Sunday:
Please read Mr Andrew Hickey's diary: Do Not Hire John Brown Advertising.
They have COPIED pieces of his diary without permission and even worse DUMBED THEM DOWN.
To add (literal) insult to (criminal) injury, someone calling themselves John Brown has then posted comments in reply, starting with a false excuse claiming to have e-mailed (to the wrong address and then, getting no reply, used Mr Andrew's work without permission anyway), and escalating to... well, you'll have to see.
If this person is supposed to be in ADVERTISING, this is well into "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People" territory.
The LAW on COPYRIGHT in Great Britain is actually remarkably simple: if YOU create a piece of work (writing, art, music, television and so on) then YOU own the copyright. You don't need to DO anything; the right is yours AUTOMATICALLY.
If you're working as part of a COMPANY when you create the work, then the WHOLE COMPANY owns the work. e.g. episodes of Doctor Woo are the copyright of the BBC and not the individual actors or director.
BUT if you're SUBCONTRACTED or FREELANCE though – like the WRITERS of Doctor Woo – then, once again, the copyright is YOURS. This lead to a lot of trouble with the DALEKS. Notorious copyright infringers, those dustbins.
The ONLY exception is if you are COPYING someone else's work. You DO NOT get a copyright on a copy.
And that is where we came in.
Showing posts with label Blogging. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blogging. Show all posts
Monday, December 10, 2012
Friday, November 16, 2012
Day 4338: Don't Dumb Down Our BOTYs!
Friday:
This week there's a call from Daddy Alex (supported by Auntie Jennie, following Lord Bonkers) for REVITALISATION of the Liberal Dcemocrat Blogger of the Year Awards.
And rightly so. In 2010, when my obvious awesomeness was (finally!) recognised, it was a HUGE deal. This year's ceremony, for the just-as-deserving Mr Mark Reckons, didn't feel as SPECIAL. And that's a SHAME.
But today Mr Paul Burblings, who's usually very wise, falls into the TRAP of ANTI-INTELLECTUAL SNEERING about "long blog posts", implying we should drop the BLOG of the year for the TWEET of the year.
Which would be GHASTLY!
For the better part of five thousand years, Rhetoric, the ability properly to couch an argument, whether in speech or essay, has been one of the seven Liberal Arts and a bedrock of what we laughingly call Western Civilisation.
And while the likes of Mr Dame Stephen Fry may (from time to time) Tweet a bon mot with the erudition of a latter day St Oscar that doesn’t stop most of Twitter being an exchange of rather dull, partisan rants.
I'm on Twitter myself (@millenniumdome) but increasingly I don't like what it does to my arguments. It seems to me that 140 characters is ideally calculated to reduce them to the meanest and often stupidest. The immediacy, the brevity, the peer pressure to big up "your side" or, more often, bait the "other side", all combine to incite the sort of Tweets that lead to flame wars. The advantage of a "long blog post" is that it makes me THINK about what I'm writing and consider the OTHER viewpoint(s), not just fire off for instant gratification. And what the fluff is WRONG with allowing a bit of NUANCE anyway? Or even some circumlocution?
Twitter is a conversation in a crowded room with everyone shouting at once, some of whom are friendly, some hostile, some utterly indifferent and no one is really, entirely LISTENING to each other. It’s not as shared an experience as blogging, where a post is out there on the aggregator for anyone to see. The great thing about “Lib Dem Blogs” is the sense of community that it creates and fosters. We all feel we’re on the same team, sharing viewpoints. Twitter never gives me that same sense of togetherness.
As for a “tweet of the year” – at least with a “blog post of the year” there’s a chance of it being memorable/having hit the golden dozen/at least you can look back over the aggregator archive. But if you *want* to produce a “tweet of the week” post every week for 52 weeks then maybe people will have something to base their choices on, otherwise you’re asking people to review an unspeakable number of tweets. Most of which will be dribble.
There's nothing wrong with praising a well put, pithy Tweet. There's no reason not to praise short, gossip or "look at this" style blog posts. If that's what you're good at then more power to your fluffy elbow. But there are NO EXCUSES for dissing the long essay. Writing a long essay is HARD WORK, and people who have put time and HEART into writing – even IF they're only read by eight other people ever – deserve respect and encouragement, not contempt.
