lord of the blog

« Responses | Main | Responses »

Sunday, June 19, 2005

Blogs

As some of you will have seen 'someone' is still trying to take over every post rather than focus his arguments in a way that leaves others space to talk about issues of concern to them.

I could deal with this by going to a password system but it's not my first choice. The other alternative is to leave his comments on and only delete selectively. That is my preferred option but I'm not sure what people think.

The real problem here is that it will put people off blogging if they know that an individual who feels so strongly on one particular issue can dominate a site.

This doesn't just affect politicians but anyone trying to involve a wider public in general issues ranging across a number of policy areas.

Does this matter? How should the blogging community deal with it? And what would people prefer me to do on this site?

Even my own blog, with its extremely limited reach, managed to attract a nutter with anonymous and personal attacks. I decided to ignore him in the hop he would go away, and wrote to someone else who kept responding, asking him to do the same.

So far it seems to have worked, which cheered me up no end. I didn't really want to have to start deleting comments - that might be seen as a response of a sort and thus some sort of encouragement.

Of course you are a lot more prominent and might attract more, and more determined idiots than I do!

Passwording does not help a lot. Comments on my page have to come from registered Blogger users, but it only takes 5 minutes to set up a new Blogger account.

As a first resort, just try ignoring them in the hope that an attention seeker will soon get bored if they are not getting any attention, because the only other option that really works is censorship and you just get accused of stifling any contrary views.

(In this case I decided to not use my real e-mail or blog address... I don't really want to attract the unwanted attentions of your regular visitor!)

Hi Clive,

I think you're doing a good job on controlling your blog. I'd carry on doing what your doing, or perhaps as The Motley Fool for a board of your own ( www.fool.co.uk ) so they can moderate your board for you, and enable a better discussion that can happen on here (because the structure of this, as with most blogs, is restrictive).

Regs, Andy

Clive

I agree to generally leave such comments on and only delete when comments are clearly defamatory or intended to incite racial hatred or homophobia etc.

Blogs stimulate debate, are a powerful method of communicating for politicians, and embody freedom of expression in a diverse society. If we can limit such controls to the absolute minimum, it promotes democracy and proves that we are a free society. It undermines the arguments of conspiracy theorists.

People who try to harp on about one issue all the time undermine their own credibility.

Those that deploy tightly focussed and reasoned arguments enhance their credibility and ultimately win the debate

Hi Peter,

'It undermines the arguments of conspiracy theorists.

People who try to harp on about one issue all the time undermine their own credibility. '

What about when some single-issue-harpings are proved true (Napalm, for instance)?

I agree that listening to a broken record can be boring sometimes, but that does not mean the record is not broken.

Regs, Andy

Clive,

I know I have posted some questions on the blog which you haven't responded to. My assumption was there was no response for a whole host of reason (off-topic, silly, too busy to respond to all comments, covering old ground etc), maybe the references to 'someone' gives them the little attention required in order to continue posting the same issue.

I would advise trying to answer a post of his and explain during the answer that you cannot develop indepth debates online, and that after you have answered their question/s you would be grateful if they would accept your response and not pester you for more as there are lots of people posting and you have only limited time to respond.

Maybe see how David Dimbleby handles their sort on Question Time and take note!

I would like to raise an issue with you regarding Iraq and some of the previous statements you have made on this blog.

In January, you dismissed concerns made by me and a number of other regular readers of your weblog about the US's use of napalm. I pointed out that the US still had Mark-77 bombs in its arsenal and it appeared from photographic evidence that these had been used on civilian areas in Iraq, an act that is illegal.

You replied: "I really do not understand the further comments on napalm. Adam Ingram said the same to me that he said in the answer that was quoted by j or Andrew [a response to a question put by Harry Cohen in parliament]. The quote from a US officer doesn’t prove the opposite especially as it is hard to see why napalm would be used on bridges. Bridges don’t burn.

"It is important to remember there is a propaganda battle going on. Andrew and j might not like the US or approve of the war but don’t make the mistake of giving support to the pro Saddam group or the terrorists."

This week, Adam Ingram admitted that Mark-77 fire bombs containing napalm were used. He has therefore misled the House of Commons when he denied to use of these firebombs, despite the evidence.

Will you, Clive, now apologise to those who brought up the issue of napalm bombing in Iraq and who you accused of giving support to terrorists?

Will you call for Mr Ingram's resignation for lying to parliament?

Will you advocate the arrest and prosecution of those responsible for the use of an illegal weapon (napalm) in an illegal act of war (bombing civilian areas)?

Will you call for an end to the development, ownership and deployment of all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons by the UK and its allies?

What happened in Fallujah was no different to what the Nazis did to Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. All those responsible for this hideous and barbaric act must be punished as war criminals, including President Bush.

Clive I think that the answer to your question about the management of a blog site such as this does tend to question the concept of ownership. Because one starts such a site does not of itself mean that one always maintains control. Control perhaps should be used in exceptional circumstances in guidlines that you may like to publicise in advance. Spam, Pornography, deflamatory, agressive etc.
I do think that you are naturally suffering the inevitable stress of adapting a reply style to this medium which is at variance to the rebuttal system used in relationship to other political media.
The structure of your comment system does also tend to mean that you lead by selection which encourages people to feel excluded even if there is no conscious intention of doing so.
Suggestion. Allow free form debate in areas of your blog, between varied contributors, which you should not feel compelled to reply to. You might state that your views are already well known on this or that issue and provide a reply.
I am sure that it is not easy but you have taken the decision, implicitly by going down this route, that you may be judged on your responses or lack of them. The duty of all of us is to avoid black or white judgementality. I would still say that there may be many of us and I am one of them who does feel that the Iraqi war issue(s)does represent a difficulty for you in responding. That I think is the meaning/justification/calling behind 'Someone's' insistance.
I would like to thank you Clive and all contributors to your blog for providing meaningful debate which avoids rebuttal for the sake of it. Thank you

I agree blogs stimulate debate, and since you wish to leave space for others to talk about issues of concern to them, I shall take up here my - so far unanswered - e-mail to Future Heathrow Org.

There are many oil experts who believe that Peak Oil is very near, if we have not already reached it. Given that this is the case, how can the extension of Heathrow still be justifiable? Unless you know of some alternative energy (Matthew Simmons doesn't), will not terminally falling oil production inevitably lead to falling aviation and car traffic as prices double, triple, and even quadruple?

I cannot believe that someone like yourself, given your experience in politics, is unaware of how important energy is. Right now, in my humble opinion, our greatest problem is not bettering this or that invention that basically uses oil (refer to the recent news stories of Airbus, and the private programs that are putting ordinary people into space); neither is it expanding airport terminals. The greatest concern for everybody right now is, where are we gonig to get this energy?

I might add that, although I have not heard the terminology "Peak Oil" on CNBC Europe, the economists there have today admitted the fact. Apparently they're just not finding the oil they need today, and in about two years there is going to be a "problem" - refer to what was on CNBC Squarkbox today.

This is a tacit admission that the geologists who are concerned about Peak Oil are right.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: