Our persistent Spanish comment spammer, El Pajero (a.k.a. Hal, hippiepooter, Irishcustard, englishpatriotuk@hotmail.com etc.), comments (here and here in full):
“If you’re so absolutely confident that your fellow Contributors have absolute confidence in you, why not put this to the test to shut the likes of me up once and for all, and step down from B-BBC – relinquishing all your sabotage powers et al – and see if a few days later your fellow Contributors are willing to readmit you?”
EP, if you knew how Blogger works you’d know that any of my co-hosts with administrator powers (e.g. Natalie etc.) could easily remove me from Biased BBC any time they wish, and there is nothing I could do to stop them. Knowing this, hopefully you will now undertake, as you suggest, “to shut up once and for all”. El Pajero continues:
“I’m sure it has not escaped your attention that you have repeatedly banned me from the IP address I am posting from and a day or two later I have repeatedly been unbanned”.
Again EP, if you knew how Haloscan works you’d know that your ISP, Telefonica de Espana (a strange choice for someone so concerned with the BBC and British democracy, but I digress), has millions of randomly assigned IP nos. All that happens is that from time to time you get lucky and get one that isn’t banned yet. No one has ever unbanned you.
Frankly, none of my poor colleagues who you regularly send your unwelcome rants to has ever expressed any sympathy for you, let alone questioned whether or not you should be unbanned. Having said that, as I have already said, if you are willing to 1) apologise for your past behaviour; 2) accept that Biased BBC is private property and that we make and enforce the rules, I will unban you – it is as easy as that, and more than you deserve after your harassment and implied threats.
I am sufficiently fed up of your tedious attacks that I am tempted to set up an online poll to resolve your problem and shut you up once and for all, however such a poll could well be subject to abuse by Beeboids and their leftie sympathisers keen to get rid of me and the rest of Biased BBC (which may of course be your aim).
However, if any one of my co-hosts, Natalie, Ed, Laban, etc. asks me to leave the Biased BBC team, I will do so. If any of our readers wish me to stay or wish me to go, please say so in the comments on this thread.
If enough real non-leftie non-Beeboid non-obsessed people want me to go in contrast to those who want me to stay I will do so – I have no interest in wasting my time here if I’m not wanted – I do have a real life and other interests, and should probably spend more time on them anyway.
Likewise, if you like my posts and want me to continue posting then please also speak up – your support will be welcome – it’s safer to help me here than intervening in a real world mugging. If you don’t want to speak up in public, for or against, then email me: biasedbbc AT gmail.com. Copy it to Natalie (see sidebar) if you wish.
Thank you. Normal service will now resume, if enough people want it, and if they do, I hope that EP will be honourable enough to “shut up once and for all” if that is the prevailing view.
I think you’re on the right track to some degree, Andrew, though I’m not sure about singling out one commentator as the basis for a whole post.
Nonetheless, the open comment thread was a good idea, but in some ways has become a victim of its own success. It’s difficult to wade through 200 or 300 comments, most of which aren’t really worth reading and seem a bit egoistic or tangetial.
Some times you also get the impression that you’ve entered a right wing nuthouse which does diminish the appeal of the blog overall. Maybe if some of the commentators could be a bit more empirical in their assessment of bbc coverage this could improve matters, and certainly wouldn’t negatively impact on the overall quality and liveliness of the blog.
We’ve had our disagreements, Andrew but I don’t see why you should go. After all we’re in the same boat. Some people are more subtle than others so good luck to you. We should leave the personal attacks to the Lefties.
Erm, Richy: I think most of us on here agree that the Beeb is the enemy of Western Civilisation. It’s also a fact that most of the people who comment here are Conservatives. Otherwise they wouldn’t be bothered about the Beeb’s bias.
Thank you Richy. That one commenter would happily slander me each day if we didn’t play whack-a-mole banning him – I hope that this way we can clear the air once and for all and end his delusions about my apparent ‘hold’ over my colleagues.
