Muddy Waters
As Tim has already noted, Dizzy has written about the selective deletion and removal of comments on Ellee Seymour’s blog.
Tim has addressed many of the points it raises already but it is, I have to say, a remarkable thing.
Before going on, I’d just like to ask if anyone has any suggestions as to why Dizzy included a misleading summary of a recent court judgement? He has left half of it out as part of his selective presentation but most bloggers are going to know that. What’s the point?
Anyway, Dizzy doesn’t explicitly challenge Tim’s version of what happened but does question the “veracity” of the available evidence. This amuses me because I saw all three versions of the jiggled thread myself. But that undoubtedly wouldn’t be enough to convince Dizzy.
I’ve also got some screenshots I took myself and there are plenty of monkey’s with better photoshopping skills than mine. But that undoubtedly wouldn’t be enough to convince Dizzy.
I could email him the original screenshot files, I suppose, but that undoubtedly wouldn’t be enough to convince Dizzy.
I could point out that my own first comment on the thread in question clearly references Tim’s earlier comment, a comment which is plainly no longer there. But that undoubtedly wouldn’t be enough to convince Dizzy.
I could point out that the abusive comment targeting Tim’s first comment now appears before he does in the edited thread. But that undoubtedly wouldn’t convince Dizzy.
I could even highlight the other thread where other bloggers pointed out that Ellee has obviously replied to a comment which is no longer visible. They asked for but did not receive an explanation for Ellee’s denial that any comments had been removed. But that undoubtedly wouldn’t be enough to convince Dizzy.
In fact, while he’s been very careful not to explicitly say that Tim’s description of events isn’t true, it may very well be impossible to convince Dizzy that it is. Call it a hunch.
Dizzy then moves on to his central argument that the truth is irrelevant in any case because Ellee owns the website so she has the right to “maintain” it in any way she likes. Nice one Worzel.
In a comment, Gracchi very politely raises the rather obvious flaw in Dizzy’s attitude:
Dizzy in your judgement is there a distinction between something that is illegal and something that is immoral. I can see that I should never be banned from putting stuff up on my website or dealing with it the way I want to (within limits to do with paedophilia incitement etc) but that doesn’t mean it isn’t immoral for me to put certain content up does it.
It was a very civilised way to set fire to a strawman.
Dizzy’s answer is:
Gracci, whether it can be immoral to put certain content up is a bit of moot question because that refers to the act of upload (adding new content) rather the specific in my post about the act of deletion (maintenance).
Some people might say that this was a deliberate refusal to answer the question but Dizzy may be suffering from over-exposure to politicians so it could be involuntary.
The sort of half an answer he does give, however, suggests that to Dizzy, deletion and comment moderation are always issues of maintenance with no moral implications.
So, if a Labour MP has been caught bang to rights making an unfounded accusation and if they switch off their blog comments when attempts are made to present evidence proving that it was an unfounded allegation, Dizzy thinks there’d be no moral implications to that. This method of attempting to sustain an unfounded allegation in the face of the evidence would merely be “maintenance” apparently.
And if a Labour party activist then wrote in defence of the MPs decision to switch off comments and further attempts were made to highlight the evidence and point out that a retraction of the unfounded allegation might be a better option, Dizzy thinks there’d be no moral implications if comments were then selectively deleted and a denail of the same issued in an attempt to weaken the position of those wishing to present demonstrable fact. This too would be an entirely ethical activity, it seems.
How odd.
No-one is denying that the hypothetical Labour MP and the activist have the right to behave in this way on their own blog. It does not follow from that, however, that their actions have no moral implications. Not unless you can think like Dizzy, at any rate.
It has now been more than two days since I emailed Ellee to request an explanation for my lost comment and ask if I was still able to comment on her posts but there’s been no reply as yet. I still don’t know whether my comment was lost or moderated out of existence. And I still don’t really know whether Ellee thinks Nadine Dorries should retract the provably unfounded allegation or whether she continues to maintain that “I admire Nadine and respect her judgement on this”.
I’m not demanding a reply, of course. I’m merely making a note of the fact that I haven’t received one.
dizzy said,
November 13, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
“Some people might say that this was a deliberate refusal to answer the question but Dizzy may be suffering from over-exposure to politicians so it could be involuntary.”