Usain Bolt can run a hundred metres in nine-and-a-half seconds. But you wouldn't tell Mo Farrah that his 10,000 metres is "too long and boring", would you? And Jessica Innes would be well within her rights to stick you with a javelin if you criticised her for doing seven events over two days when she should be getting it all over quicker by doing just one.
We complain about SHORT-TERMISM and FALLING ATTENTION SPANS. We are DEEPLY AGGRIEVED when people make SIMPLISTIC black and white judgements – like "the Lib Dems just jumped into bed with the Tories cos they wanted bums in ministerial limos". We have EVERY RIGHT to be BADWORDED off when the BBC reduces political arguments to "left v right" or "rebels v loyalists". So why put up with a trend that says "I can't be bothered to read more than two sentences".
Dammit, I'm here to FREE PEOPLE FROM IGNORANCE not to REWARD IT!
One of Americaland's greatest presidents, President Bartlet, once said it like this:
If you're going to approach the Internet with an attitude of "tl:dr" then it's YOU who has a SERIOUS problem, not me.
A "blog" is a diary, is a journal, is a body of work that builds up over time and develops coherent and self-supporting philosophy. You CAN read it one post at a time. Or you can read it in long stretches. You can read it as a single essay that catches your eye, or as chapters in a developing narrative.
As Liberal Democrats we EXPECT MORE of people than just a grunted "didn't like it". We NEED more too. Unlike the Red or Blue Labservatives, we pride ourselves on our grasp of HISTORY and PHILOSOPHY and IDEAS and INNOVATION, not our TRIBAL DOGMA. We NEED "long blog posts" because we need to be always renewing our intellectual STRENGTH IN DEPTH. We, far more than the knee-jerk Conservatories or Her Majesty's Loyal Opportunists in Hard Labour, we need to know what the next ten words are. And the next ten. And the ten after that.
Perhaps we expect too much, but if we have it in our power to encourage the "better angels" of human nature then that is what we should do.
This week there's a call from Daddy Alex (supported by Auntie Jennie, following Lord Bonkers) for REVITALISATION of the Liberal Dcemocrat Blogger of the Year Awards.
And rightly so. In 2010, when my obvious awesomeness was (finally!) recognised, it was a HUGE deal. This year's ceremony, for the just-as-deserving Mr Mark Reckons, didn't feel as SPECIAL. And that's a SHAME.
But today Mr Paul Burblings, who's usually very wise, falls into the TRAP of ANTI-INTELLECTUAL SNEERING about "long blog posts", implying we should drop the BLOG of the year for the TWEET of the year.
Which would be GHASTLY!
For the better part of five thousand years, Rhetoric, the ability properly to couch an argument, whether in speech or essay, has been one of the seven Liberal Arts and a bedrock of what we laughingly call Western Civilisation.
And while the likes of Mr Dame Stephen Fry may (from time to time) Tweet a bon mot with the erudition of a latter day St Oscar that doesn’t stop most of Twitter being an exchange of rather dull, partisan rants.
I'm on Twitter myself (@millenniumdome) but increasingly I don't like what it does to my arguments. It seems to me that 140 characters is ideally calculated to reduce them to the meanest and often stupidest. The immediacy, the brevity, the peer pressure to big up "your side" or, more often, bait the "other side", all combine to incite the sort of Tweets that lead to flame wars. The advantage of a "long blog post" is that it makes me THINK about what I'm writing and consider the OTHER viewpoint(s), not just fire off for instant gratification. And what the fluff is WRONG with allowing a bit of NUANCE anyway? Or even some circumlocution?
Twitter is a conversation in a crowded room with everyone shouting at once, some of whom are friendly, some hostile, some utterly indifferent and no one is really, entirely LISTENING to each other. It’s not as shared an experience as blogging, where a post is out there on the aggregator for anyone to see. The great thing about “Lib Dem Blogs” is the sense of community that it creates and fosters. We all feel we’re on the same team, sharing viewpoints. Twitter never gives me that same sense of togetherness.
As for a “tweet of the year” – at least with a “blog post of the year” there’s a chance of it being memorable/having hit the golden dozen/at least you can look back over the aggregator archive. But if you *want* to produce a “tweet of the week” post every week for 52 weeks then maybe people will have something to base their choices on, otherwise you’re asking people to review an unspeakable number of tweets. Most of which will be dribble.