As for the open threads, I know what you mean, although before that we had all the same sort of stuff spread over several unrelated threads, which was even messier. At least this way those who wish to concentrate on specific blog topics can do so, whilst those who wish to chat can do so too. I will endeavour to keep the open threads to under 250 comments to improve matters, until we think of a better way.
In due course we can delete this post and thread – me if I’m still around, one of my colleagues if I’m not 🙂
Indeed, but as Paul Reynolds noted on one of his visits here, it’s specifics that count, not broad generality such as ‘BBC opposed to Isreal etc’, ‘enemy of britain’ etc.
Some people seem happy just to spout these lines and offer nothing really of interest with regard to specific output. They begin their posts with ‘As I’ve argued before..’ Yeah right, some of the commentators, perhaps misguidedly, think they’re some sort of deep philosopher or analyst. Others have got a bee in their bonnet on some issue that is just fundamentally boring.
Yet again, some people really do find some good links and do some good work, such as Dumbcisco, Archduke etc. The comments are a key asset of this blog but sometimes spoilt by rather extreme or vague wishy washy comments.
I like the off-topic threads. As you say, it keeps things in one place.
It can get a bit crazy and off topic @ biased-bbc, but for me, that is part of the appeal. It is always interesting to see what other people make of the Beeb’s coverage of world events.
As for how you run your blog Andrew, that is entirely up to you. If anything, perhaps keep the ‘on topic’ threads ‘very on topic’. I think one purpose of the Biased BBC blog is to build a daily catalogue of the BBC abusing its Charter. If the ‘ontopic’ threads are well maintained, you can always delete the off topic threads after a couple of weeks.
This would at least keep the history of the blog nice, clean and to the point.
I would hate for all you at Biased BBc to go – it is only through this blog (with the help of its contributers) that I can comfort myself that I am not the only one who thinks that the BBc has some “hidden agenda”. This bias needs to be exposed and seen by a wider audience and the way it is done here is the ideal place. I should hate the day that yourself and contributers gave up on this site as I know I shall completly lose my sanity. Please keep blogging.
Andrew is correct from time to time to ’round up the usual suspects”.
Everything that we have going for us at BBBC can be undermined by the periodic appearance of some questionable fundamentalist opinions that are at best embarrassing and at worst just plain bonkers.
The BBC will hang itself given enough rope, our function is to act a the voice(s) of reason.
Andrew must remain.
As one of the lefties who quite regularly reads this blog I comment as follows:
Firstly to my mind Andrew is one of the more thoughtful bloggers who posts on here. I’ve found his posts to be interesting and thought out, even if I’ve not agreed with them. This is in direct contrast to some of the (to paraphrase Ritchy) right wing nut cases who post on the comments.
Andrew has, quite rightly, on a number of occassions waded in to warn people where their posts have been unpleasant – and on two occassions this was when some of the fruitcakes on the forum were making unpleasant reamrks about me so I reckon he’s a good un and should not be bullied off the forum.
As to some of the other comments posted in this thread such as:
“Some times you also get the impression that you’ve entered a right wing nuthouse which does diminish the appeal of the blog overall.” I would agree but I would also say from a leftie point of view it’s heartening to see that it is not just the left that lays open nut case views on the internet and that the right suffer from that afflication too.
SiN says “Everything that we have going for us at BBBC can be undermined by the periodic appearance of some questionable fundamentalist opinions that are at best embarrassing and at worst just plain bonkers.” Again, even as a leftie, I would tend to agree that this does your cause no good. But as I’ve posted here before, people (like SiN IIRC) who claim Tony Blair is a socialist or that fascism is left wing and not right wing do nothing to persuade those in the middle ground as these views are quite clearly ridiculous to most people, even those not on the left.