Or perhaps Dizzy is a professional systems administrator with responsibilty for over 200 Internet facing systems who sees a clear distinction between the maintenance of existing content and the addition of new content. The deletion of comments, by anyone, ordinary person right up to the Prime Minister and beyond is their business. My view is a professional one.
Now as to the ‘evidence’ the real problem that you have is this assumption that because a comment appeared and disappeared then it must have been carried out as an action of point and click by a real person. That is not by necessity the case. There are many explanations for why something could disappear. The flaw in your conclusion is that you have zero visibility of (a) the back web administration and scheduled tasks that use regular expressions and pattern matching heuristics to make judgments about content and carry out specifc actions, (b) the actual underlying operating system and what might be happening there, and finally (c) the database integrity and what could be going on there in relation to table locking, row locking, transaction rollbacks etc.
Your “evidence” does not prove the cause of what happened at all, and that’s an important point here.The question is not whether comments were there and disappeared. The question is if they did, then how did they disappear and what can you do to prove that point. As it stands your argument is pure speculation because you have not excluded. In fact, when the possibilities have been pointed out they have simply been dismissed because they don’t fit what people want to be the cause. Thankfully, in the real world of IT rather the amateur world of online detective work we cannot apply such fuzzy thinking when we look for the cause of visible effect because millions of pounds rest upon such things.
Now clearly the most obvious answer from you on this point will be “oh so you’re saying that coincidentally x,y and z happened are you, yeah right!” And I’m telling you now, in a professional capacity (although obviously I accept the ad hominen circumstantial fallacy with be used as a rebuttal and then falsely called a refutation), that I’ve seen a whole host of problems with web content where the easy conclusion has turned out to be totally and utterly wrong. There could be more than one cause in fact. It could be that the rapidity with which you all started posting comments to the site meant that you got spam trapped. For all you know the site could be behind a VIP which had filtered you HTTP POSTS in such a way that you’ve been considered malicious and resulted in rollback transactions being sent through the application layer automatically. There could have been a network flap between the database and the app layer causing a bad entry in the datbase that has been later rolled back by automated mainteance tools.
The simple fact is that you simply do not know that the comments were deleted by the action of a person pointing and clicking without having full visibility of the entire arcitecture from the first external touchpoint to the last in the network path that the data takes. Now you might say “well Ellee should post some logs”, what’s the point though, as I said they can easily be faked and that would undoubtedly be the response if they did not show what you wanted them to show.
Again though we retrun to this point which is the single biggest flaw in yours, Tim’s and all the other’s claims. You have not “proved” that commments were deleted by a person. You have shown that comments that were there are not there now. That is not the same thing, and you know what, you’re never going to know the answer you’re only ever going to be able speculate about it which will - ironically given that Tim’s whole starting issue was the claim that he was smeared - result in things being perpetuated about someone of which there is actually no proof at all.
It is very simple. In order to prove that the comments were actively deleted then you need to invesitgate all the apache logs on that server, as well as the probably load blaancers logs to see what POSTs were made to the servers, as well as the database logs to see the transactions occuring and read the SQL that was run and comparing against the source code of Wordpress. When you’ve done that feel free to start screaming and shouting about it again, until then you have bugger all actual evidence of cause, you merely have pictures of effect.
ZinZin said,
November 13, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Hello Gary,
Great blog want to get that in before I start. I have been monitoring this spat that has blown up between Dizzy and Tim Ireland (through bloggerheads and Dizzy’s blog) and I am amazed by Dizzy’s provocations and Tim’s restraint.
Dizzy famed for managing debate on his blog has also had the temerity to claim that Tim has denied him the right to reply at Bloggerheads. Despite him admitting that he was wasting his time/masking his identity.
Perhaps the most amazing aspect of this episode is the projection, Dizzy is actually stalking Ireland, who is regularly accused of stalking by disingenuous tory bloggers.
Dizzy’s attitude to blogging stinks.
dizzy said,
November 13, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
I should probably add that Ellee is not someone in a position to give you any of those things, so you’re all flogging a dead horse. Have fun with it though.
Garry said,
November 13, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
dizzy, those are indeed murky waters.
Given that you recently wrote that “whether Ellee did or did not delete comments matters not”, it is interesting that you have gone to such trouble to demonstrate that she *might* not have.