There's nothing wrong with praising a well put, pithy Tweet. There's no reason not to praise short, gossip or "look at this" style blog posts. If that's what you're good at then more power to your fluffy elbow. But there are NO EXCUSES for dissing the long essay. Writing a long essay is HARD WORK, and people who have put time and HEART into writing – even IF they're only read by eight other people ever – deserve respect and encouragement, not contempt.
Usain Bolt can run a hundred metres in nine-and-a-half seconds. But you wouldn't tell Mo Farrah that his 10,000 metres is "too long and boring", would you? And Jessica Innes would be well within her rights to stick you with a javelin if you criticised her for doing seven events over two days when she should be getting it all over quicker by doing just one.
We complain about SHORT-TERMISM and FALLING ATTENTION SPANS. We are DEEPLY AGGRIEVED when people make SIMPLISTIC black and white judgements – like "the Lib Dems just jumped into bed with the Tories cos they wanted bums in ministerial limos". We have EVERY RIGHT to be BADWORDED off when the BBC reduces political arguments to "left v right" or "rebels v loyalists". So why put up with a trend that says "I can't be bothered to read more than two sentences".
Dammit, I'm here to FREE PEOPLE FROM IGNORANCE not to REWARD IT!
One of Americaland's greatest presidents, President Bartlet, once said it like this:
"There it is. That's the ten word answer my staff's been looking for for two weeks. There it is. Ten-word answers can kill you in political campaigns. They're the tip of the sword. Here's my question: What are the next ten words of your answer? Your taxes are too high? So are mine. Give me the next ten words. How are we going to do it? Give me ten after that, I'll drop out of the race right now. Every once in a while... every once in a while, there's a day with an absolute right and an absolute wrong, but those days almost always include body counts. Other than that, there aren't very many unnuanced moments in leading a country that's way too big for ten words."
If you're going to approach the Internet with an attitude of "tl:dr" then it's YOU who has a SERIOUS problem, not me.
A "blog" is a diary, is a journal, is a body of work that builds up over time and develops coherent and self-supporting philosophy. You CAN read it one post at a time. Or you can read it in long stretches. You can read it as a single essay that catches your eye, or as chapters in a developing narrative.
As Liberal Democrats we EXPECT MORE of people than just a grunted "didn't like it". We NEED more too. Unlike the Red or Blue Labservatives, we pride ourselves on our grasp of HISTORY and PHILOSOPHY and IDEAS and INNOVATION, not our TRIBAL DOGMA. We NEED "long blog posts" because we need to be always renewing our intellectual STRENGTH IN DEPTH. We, far more than the knee-jerk Conservatories or Her Majesty's Loyal Opportunists in Hard Labour, we need to know what the next ten words are. And the next ten. And the ten after that.
Perhaps we expect too much, but if we have it in our power to encourage the "better angels" of human nature then that is what we should do.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Day 4153: Five by Five. Or by ME, actually.
Tuesday:
Auntie Caron has come up with one of those Internet Me-me-me-s thingies that you find on the Wibbly Wobbly Web. "If you have a blog," she asks, "what were you writing about this time in previous years?"
Auntie Jennie has already had a go, so I will too.
How things have changed! Five years ago I was very, very young and little and not even recognised as most famousest Blogger of the Year yet! Also the government were VERY unpopular and the economy was in TATTERS. Oh well; not everything changes.
Let's head backwards in time... [vworp... vworp... vworp....]
2011: In the aftermath of losing the AV referendum, some words about the Conservatories' OWN plans for constitutional change: elected police commissioners.
"I mean, our coalition partners couldn't be MONSTROUS HYPOCRITES could they."
(also, some DOCTOR WOO.)
2010: Emotions run high on the forming of the Coalition.
"'…and I for one welcome our new Liberal Deputy Overlord!' Kent Brockman, Springfield News"
(also, some DOCTOR WOO.)
2009: A review of the then-new Star Trek by J J Abrams. And an opportunity for a cute photo of ME in Star Fleet Uniform!
"Red Shirt! That's GOOD isn't it?"
(also, a DOCTOR WOO flashback.)