I’ve gone to the trouble of reading some of the links. I’ve got to say that I think Andrew’s comments to gordon bennet, verirty and others are absolutely spot on – and have served to remiond me that not everyone on the right is a callous bigot (as one might reasonably deduce from some of the posts on the B-BBC comments). Andrew is quite right to attack those who seem to imply it ok to kill 12 year old girls because “women suicide bobber were 12 year old girls.” It’s just a shame that the only person on the right on these that challenges such stupid and bigotted comemnts is Andrew. The rest of you who find these sort of comments distasteful should do also – otherwise the right will constatntly be seen as a bunch of callous bigots – and even a leftie like me knows that’s not the complete picture.
But Tony Blair is a socialist. I hope andrew stays on.
The regualr OT threads should be moved to a hosted BBS system. IMHO the biased BBC admins should set up a google adsense account and use the profits from running ads to pay for hosting and a good pint.
Why not drop the HaloScan & everyone moves over to the discussion Boards linked on the right? The blog can be used by Natalie, Andrew & Laban for broadcasting their thoughts & referencing what is being discussed on the forum, with embedded links. Better control over input with coherant threads that don’t digress.
Just make the forum link more prominent for first time visitors to see at a glance, it was some while before I noticed that it even existed.
Never sure it’s a good idea to engage directly with attention-seeking nutjobs, but if this thread clears the air, so be it. Goes without saying that unclouded opinion is with you, Andrew (although I’d feel a little uneasy with the endorsement of “A lurker”…).
I write in support of private property and in support of Andrew. I’ve no time to enlarge but you probably don’t need me to …….. (however, may I add that courtesy and elegance of mind are not the same thing as prissyness and political correctness).
A Lurker,
For the record, other people condemned the ‘logic’ of killing 12 year old girls to ‘prevent’ them becoming suicide bombers [me + others].
Also, Fascism is generally left wing (Stalin, Polpot, Mao, Hitler). The only right wing example I can think of is Pinochet.
Of course Andrew should stay, he’s a damn fine contributor.
I don’t really want to see anyone banned except in the most extreme cases (i.e. he/she breaks the law or is defamatory or breaches copyright).
One of the core (if unspoken principles) of the site is that we all need thicker skins to enable vigorous discourse. If feelings get hurt • toughen up, it’s part of the experience of being alive. Occasionally people will go overboard, but they are just words after all.
I come from Australia and played a lot of cricket where you are driven to distraction with opponents insulting you non-stop (called ‘sledging’). All left on the field at the end of play. Part of the culture that runs from minor clubs all the way to the test team and it gives Australian people pretty tough hides. Andrew, a season of club cricket down under would do you the world of good.
I agree that the Off Topic section is good but is a victim of its success (ie getting too big). Can you restart a fresh batch after, say 100 comments • is that feasible?
Ultimately, this is private property, so there can be no justified moaning about ‘censorship’ if a host takes exception to what someone has said.
However, to keep any blog lively and fresh it needs an active comments section. With all due respect to the main posters, I tend to read the comments rather more avidly than their posts – and, of course, more frequently, as they are always changing.
Over-zealous control applied to the comments section has numbed many a blog, so it needs to be handled with absolutely strict impartiality. If it is believed that animus is being shown against certain posters, or that others are being allowed an easy ride, that is bound to cause trouble.
As for other aspects of editorial control, La Marquise summed it up rather well, I thought. If the delicate sensibilities of A Lurker et al are roughed-up from time to time, that cannot be a bad thing. It does the Left good to learn that not everyone subscribes to their fantasy consensus.
Equally, ranting and raving from the green ink brigade can do irreperable harm.
Generally speaking, it is wiser to keep personalities out of this sort of thing. And for credibility to be maintained, that has to apply to everyone concerned: moderators, as well as commenters.
for what its worth i support andrew.
For the record, other people condemned the ‘logic’ of killing 12 year old girls to ‘prevent’ them becoming suicide bombers [me + others].
Grimer | 15.06.06 – 9:52 am
For the record, Grimer, you were incorrect to say that I was advocating killing 12 year old girls.