Instead of getting our boots dirty, and as you’ve argued that that it’s beside the point in any case, let’s talk about that argument. You say:
This is, as I’m sure an intelligent man like yourself must be aware, a straw man. I’ve already agreed that what people do with their own websites is “their business”.
I’m asking whether you really believe that this “business” operates in a moral vacuum?
Also, I am genuinely interested to know why you though it’d be a good idea to selectively present the outcome of a well known court case in your post in the way that you did.
And finally, do you think Nadine Dorries should publicly withdraw the total unfounded accusation of improper behaviour which she made against Ben Goldacre and an unnamed member of the select committee and apologise for making it? You don’t need access to anyone’s apache logs to find evidence which proves beyond doubt that it was utterly without foundation.
Garry said,
November 13, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
ZinZin, thank you.
I’d like to think that it’d be simple enough for a blogger to present clear evidence of a false accusation made by an MP on other people’s blogs. I’d like to think that bloggers of all political persuasions would then address this evidence. I’d like to think that after consideration of this evidence, bloggers would put the truth above party political partisanship and agree that the MP would be well advised to issue a public retraction and apology.
I’d like to think that.
Tim Ireland said,
November 13, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
I should point out that Dizzy did admit that he was there to waste my time, and later treated his readers to a rather selective view of reality. But he did not mask his identity during the initial exchange - ‘m69.hunt’ did that:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2007/11/ellee_seymour.asp#comments
I am currently operating on the assumption that Dizzy and ‘m69.hunt’ are two different people. Unless Dizzy would like to declare anything. Dizzy?
Jherad said,
November 13, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
A couple of points for Dizzy -
I’m also a sysadmin, for a large international company - I’ve been working at this particular place for about 6 years now. It really doesn’t have any bearing on the situation - You either believe that deleting specific comments in order to shape the overall message of an article or website, and then denying you’ve done it, is ‘bad’, or you don’t. In the context of a political blog which gives the impression of open debate, I’d certainly argue that it is bad. Your comment:
–’The deletion of comments, by anyone, ordinary person right up to the Prime Minister and beyond is their business. My view is a professional one.’
.. Shows that you believe it is not bad. I don’t think we’re ever going to reach a middle ground on this.
With regards the technical reasons why some comments have disappeared, I’ll say yes - it is entirely possible that for technical reasons, ‘negative’ comments alone were somehow plagued by a glitch causing them to be systematically deleted, while positive comments got through consistently. None of my further comments (polite, if perhaps pointed) have since been published to Ellee’s blog - I can assume good faith, but I think it highly likely that Ellee is just refusing to publish any comments which might question her story.
Finally, I just have to make a judgement call. Ellee has consistently backed Nadine - that to me raises a warning flag. I’ve seen no reason to seriously doubt either Garry or Tim in the past (most criticism of Tim especially tends to be purely ad hom), so whilst screenshots can be photoshopped, I’m more inclined to believe that they are genuine. Screenshots and Ellee’s technical expertise aside, serious questions have been asked about online debate - a subject which Ellee wrote about previously in the context of Nadine. Ellee is more than capable of writing a blog article, but when the gaze has been turned on her, she has shown no intention of seriously discussing the situation.
dizzy said,
November 13, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
“Given that you recently wrote that “whether Ellee did or did not delete comments matters not”, it is interesting that you have gone to such trouble to demonstrate that she *might* not have.”
That was then, this is now. I’m kind of getting sick of seeing people leap to to conclusive causes based on no evidence other than visible effects. It just so happens as well that this sort of frensic analysis of broken computers systems and weird web behaviour is what I do I for a living. This may well have come through in my post.
“I’m asking whether you really believe that this “business” operates in a moral vacuum?”
Absolutely damn straight I do when it comes down to the decision of what one does and does not delete. That’s precisely why I said I don’t think Tim is a hypocrite for editing my comments, not publishing one (although it probably fell into a spam trap so he might not know about it, not sure how Movable Type’s banning process works, there was a post I did after he banned me that the site said was accepted but where it goes after that I don’t know, wouldn’t dream of accusing him of refusing it though because (a) I can’t know he has and (b) I can’t even know he has seen it). Nor would I call him a hypocrite for banning me - although I do think it’s a bit pointless because if I wanted to I could easily post again using a different IP and email address. I don’t think there is anything morally wrong about deleting content as the content is mine.
“Also, I am genuinely interested to know why you though it’d be a good idea to selectively present the outcome of a well known court case in your post in the way that you did.”