2008: When Cardinal O'Connor compares ATHEISTS to NAZIS, the Militant Atheist Baby Elephant gets BIBLICAL with a FISKING.
"Wrong, wrong, wrong. And all the more IRONIC because he was SUPPOSEDLY on air to big-up the speech he made to say: why don't we talk to the atheists..."
(also, guess what, some DOCTOR WOO.)
2007: Remember the days when Mr Frown was shiny and new and elected Prime Monster? No, neither do I. A Bill to exempt MPs from Freedom of Information comes up in the House of Commons and too few Liberal Heroes stand up to be counted against the LAB-SERVATIVE Alliance.
"You have to hand it to Mr Frown… and that is exactly what the Labour have done!"
(also... oh, you know the drill by now!)
2006: Whoops, overshot! Argh! Lord Blairimort! Panic! Panic!
1657: Oops, leaned a bit heavily on the go-backwards-forwards-quickly button, there. Now, who is this fragrant METROSEXUAL approaching... Stone Me! It's the Lord Protector! What I need now is a "Republic" tee-shirt and a copy of Mr Conrad's book on the ENglish Civil War. I KNEW those would come in handy!
.
Auntie Caron has come up with one of those Internet Me-me-me-s thingies that you find on the Wibbly Wobbly Web. "If you have a blog," she asks, "what were you writing about this time in previous years?"
Auntie Jennie has already had a go, so I will too.
How things have changed! Five years ago I was very, very young and little and not even recognised as most famousest Blogger of the Year yet! Also the government were VERY unpopular and the economy was in TATTERS. Oh well; not everything changes.
Let's head backwards in time... [vworp... vworp... vworp....]
2011: In the aftermath of losing the AV referendum, some words about the Conservatories' OWN plans for constitutional change: elected police commissioners.
"I mean, our coalition partners couldn't be MONSTROUS HYPOCRITES could they."
(also, some DOCTOR WOO.)
2010: Emotions run high on the forming of the Coalition.
"'…and I for one welcome our new Liberal Deputy Overlord!' Kent Brockman, Springfield News"
(also, some DOCTOR WOO.)
2009: A review of the then-new Star Trek by J J Abrams. And an opportunity for a cute photo of ME in Star Fleet Uniform!
"Red Shirt! That's GOOD isn't it?"
(also, a DOCTOR WOO flashback.)
2008: When Cardinal O'Connor compares ATHEISTS to NAZIS, the Militant Atheist Baby Elephant gets BIBLICAL with a FISKING.
"Wrong, wrong, wrong. And all the more IRONIC because he was SUPPOSEDLY on air to big-up the speech he made to say: why don't we talk to the atheists..."
(also, guess what, some DOCTOR WOO.)
2007: Remember the days when Mr Frown was shiny and new and elected Prime Monster? No, neither do I. A Bill to exempt MPs from Freedom of Information comes up in the House of Commons and too few Liberal Heroes stand up to be counted against the LAB-SERVATIVE Alliance.
"You have to hand it to Mr Frown… and that is exactly what the Labour have done!"
(also... oh, you know the drill by now!)
2006: Whoops, overshot! Argh! Lord Blairimort! Panic! Panic!
1657: Oops, leaned a bit heavily on the go-backwards-forwards-quickly button, there. Now, who is this fragrant METROSEXUAL approaching... Stone Me! It's the Lord Protector! What I need now is a "Republic" tee-shirt and a copy of Mr Conrad's book on the ENglish Civil War. I KNEW those would come in handy!
.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Day 3548: It should have been ME... and it was!!!
Saturday:
Well, adjectives escape me, this came as something of a surprise, but it turns out that I am Liberal Democrat Blogger of the Year.
And I have the coaster to prove it. No really, it's cut from rare crystal Libroleum and is worth more than words can say.
Prescious Thing
Once they'd picked him up off the floor, they made Daddy Richard make a speach. Here're his words in full:
Only the Liberal Democrats could get into government after ninety years... and choose a soft toy as their best blogger of the year.
I'm actually a bit chuffed. Thank you.
Well, adjectives escape me, this came as something of a surprise, but it turns out that I am Liberal Democrat Blogger of the Year.
And I have the coaster to prove it. No really, it's cut from rare crystal Libroleum and is worth more than words can say.