My point was that as far as I was concerned the palis had forfeited all rights to compassion by their adoption of a “final solution” towards Israel but I didn’t say they should be killed, 12 years old or not.
We will always suffer from time to time from people misreading posts, jumping to stupid conclusions and then posting comments for which they don’t have the grace to apologise.
On this topic you and Andrew are examples.
Hal / Hippiepooter / Irishcustard / Englishpatriot or whatever you call yourself this week, if you are under the impression that my lack of response to your endless emails indicates secret sympathy with your views, allow me to correct this misapprehension. I no longer reply because I have been hoping that you’d lose interest and go away. I am probably being unwise by addressing a person so obsessed here and now but since I can combine it with saying, “Keep up the good work, Andrew”, I will risk it.
g-b, your meaning is clear now, after your clarifications. Your original comments were ambiguous and appeared to say something else. The issue remains one of commenters needing to be careful in what they say and how they phrase it, lest they inadvertantly create the wrong impression, both for themselves and for the rest of us.
P.S. Why should other people apologise for making a reasonable interpretation of your ambiguous choice of words and phrases? Be clear in what you mean, especially if making sweeping generalisations about whole groups of people!
Keep up the good work Andrew.
Andrew,
Stay.
I think it would be helpful if, rather than have the “off-topic” threads, any off-topic discussion took place of the discussion board (I second the request to make the link more noticeable). I know a few people who I’d like to send here to read the documented bias of the BBC, but the extreme right-wing ranting (to which Richy also refers) in the comments puts me off doing so, for the reason that the people who need to be woken up to BBC bias will be completely turned off by said ranting. They’ll dismiss the site as just a place where right-wing nutjobs gather to be paranoid together.
And of course I understand that the reason so many people here are right-wing is that it’s right-wingers who are the targets of most BBC bias, so they feel it more keenly, but it’s not helpful when you’re trying to convert someone! I’m neither left nor right, but I can see that there are huge problems with the BBC’s impartiality, and I would like my more lefty friends (my more naive friends!) to be able to see that too. At the moment I just can’t send them here to learn about it: that would be pointless and maybe even counterproductive.
As to the actual subject of Andrew’s post, you should definitely stay. Don’t let an obsessive creep get to you!
Andrew, thank you for publicising to the rest of the regulars that you do, from time to time, need to deal with those out there suffering from personality disorders or other unfortunate conditions.
Of course you must stay, don’t let EP get to you.
Hazel
I am not at all happy that a mistake made by Andrew about a post I made has resulted in some of you branding me as genocidal. I am reproducing the relevant posts below so that people can read them and correct their thinking. I have added a number to each post for reference but not altered any content.
I am determined to clear my name on this point.
Post 1 states that the palis have forfeited any right to compassion by adopting nazi principles. This is the only point I am making. Notice I do not refer to any action against the palis.
Post 4 shows the crucial error where Andrew makes the wrong inference from Post 3. I am saying that no palis should be exempt from the lack of compassion, he thinks I am saying we should be wiping people out BUT I have never referred to any action being taken so this point comes out of thin air.
Post 5 shows that I quickly rebutted the point and made it clear that Andrew was mistaken in his assertion.
Post 6 shows Andrew doesn’t accept my post 5 and carries on regardless accusing me of advocating genocide rather that admit that he has erred.
************************************************************************************************
Post 1
I’m with Verity.
The Palestinians have lost the right to our compassion by openly advocating the same policies towards Jews as the late, unlamented Nazis.
Their leaders can only function with the consent of their people so they are all guilty.
Al Z got what he deserved – it just came a couple of years too late.
gordon-bennett | 11.06.06 – 9:59 pm | #
——————————————————————————–
Post 2
Do you see what I’m getting at? It is not a case of speaking up for one political cause or another – it is a case of remembering that we are decent human beings – that we do indeed love life over death, and that we respect the right of others to live their lives so long as the same right is extended to us.
