Comments on: Andrew Gilligan: Ailing Standards

By: AdamB

AdamB — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:06:49 +0000

'Mongish? Poof? Spaz?'This is the same Britmex who warned me not to get 'chippy' a while back before boasting about having studied at Oxford with Boris Johnson. Some education you got there Charlie.

By: Manic

Manic — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:22:23 +0000

Britmex:1. Don’t twist things around? You’re contorting enough for the both of us.2. We appear to differ on the importance of putting your money where your mouth is and general honesty on that front. Given your inability to be consistent or even coherent on the ‘obsessive stalker’ front, I’m tempted to ask what’s really on your mind… but we’re done here:3. Mongish? Poof? Spaz? Banned.

By: Britmex

Britmex — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:05:26 +0000

Don't twist things around. If you are going to hang around courts and hand out leaflets on the street then folk are going to think that you are a mongish type. Especially when the issue is not exactly all that important. How many people even understand what a sock puppet is?Some poof inflates his readership figures, which is something else that I see you have banged on about. Sorry, but if you let yourself get worked by that then folk really are going to conclude that you are a bit of a spaz.

By: AdamB

AdamB — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:01:14 +0000

Pretty much anything can be spun as obsessive if it's something you're not personally interested in/ don't approve of. It's a handy catch-all to use when you're looking to smear someone or something. Musicians, scientists, politicians, investigative reporters – they can all be portrayed as obsessive if you want to.As for the obscurity/lack of interest in the story, the sock-puppeting posts have been the most read and linked to posts I have done so far and have even been covered by (paid) journos. I've even been paid to write about it myself. When my cheque clears, will that make me less obsessive or more do you think Britmex?

By: Manic

Manic — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:29:09 +0000

So now it's the amount of time spent (based on your assumptions about my level of boredom and the level of interest shown by my readers) and not the actual activity itself that's an issue? Obsessive behaviour without the actual stalking, yes? I'm glad we cleared that up, as your initial comment might have led to some confusion on that fron*…Oh, wait… it isn't about the amount of time spent at all, according to this:"It is not about spending hours at the computer campaigning over this or that."So… you understand my sticking to my guns, so long as I give up relatively easily (i.e. don't continue beyond the point where you think I should be bored and you think my readers might lose interest), *and* on the condition that I don't leave my desk?As for the obscurity of the issue, I would agree to a point, but don't get your hopes up. I think sock-puppeting is at present an obscure issue, but that it deserves to be a bigger issue. I'm therefore inclined to spend a little more time on it when something pops up that might teach others how serious it can be.I'm working on it right now actually; obsessively committing myself to the task of animation, as it happens.But I won't be leaving my desk, and I may even give up halfway through, so I assume you'll be OK with that.(Thanks, BTW, for offering me the clear choice of 'normal' or 'not'. This initially made me suspect the sincerity of your intervention, but now I see that you only wanted me to conform and happily eat out of the trough like everyone else.)

By: Britmex

Britmex — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:51:05 +0000

Payment doesn't legitimise actions, but it does explain them. It is not about spending hours at the computer campaigning over this or that, it really is about behaving in a way that comes over to the general reader as a bit wallyish.I think that it is this, rather than any allegation of harassment, that should be stressed. If you want to go to a court to watch an enemy fined, and then stand outside an office handing out leaflets, go ahead.It does mean that you come over as a bit obsessive, that's all. Most of us take up an issue, run with it, and then turn to other things when we either get bored or the punters stop reading. You don't seem to – you seem to take up issues that are obscure to say the least and then flog them to death.

By: Manic

Manic — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 07:19:57 +0000

Leaving Paul Staines (and the issue of payment miraculously legitimising actions) aside for one moment, how does chasing Gilligan back to his ivory tower count as invading his personal life? You do realise that the majority of anonymous attacks were traced back to that building, yes? And that he also used his position with the Evening Standard to launch an attack on his accusers? (This all happened in Act One, so you may have missed it.)

By: Britmex

Britmex — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:47:23 +0000

No, the difference is that they are paid to do that. Besides, if Guido gets nicked for piss-headery that really is a non-story – unless you happen to think that every bugger's personal life is up for grabs.

By: AdamB

AdamB — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:05:47 +0000

Britmex- I've seen a few other weirdos 'hanging around' in courts and outside people's places of work. They're called reporters and they *ask people questions*. The only difference is that they do it every day.

By: Manic

Manic — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:10:48 +0000

Britmex: Perfectly acceptable, if a little extraordinary. But then, the situation is a wee bit extraordinary. Perhaps it seems odd to you because you've wandered into this little drama after missing the entire first act.Chris: No more OT links, please… and there are far more interesting things in that post of Iain's than a few broken hyperlinks.