Prescious Thing
Once they'd picked him up off the floor, they made Daddy Richard make a speach. Here're his words in full:
wibble, wibble, wibble, wibble, wibbleSo let ME say, big thank you hugs to the judges for voting for me and to all the other nonimees for being such good sports and most especially to Auntie Helen for doing all the work that makes the Blog of the Year awards happen.
Only the Liberal Democrats could get into government after ninety years... and choose a soft toy as their best blogger of the year.
I'm actually a bit chuffed. Thank you.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Day 3532: FINALLY, Some Recognition!
Thursday:
My fluffy diary has, it would seem, been voted 31st Worst Political Blog in Great Britain, and, as far as I can tell, that makes me WORST LIBERAL DEMOCRAT BLOGGER!
It's a moment to be truly proud!
To be RANKED more REVOLTING than such media movers as Mr Benedict "Tell-lie-o-graph" Brogan (48) and Mr Nick "Mate-of-Dave" Robinson (57); JUDGED more JAUNDICED than such Conservatory contrarians as Mr Daniel Hangman (63) and Mr John Deadwood (73); DEEMED more DREADFUL than such egregious egoists as Mr Chris Paul (93) and Mr Hopi Sen (99)… it's more than a fluffy toy deserves!
I'm only JUST not-quite-as-bad-as ConservatoryHome!
Congratulations to NOT-AS-APPALLING-AS-ME Liberal Democrats Mr Liberal Smithy (33), Mr Craig Murrey (42) and Mr Lord Bonkers (97) and anyone else I didn't spot on the list.
I would like to thank my Daddies, Daddy Alex and Daddy Richard, without whom I could not have been nearly as awful and also thank everyone who voted for me (in the hope that it wasn't JUST Mr Dale Winton with his finger on the speed dial).
Honestly, you'd think I was RUDE about people or something!
My fluffy diary has, it would seem, been voted 31st Worst Political Blog in Great Britain, and, as far as I can tell, that makes me WORST LIBERAL DEMOCRAT BLOGGER!
It's a moment to be truly proud!
To be RANKED more REVOLTING than such media movers as Mr Benedict "Tell-lie-o-graph" Brogan (48) and Mr Nick "Mate-of-Dave" Robinson (57); JUDGED more JAUNDICED than such Conservatory contrarians as Mr Daniel Hangman (63) and Mr John Deadwood (73); DEEMED more DREADFUL than such egregious egoists as Mr Chris Paul (93) and Mr Hopi Sen (99)… it's more than a fluffy toy deserves!
I'm only JUST not-quite-as-bad-as ConservatoryHome!
Congratulations to NOT-AS-APPALLING-AS-ME Liberal Democrats Mr Liberal Smithy (33), Mr Craig Murrey (42) and Mr Lord Bonkers (97) and anyone else I didn't spot on the list.
I would like to thank my Daddies, Daddy Alex and Daddy Richard, without whom I could not have been nearly as awful and also thank everyone who voted for me (in the hope that it wasn't JUST Mr Dale Winton with his finger on the speed dial).
Honestly, you'd think I was RUDE about people or something!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Day 3287: A Year in Millennium aka Ooh, You Are Orwell… but I like you!
New Year’s Eve:
As the much-loved Fluffy Elephant of Time paraglides towards the Bouncy Castle of Fate and wonders why it’s blocking the Landing Pad of Destiny, we realise that the Old Year is likewise headed for a rubbery conclusion and reflect on what a year it’s been.
Anyway, the notion of nonimating my fluffy self for this year’s Mr Eric Blair Awards was making its way through my fluffy head, and it occurred to me that I am a MUCH more famouser author than him so I should be handing out awards of my OWN… and here they are!
First, the Memorial Mr Lembit Opik Asteroid Award for making a BIG SPLASH goes to Mr Mark Reckons not just for probably the most influential blog post of the year, but also for the House of Comments podcast (although, is it just me or does it come out a bit QUIET on the old iPod?), for being Director General of the BBC, and for his general ubiquity this year!
The Mr Sir Christopher Lee Genuine Sith Lightning Award for blasting Master Irfan goes to the Honourable Lady Mark for blasting Master Irfan!