Andrew | Homepage | 11.06.06 – 11:55 pm
My emphasis added.
New York, Madrid and London were indiscriminate attacks on civilians.
The people responsible did not “extend the same right to us”.
So by your own rules Verity’s blunt speaking is morally justified.
gordon-bennett | 12.06.06 – 12:17 am | #
——————————————————————————–
Post 3
gordon-bennett, don’t be so facile. The various attacks you mentioned are the work of a relatively small group of people – not every Muslim, and, in particular, not 12 year old girls on day trips from the beach in Gaza.
Andrew | Homepage | 12.06.06 – 12:28 am
But the “relatively small group of people” were the merely the frontmen for a worldwide organisation dealing in death for whomever they choose and operating on behalf of (inter alia) the palis.
Furthermore, all terrorists’ mothers were once 12 year old girls and we know it is a tactic of palis to involve their children in attacks and provocation. Regretfully, therefore, we cannot exempt anyone who comes from these uncivilised regions.
I do admit to reacting to your high-handedness but not in a personal way. I react to all arrogance and dismissiveness whoever does it.
gordon-bennett | 12.06.06 – 12:58 am | #
——————————————————————————–
Post 4
gordon-bennett: “…all terrorists’ mothers were once 12 year old girls… we cannot exempt anyone who comes from these uncivilised regions”
By your twisted logic we ought to wipe out everyone who might conceivably be a threat, twelve year old girls and all.
That is an immensely stupid notion.
You amply demonstrate exactly why you’ve been upbraided in the past and your belligerent attitude to being so upbraided. Mind your step.
Andrew | Homepage | 12.06.06 – 1:38 am | #
——————————————————————————–
Post 5
Andrew | Homepage | 12.06.06 – 1:38 am
By your twisted logic we ought to wipe out everyone who might conceivably be a threat, twelve year old girls and all.
That is an immensely stupid notion.
I agree that that is an immensely stupid notion and I didn’t say or imply that.
gordon-bennett | 12.06.06 – 2:23 am | #
——————————————————————————–
Post 6
Do please clarify exactly what:
gordon-bennett: “But the “relatively small group of people” were the merely the frontmen for a worldwide organisation dealing in death for whomever they choose and operating on behalf of (inter alia) the palis. Furthermore, all terrorists’ mothers were once 12 year old girls and we know it is a tactic of palis to involve their children in attacks and provocation. Regretfully, therefore, we cannot exempt anyone who comes from these uncivilised regions.”
does mean then, in the context of the discussions above? What is it that you cannot exempt such people from?
In fact, don’t bother – life is too short, but please, just stop to think exactly how your comments could be misconstrued by less vocal Biased BBC sympathisers or twisted and abused by our detractors, and then you might begin to understand why the comments of people like you and Verity and others irk so much.
Andrew | Homepage | 12.06.06 – 2:55 am | #
——————————————————————————–
my thanks to andrew and other contributors for this invaluable record. Please carry on.
Is there not a word to describe somebody who would silence those who’s views and ideology they do not share.
gordon-bennett et al, FWIW, I stand by what I said in what you call post 6 and further up this thread. For those who’re interested in the minutiae of your unhappiness, please also add a post ‘0’ to the body of evidence to give the full context, where:
Post 0: Verity said: “As far as I and tens of thousands of others are concerned, you are wasting your time writing sad stories about Islamic family picnics that get bombed and innocent people die. OK. Boo hoo. Now I’m over it. That is one family that won’t produce any suicide bombers or any brood mares for nurturing tiny terrorists. Life happens. I’m on the side of advanced Western civilisation. Finally, when I hear of a prisoner dying in Guantanamo I read this as a GOOD thing. They’re all in there for a reason. Dead is better.”