If you mean why I mentioned the EU commercial astroturfing case and said Tim was referring to it and then used the actual case he was referring too as part of an argument then the answer is quite simple. It was a cock-up, hence I said so in my first comment on Tim’s blog yesterday.
If you mean why did I not talk about the IP addresses that were disclosed by the case, it was because I don’t think that part of the judgment applied to the so-called smear on Ellee’s blog. Perosnally I think there are some people out there who are take themselevs way too seriously and so far up their arses they make Bono look like an ordinary nice bloke.
“do you think Nadine Dorries should publicly withdraw the total unfounded accusation of improper behaviour which she made against Ben Goldacre and an unnamed member of the select committee and apologise for making it?”
Honestly? I don’t really care. But if push comes to shove I guess if she made an unfounded statement in relation to a named individual she should make clear that she made an unfounded statement in relation to the named individual. That’s what I’d do. I wouldn’t retract the statement if I beleived it to be true, I would just make it clearly that my statement was unfounded, and I would apologise for making an unfounded statement. I don’t think an apology should be made in relation to an unnamed individual because well, nobody has been named. It is thus like the Queen saying “there are forces at work in this country of which we have knowledge”. That’s an unfounded accusation at unnamed people in the body politic and no one is demanding an apology. You canhardly expect Nadine Dorries, or any MP, to stand up and say “I apologise to the unnamed person for what I said”, that’s just silly.
dizzy said,
November 13, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
“You either believe that deleting specific comments in order to shape the overall message of an article or website, and then denying you’ve done it, is ‘bad’, or you don’t.”
That statement is based on an assumption that that was happening of course. But you want an answer? I don’t think it’s wrong for me to do that on my website, no. I’m a Net-libertarian who does what the hell he wants on his website. I haven’t done it yet - I usually just lock the thread and leave it once I can’t be arsed anymore - and I probably never will because I much prefer to have a flame war with someone and argue and leave it for all to see. But if I want to delete the comments or shape the discussion along a particular argumentative line then no, I don’t think it’s morally wrong at all. We don’t say it’s morally wrong to refuse entry to any member of the Tory Party at the Labour Party Conference do we? No. Do we think it is morally wrong that the Labour Party Conference floor is managed so that Tories cannot speak at it and the narrative of debate is shaped? No. This sort of thing happens all the time in the letters pages of newspapers, if you don’t like it, don’t read it.
Garry said,
November 13, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
That was then, this is now.
Indeed. It’s the muddying the waters part that’s your main concern today, as I’ve already noted. And who better than an interweb expert like yourself. And your reply to the selective presentation of a well known court case suggests to me that it was diverting dross too. But that’s just my opinion. Readers can make their own minds up.
If you are seriously saying that their would be no moral implications to the hypothetical example I’ve given or in any other possible example of comment deletion, I suspect you’re in a bit of a minority. You don’t think it’d be a tiny bit off if I had all your comments in this thread removed and then denied doing so? (Not that I will but please do try to stay on topic.)
Honestly? I don’t really care.
I wonder why that would be then?
I wouldn’t retract the statement if I beleived it to be true.
Nice waffle but it isn’t a matter of “belief”. The statement isn’t true. Nadine Dorries accused an unnamed member of the select committee of surreptitiously passing information to Ben Goldacre so that he could undermine a witness. In truth, the information in question was in the public domain (published on parliament’s website) as Ben Goldacre has proved beyond doubt.
If Nadine still “believes” that the information “could only have been passed on to the journalist concerned by a member of the Select Committee” despite the fact that it demonstrably isn’t true, this would raise all sorts of questions about the conduct of a member of parliament.
But as you say, you don’t really care. Strange that.
Jherad said,
November 13, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Dizzy, that’s the same line that Iain takes - and I understand it.
I think it is dangerous in the context of a ‘blog’ though, and precisely the reason why people get up in arms about it. You and I may both known perfectly well that Iain Dale’s site is a political megaphone, but it is advertised instead as a political blog (albeit Tory) which carries an implication of open discussion - guided by the author, but not censored or deviously manipulated. If I stifle or delete on-topic and civilised criticism of myself on a *blog*, instead of arguing my point of view, I should be rightfully taken to task for it.