The omigod he looks like Mr Stephen Tall’s gay brother Award goes to Mr Matthew Goode (aka Ozymandias, the gay-one-who-is-obviously-the-villain in the Watchpersons movie) as seen on Film 2009!
The omigod he DOES look like a Sontaran Award goes to Mr Andy Hinton… he knows why!
And finally, the COVETED top prize, the Award-winning Auntie Alix Mortimer Award for Awesomeness goes to… Auntie Helen for all her hard work being the SECRET MASTERMIND behind the Lib Dem Blogosphere, for reading the Sainted Earl Conrad, for knowing that the next decade doesn’t start until 2011, for getting her initials – HD – on every new flatscreen telly in the country, for remaining UNSHOCKABLE in the face of all that Auntie Jennie and the Honourable Lady Mark could muster, and for all round general being brilliantness!
So, with that happy announcement, I now offer a glance back at some of the events that have made up 2009, (which might also be a few suggestions for what I might submit to the Orwell Prize 2009 committee! Any other suggestions from anyone more than welcome!!).
On Mr Charlie Brooker in the Guardian denouncing the Sinister Minister, Mr Jack Straw, and Hard Labour in general: On Bovril Buttered Brainwreck and (at the time former) Cabinet Minister Mr Peter Vain calling for reform of the law that he broke: On Mr Balloon apologising for all the Conservatories’ mistakes in the run up to the Credit Crunch: Responding to Mr Rupert the Bear-with-a-sore-head Read, Green Party candidate in the East of England, writing for Labour Conspiracy: On the release of Mr Muhammad al Megrahi: On Mr Daniel Hangman MEP and his list of political "heroes": On the Government requiring criminal records checks for anyone even remotely connected to working with children: On Mr Frown's Conference speech: On former Second Home Secretary Ms Jacquie Spliff apologising for her second home allowance claim: And responding to the idea that we should cut benefits in order to reduce the budget deficit:
…and
With Very-nearly-almost-but-not-quite-President Mr Governor Howard Dean: With Baroness Ros Scott: With Mr Vince “the Power” Cable: With Mr Chris Huhney-Monster: And with someone called Mr Nick Clegg:
Here’s to more fun in 2010. Have a Happy New Year, everybody!
.
As the much-loved Fluffy Elephant of Time paraglides towards the Bouncy Castle of Fate and wonders why it’s blocking the Landing Pad of Destiny, we realise that the Old Year is likewise headed for a rubbery conclusion and reflect on what a year it’s been.
Anyway, the notion of nonimating my fluffy self for this year’s Mr Eric Blair Awards was making its way through my fluffy head, and it occurred to me that I am a MUCH more famouser author than him so I should be handing out awards of my OWN… and here they are!
First, the Memorial Mr Lembit Opik Asteroid Award for making a BIG SPLASH goes to Mr Mark Reckons not just for probably the most influential blog post of the year, but also for the House of Comments podcast (although, is it just me or does it come out a bit QUIET on the old iPod?), for being Director General of the BBC, and for his general ubiquity this year!
The Mr Sir Christopher Lee Genuine Sith Lightning Award for blasting Master Irfan goes to the Honourable Lady Mark for blasting Master Irfan!
The omigod he looks like Mr Stephen Tall’s gay brother Award goes to Mr Matthew Goode (aka Ozymandias, the gay-one-who-is-obviously-the-villain in the Watchpersons movie) as seen on Film 2009!
The omigod he DOES look like a Sontaran Award goes to Mr Andy Hinton… he knows why!
And finally, the COVETED top prize, the Award-winning Auntie Alix Mortimer Award for Awesomeness goes to… Auntie Helen for all her hard work being the SECRET MASTERMIND behind the Lib Dem Blogosphere, for reading the Sainted Earl Conrad, for knowing that the next decade doesn’t start until 2011, for getting her initials – HD – on every new flatscreen telly in the country, for remaining UNSHOCKABLE in the face of all that Auntie Jennie and the Honourable Lady Mark could muster, and for all round general being brilliantness!
So, with that happy announcement, I now offer a glance back at some of the events that have made up 2009, (which might also be a few suggestions for what I might submit to the Orwell Prize 2009 committee! Any other suggestions from anyone more than welcome!!).