– followed by your post 1, where you state unequivocally “I’m with Verity. The Palestinians have lost the right to our compassion by openly advocating the same policies towards Jews as the late, unlamented Nazis. Their leaders can only function with the consent of their people so they are all guilty” etc. etc., working up to you saying “all terrorists’ mothers were once 12 year old girls and we know it is a tactic of palis to involve their children in attacks and provocation. Regretfully, therefore, we cannot exempt anyone who comes from these uncivilised regions”.
For those who wish to interpret or re-interpret gordon-bennett’s comments in their original context start here and read down.
I am happy to accept what you say about what you meant – BUT the ONUS is on YOU to ensure that YOUR language is clear and unambiguous – NOT on the reader to see what you REALLY mean! Others also read your comments in the same way, including, no doubt, the silent majority who will form impressions of Biased BBC based on what YOU said.
You also need to accept, preferably with good grace, that it is for the Biased BBC team to manage the comments facility as they see fit and accept that sometimes you’ll just have to put up with decisions or admonishments that you dislike, lest you end up an obsessed ranter like El Pajero.
Anonymous: Is there not a word to describe somebody who would silence those who’s views and ideology they do not share.
Yes, just as there is a word for those who make anonymous snide insinuations.
For the record, in all of my time with Biased BBC, there have been just a handful of people who I’ve asked to tone down their language. As few as two or three of these people have objected to such requests and have not accepted our right (and responsibility) to manage comments, and have either gone away or, in the case of El Pajero (Hal/hippiepooter), persisted in making a nuisance of him/herself.
In the case of El Pajero (Hal/hippiepooter), s/he libelled a number of prominent people, including the ever litigious George Galloway. When asked to refrain from such conduct, s/he 1) got very abusive; 2) claimed that s/he could say whatever s/he likes anyway because of our disclaimer about legal responsibility.
That of course is all very well, but I have no wish to see our disclaimer tested in court, particularly on behalf of an anonymous Spanish resident who doesn’t even have the courage to tell us his/her real name, let alone comment using his/her real name!
After a further abusive exchange I banned him/her, until, as I say, s/he a) apologises; b) recognises our right to manage comments. S/he has hung around posting nasty comments when s/he can ever since.
One commenter who I felt the need to warn in the past is the person who used to post as ‘Teddy Bear’. S/he hasn’t been banned, but has chosen not to comment further. The reason I mention this is that the ‘discussion forum’ mentioned in our sidebar was set up and is maintained by him/her – it is not actually anything to do with the Biased BBC bloggers, and is not our responsibility.
The problem with having an open comments facility of course is that people will comment willy-nilly where and when it suits them – they’re not going to go to some other forum – heavens, it’s not as if any of these things are difficult to set up (and for free!) – they want to do it here, so they help themselves, as it were. The open threads are an attempt to accommodate this, rather than have the chaos we used to have on the other topic specific threads. The only solution to this is to move to pre-moderated comments – then we could cut out off-topic rants and deal with people like El Pajero at source, but of course this takes time and effort and would also diminish some of the vitality of the current system.
I hope at least that by discussing and addressing these matters publicly people will understand the issues involved better and that the moaners and obsessives like El Pajero will see that the popular will is NOT with them, even if that mattered anyway, on a blog that is, essentially, a private space, subject to our management.
Thank you all who have spoken up in support of me and the other Biased BBC team members – it is appreciated.
Andrew.
You can’t abandon ship now, not when B-BBC is making an impact.
Particularly now the Evil Empire is trying to broaden its remit to suck broadband and computer owners into its gaping maw.
Stay and keep up the good work.
Andrew:
Verity didn’t introduce the idea of genocide against palis – she just said that she doesn’t feel sorry for them.
I agree with that and I didn’t introduce genocide either.
You introduced genocide into the discussion and ignored my swift rebuttal of that new twist to the argument.
Me and others, g-b. We’ve both had our say. Please let this rest now and leave it to others to decide how they wish to interpret what you said and the context in which you said it and the generosity of spirit or otherwise of your remarks.