We’re back to defining what a blog is, and should be, again. I do think that when people hit links to certain political blogs like Iain’s from a major news site, in many cases they’re getting something other than what they expect. You may say this is not Iain’s problem - I’d say that it is right however to campaign to correct it.
dizzy said,
November 13, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
“You don’t think it’d be a tiny bit off if I had all your comments in this thread removed and then denied doing so?”
Nope.
I wonder why that would be then?
Because I’m a soon be middle-aged punk with a “meeh” type attitude plus she’s on my side even if she does support the Shite?
Nice waffle but it isn’t a matter of “belief”. The statement isn’t true. Nadine Dorries accused an unnamed member of the select committee of surreptitiously passing information to Ben Goldacre so that he could undermine a witness.
Irritating waffle surely? As I said, “if push comes to shove I guess if she made an unfounded statement in relation to a named individual she should make clear that she made an unfounded statement in relation to the named individual.” I don’t see how you can apologise to an unnamed individual though.
If Nadine still “believes” that the information “could only have been passed on to the journalist concerned by a member of the Select Committee” despite the fact that it demonstrably isn’t true, this would raise all sorts of questions about the conduct of a member of parliament.
Wouldn’t be the first time.
But as you say, you don’t really care. Strange that.
Why’s it strange?
dizzy said,
November 13, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
“We’re back to defining what a blog is”
A website with a guestbook script.
dizzy said,
November 13, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
How comes I am being presented with image verification all of a sudden? Did you just turn it on or is an auto-spam feature?
dizzy said,
November 13, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Hmm guess it must be IP based as being from Japan or Saudi Arabia means it doesn’t happen. Interesting feature. Is it automagic?
Garry said,
November 13, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Nope
Fascinating.
she’s on my side even if she does support the Shite?
Have I got this right? Are you admitting that you don’t care because she’s a Tory? The accusation is totally unjustified but it’s OK with you because it’s a Tory making it?
{By the way, your semantics about apologising to an unnamed individual are also fascinating in their own way. Some people might argue that as a courtesy to the other members of the committee, some sort of apology might be in order.)
Garry said,
November 13, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Getting muddier by the minute.
dizzy said,
November 13, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
You can delete the above musings about IP addresses if you like.
“Have I got this right? Are you admitting that you don’t care because she’s a Tory? The accusation is totally unjustified but it’s OK with you because it’s a Tory making it?”
You see, it’s the punk in me that love to say things that rile people up. I can;t help it. So yes.
Garry said,
November 13, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
No, I’ll leave them there.
Fair enough. I wasn’t riled though, just slightly surprised.
I’m going out for a couple of hours now so if you did want to manufacture some “evidence” of comment editing here (just to prove how easy it would be, I’m sure), now would be the perfect time.
Later.
Jherad said,
November 13, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
– ‘A website with a guestbook script.’
Kind of walked into that. Most people expect something more - a standard of behaviour.
dizzy said,
November 13, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
The riled thing was very general of course rather than directed specifically at you. Is there anything more enjoyable than saying something outrageous and watching people’s reactions to it?
ian said,
November 13, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
Dizzy by name, Dizzy by nature.
Justin said,
November 13, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
Is there anything more enjoyable than saying something outrageous and watching people’s reactions to it?
Yes, watching you endlessly try and big up your job.
Garry said,
November 13, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
Dizzy, this is geting rather silly. We have established a couple of things for the record though.
You say in this thread that “I’m a Net-libertarian who does what the hell he wants on his website”.
You have also used the right of reply on my blog to complain about the post I have written above. You said “I’m kind of getting sick of seeing people leap to to conclusive causes…”.
I’m no interwebs expert but that looks a tiny bit inconsistent to me. People might begin to wonder why you haven’t just let me do what the hell I want on my own website. Why instead, people will ask, has he taken the time to write all these words if that’s his view of how things are done.
And if I’d denied you the right to complain about what you say you’re “getting sick of”, you say you believe there’d be no moral implications involved in deleting your complaints. Even if you had posted a valid argument rather than smoke and mirrors, you’d have no absolutely cause for complaint if I deleted it.
Fascinating.
It is also noteworthy that you have admitted that some of your comments were intentionally outrageous in an attempt to rile people up.
Tim Ireland said,
November 13, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
While you’re on the line, Dizzy:
Would you care to confirm or deny being behind the ‘m69.hunt’ sock-puppet?