Ten entries on "The Very Fluffy Diary of Millennium Dome, Elephant"
On Mr Charlie Brooker in the Guardian denouncing the Sinister Minister, Mr Jack Straw, and Hard Labour in general: On Bovril Buttered Brainwreck and (at the time former) Cabinet Minister Mr Peter Vain calling for reform of the law that he broke: On Mr Balloon apologising for all the Conservatories’ mistakes in the run up to the Credit Crunch: Responding to Mr Rupert the Bear-with-a-sore-head Read, Green Party candidate in the East of England, writing for Labour Conspiracy: On the release of Mr Muhammad al Megrahi: On Mr Daniel Hangman MEP and his list of political "heroes": On the Government requiring criminal records checks for anyone even remotely connected to working with children: On Mr Frown's Conference speech: On former Second Home Secretary Ms Jacquie Spliff apologising for her second home allowance claim: And responding to the idea that we should cut benefits in order to reduce the budget deficit:
Ten Entries on "Liberal Democrat Voice"
January: February: March: April: May: June: July: August: September: October and November:…and ten five more Elephant Interviews
With Very-nearly-almost-but-not-quite-President Mr Governor Howard Dean: With Baroness Ros Scott: With Mr Vince “the Power” Cable: With Mr Chris Huhney-Monster: And with someone called Mr Nick Clegg: Here’s to more fun in 2010. Have a Happy New Year, everybody!
.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Day 3238: Mr Mark Reckons named 65th most powerful person on Earth
Thursday:
The new 2009 Forbes Power List has been published and the two persons from Great Britain on the table of the World's 67 most powerful people (apparently one for every one-hundred million humans) are the Prime Monster Mr Frown and our very own Mr Mark Thompson!
I've got that right, haven't I?
Clearly, it really WAS a VERY GOOD blog post.
OBVIOUSLY this is only the list of the most important HUMAN BEANS. I eagerly… and modestly… await the list of the World's most important ELEPHANTS…
…still waiting…
…still waiting…
…still waiting…
.
The new 2009 Forbes Power List has been published and the two persons from Great Britain on the table of the World's 67 most powerful people (apparently one for every one-hundred million humans) are the Prime Monster Mr Frown and our very own Mr Mark Thompson!
I've got that right, haven't I?
Clearly, it really WAS a VERY GOOD blog post.
OBVIOUSLY this is only the list of the most important HUMAN BEANS. I eagerly… and modestly… await the list of the World's most important ELEPHANTS…
…still waiting…
…still waiting…
…still waiting…
.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Day 3164: You Know My Name (It's Millennium)
Sunday:
Now here is an interesting and maybe worrying question.
Mr Jonathan Bonkers of Liberal England writes that he won't be replying to Decline of the Logos because "…I am not going to get into an argument with an anonymous blogger".
He puts this down to two things: first, he cannot take someone who does not reveal their name seriously and, second, he thinks that it is rude.
Now surely a point is TRUE or FALSE whether you know the person who made it or not.
But the thing is, Decline of the Logos is NOT anonymous; they are PSEUDONYMOUS.
The point of anonymity is that you are not bound to your opinions, you can "hit and run" and not be challenged for consistency or face much of a right of reply.
But a blog or diary written under a pseudonym is still entirely identifiable AS that person, it's just that they have chosen their own Nom de Plume.
There are several Liberal Democrat bloggers, really rather good and occasionally even award-winning bloggers, who choose to be identified by their own choice of name, rather than their Hard Labour I.D.iot Card Number: Don Liberali, Costigan Quist, The Voice on Lib Dem Voice, and, er, Millennium Elephant (holds up fluffy feet – I AM Spartacus!).
You cannot entirely get away from the idea that Mr Jonathan thinks we are ALL being rude and ridiculous.
Mr Simon Titter-ye-not goes even further in the comment to Mr Jonathan's post:
"One does sense that most anonymous bloggers are in fact rather sad young men sitting in their bedrooms playing fantasy politics."
Well, I'm glad that you can SENSE that, rather than having anything old-fashioned like evidence.
One anecdote – an "anonymous" lady blogger now suing Google for revealing her identity because she defamed and insulted people – one anecdote does not make for a rule.
To say that "some people use pseudonyms to attack other people, therefore ALL people who use pseudonyms should be dismissed as irrelevant" is a stupid generalisation.