I don’t know about your life, but I’ve spent more than enough of mine on your various sensibilities and grievances already. Remember that you are here as OUR guest, not the other way round! 🙂
Thanks for clearing up the forum angle Andrew, I decided not to pursue membership on first viewing that particular site & stayed here to enjoy the flow of things on HaloScan, looks as if I made the right decision.
Sat here for ages watching threads, I’m sure many others have done so themselves.
Andrew you have my vote. Sorry to Ed for missing him off an earlier post
‘Missing him off’ too many pre-match glasses. Going back to my roots!! ‘Omitting’ for sure!
I’m an actual lurker here. I believe this is my first comment ever posted at this site. My faithful reading of this site is rather odd, since as a Floridian I actually don’t watch BBC, I guess I come here to get some sort of a feeling for what the British are thinking about events of the day..
For what it is worth, I thought Andrew overreacted to the comment about sympathy for Palestinians, and ended up inflating the issue beyond what was implied in the post he was reacting to. Rather entertaining in light of his repeated warnings to think about what you write.
Regardless, I have enjoyed many, if not most, of his comments and contributions to the site. I don’t see any need for him to step down, or depart, or whatever.
My only suggestion would be to put the name of the post’s author on top, rather than on the bottom. Makes it much easier to scroll past bores like Hippiepooter.
Andrew
I hope my wholehearted support is not too embarrassing to you and will not damage your cause.
Andrew
Keep up the good work, and don’t think about going.
Thank you John Reith and everyone else for your words of encouragement.
In your case John Reith, posting as you do from, and in defence of, the BBC, I’ll take it as a nod of mutual respect, perhaps even an acknowledgment that Biased BBC may have something useful to say to the BBC, if that’s not overstating the case 😉
Of course, in El Pajero’s case, in spite of all the above comments, unedited and untouched by me, s/he’ll take your endorsement as conclusive proof of his/her delusion that I’m on the BBC’s side…
I laughed out loud today when someone pointed out this comment of his/hers to me, where:
El Pajero: “I write as a 41 year old who was a left-wing Tribunite member of the Labour Party when I was 15, drifted to anarchism when I was 16, percolated down to being a conservative minded SDP supporter when I was 20, then gravitated to being a Tory to my finger tips a couple of years later, which I have remained ever since. Oh yes, and I have been a Christian since I was 18 as well.”
Yeah, right. I wish s/he’d practice what s/he preaches and take a more Christian approach to his/her issues with me.
Here’s another example of El Pajero busy slandering me elsewhere on the web – the work of a fine Christian gentleman for sure. Great riposte from Charles Martel too: “normally i tolerate off-topic posts – but in this case, kindly take your arguments about another blog elsewhere. i really am not interested – and its not *that* hard to set up your own blog for free”. A man after my own heart!
Andrew
I have been travelling for part of the week so had not fully caught the flow on this issue.
I think you and I have disagreed from time to time on particular issues. But on the general issue of “whose blogsite is this, how should it be run ?” the answer is plain as a pikestaff. The site is yours (and Natalie’s et al). You are providing (at some cost in time as well as cash) a service – a forum for comments on the performance of the BBC. We are your guests here. You collectively set the rules, and if people go way outside the rules you have every right to adopt sanctions against them.
None of this is to say we cannot disagree with you or any of the other site moderators. But expressions of disagreement should follow normal rules of debate, should not resort to ad hominem swipes.
I trust that you have already decided to ignore any people who suggest you should depart. You do a lot of the heavy lifting for this blogsite, which is much appreciated by the vast majority of your guests.
I’m very thankful for Andrew’s excellent work to the benefit of all who frequent this site. Since I’m a very occasional B-BBC contributor, I’m happy to say that the work of Andrew, Natalie, Ed and others illustrates what “an army of Davids” can do for the edification of the telly-taxpayer and telly-taxfree alike.
el Pajero needs to find a better way to pass his days on this earth. It’ll be all over before s/he knows it.
Andrew, you have my vote.