A simple ‘yes i was’ or ‘no i wasn’t’ is fine.
Tim Ireland said,
November 14, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
Went awfully quiet there, didn’t it?
dizzy said,
November 14, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
hah.. love this assumption that I should be ctrl-refreshing. How cute.
The answer Tim is no.
dizzy said,
November 14, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
“People might begin to wonder why you haven’t just let me do what the hell I want on my own website. ”
Hahah. I have let you do what the hell you want on your website. I have not demanded a retraction,, I’ve merely pointed out that you don;t have the evidence you claim you do.
“Even if you had posted a valid argument rather than smoke and mirrors, you’d have no absolutely cause for complaint if I deleted it.”
Well obviously I did post a valid argument, but that is a side issue. The simple answer is yes, I wouldn’t complain if you deleted my comments.
p.s. It has just occured to me that Tim, in his ever so odd way, might read the “no” as a “no I won’t confirm or deny being behind the ‘m69.hunt’ sock-puppet”, so just for clarity. No, I wasn’t behind it.
Tim Ireland said,
November 14, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Thank you, Dizzy. That’s all I wanted.
(Sorry to hassle you for not checking in for more than 12 hours, but you seemed awfully chatty elsewhere.)
dizzy said,
November 14, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Indeed I am chatty. Currently I’m logged on to DALnet and UnderNet (different identities of course) as well as a private irc server. Along with messaging clients, and this slow medium called the web. Oh yes, and much to my annoyance I am logged on to Discworld MUD as well but I should really stop doing that.
Tim Ireland said,
November 14, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Dizzy, you know I only target poor, defenceless women. It makes no sense for you to wave your penis at me.
Garry said,
November 14, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
[Dizzy mode] So why on earth are you bothering to waste all that time writing the many, many word you’ve posted above? What are you, obsessive or something? If you don’t like it, don’t read it. [/Dizzy mode]
There’s a part of me which can see the attraction.
Hahah. I have let you do what the hell you want on your website. I have not demanded a retraction…
We’ve already dealt with this strawman. Please try to pay attention.
I am merely pointing out the fact that Nadine Dorries (MP) has not retracted a totally unjustified accusation and pointing out the results of that decision.
You have gone to great lengths to express your judgement on what I’ve done on my own website - “’I’m kind of getting sick of seeing people…” - while simultaneously maintaining that making judgements on what others do on their own websites is unjustifiable.
And as a Brucey Bonus, you’ve done it in a forum you don’t believe I have any obligation to provide.)
I’m happy to let people draw their own conclusions.
I have also already spelt out the reason why I have no intention of discussing the evidence with you but I’ll go through it again as you seem not to have understood.
1. You yourself said it was irrelevant to your post - “whether Ellee did or did not delete comments matters not”. This is the foundation of your stated position on the morals (or not) of maintaining a website.
2. I could discuss the evidence with you and lay out the extraordinary similarities which exist between what happened on Ellee’s blog the other day and what has happened many times before (on a select group of blogs) but I quite accept that it would be pointless. I believe that there is nothing I could do to convince you and I’ve made that quite clear. I’ll let readers decide whether that’s a reasonable belief.
So, unless you wish to withdraw the claim that you believe that there are no circumstance in which it is legitimate to criticise whatever the hell I do on my website, I recommend (but do not demand) that you abide by your principle.
Garry said,
November 14, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
[Dizzy mode] *Locks Thread* [/Dizzy mode]
If You Don’t Like It… | Big Sticks and Small Carrots said,
November 15, 2007 @ 7:52 am
[…] said, I do have say that I’ve been thoroughly educated and entertained by Dizzy’s comments over the last two […]
Garry said,
November 15, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
Dizzy has very kindly emailed to say that this thread is not in fact locked and that if I had attempted to do so, I should consider filing a bug report..
I had thought it was obvious that I didn’t actually lock the thread but apparently not. That comment was merely pointing out that Dizzy might have locked the thread there. Or earlier maybe.
I was interested to see whether Dizzy would continue to take advantage of the courtesy I’ve offered him here despite making it clear that he would have no qualms about refusing others a similar courtesy on his blog.
billythekid said,
November 15, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
that Dizzy’s a bit of a […..] isn’t he…
[Edited between the brackets by site owner]
Garry said,
November 15, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
Billy, thanks for leaving a comment. I’ve edited it slightly.