his self-described aim in life will do for starters:

"saving the world from humankind through progressive policies and compulsory voting with the single transferable vote"

Did you notice that in his view it is *people* who are the danger and that only *his* politics, enforced by *compulsion*, will save the world. You don't need a degree in psychology to get the drift of this little fanatic.

By the way, "Being rude to David Duff online is indicative of a sensible, sane, and healthy human mind" is definitely untrue and you are the proof of it! That's called logic, that is!

LATE NEWS: I notice from my visitors list that someone (not a million miles from this thread!) was looking up my previous reference to Dr. 'Teabag' as "a little Hitler" which, incidentally, was in January 2007. Anyway, the comment thread is worth a quick skim-read because even though I wrote half of it, it still made me chuckle.

The comments to this entry are closed.