There are LOTS of reasons why someone might choose to write under a name that they choose for themselves rather than the name they were given.
Nightjack, for example, was only able to talk about the inner workings of the police force so long as he remained anonymous.
Women writers – and you can look back to, say, George Elliot although more recently Dorothy Fontana found the ambiguity of being "DC" helped her in the male-dominated world of Hollywood television – might find a male pseudonym prevents people making backwards prejudgements about their writing or politics.
Choosing your own name is a POWERFUL action, and you shouldn't go around dismissing people for doing it.
Do Mr Cassius Clay's Heavyweight World Titles not count for anything after he chose to be Mr Muhammad Ali?
Does Mr Cat (formerly Steven Georgiou) Stevens' music cease to count after he chose to be Mr Yusuf Islam?
Did Mr David McDonald never star as Hamlet or Dr Woo because Equity rules meant he had to be Mr Dr David Tennant?
Should we not take Mr Prince Charles seriously as King if (as he has hinted) he chooses to reign as Mr King George VII? (Actually, that last one is a trick question.)
To say "I cannot find this person's real name on their blog so I will not take them seriously as I cannot take someone in a Donald Duck mask seriously," is a straw man – I cannot find anyone in a Donald Duck mask on Decline of the Logos site either, so you are deliberately making them seem MORE ridiculous to justify your dismissal.
Do you think that Muhammad Ali is ridiculous because he "wears a Donald Duck mask"? Does George Elliot "wear a Donald Duck mask"? Or what about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – those are pseudonyms too remember.
The QUALITY of an argument depends upon the ARGUMENT, not on the quality of the person making it. In the Doctor Who story "City of Death", it turns out that the GENUINE Mona Lisa has "this is a fake" written across the canvass in felt tip. Or, as Dr Woo puts it:
"If you need to x-ray a painting to know if it's any good, you are rather missing the point."
On the Web we are identified by who we say we are; that identity extends to the collected body of our opinions and if people are kind enough to read us a lot then they should become aware of our personalities through their experience of our opinions. The name that we choose to represent ourselves under is less important than the associated collection of "what we know about this blogger's opinion".
We all have a kind of "sphere of knowledge" around our name, which is what people think of when they hear our name. It's like what I said the other day about Mr Daniel Hangman and Mr Enoch Powell and everything having CONTEXT. And it links in to what I said political Parties EMPOWERING voters.
If the madness takes you and you stand for Parliament, standing as "Mr Enoch Powell" (to pick a name out of the hat of randomness) or for that matter someone like "Ms Anne Widdy-one" or "Mr Red Ken Livingstone" then you are famous enough in your own right for your name to stand for the things about you and for people to know what that means. Enough people are aware of the "sphere of knowledge" around your name.
But if you are merely Mr Oliver Bufton, then standing as "Mr Oliver Bufton" says infinitely less about you than standing as "Mr Oliver Bufton, Conservatory".
That Conservatory label – or Hard Labour or Liberal Democrat label – gives people a handle on who you are, gives them a "sphere of knowledge" to make your name MEAN something to them.
And, like choosing a pseudonym for the Internet, choosing a Party label tells us something about them because it is a CHOICE.
In a world where most people are NOT famous celebrities like me, knowing people's CHOICES is what we NEED in order to decide if we agree or disagree, like them or not like them, subscribe to their RSS feed or mute them on the Blogregator. Knowing where their Daddy's umpteen-greats granddaddy lived or what his job was in the twelfth century does NOT seem particularly useful in this regard.
Knowing someone's "real" name is NOT what is important; what is important is what that name MEANS in terms of ideas and opinions; in the information age it is what that name makes you THINK about.
It doesn't MATTER whether that is the name we were given by someone else or one that we made up for ourselves.
Or to put it another way, as far as posting opinions on the Wibbly Wobbly Web goes, how are we able to tell that, say, "Jonathan Calder" is NOT a pseudonym used by Lord Bonkers?
.
Now here is an interesting and maybe worrying question.
Mr Jonathan Bonkers of Liberal England writes that he won't be replying to Decline of the Logos because "…I am not going to get into an argument with an anonymous blogger".
He puts this down to two things: first, he cannot take someone who does not reveal their name seriously and, second, he thinks that it is rude.
Now surely a point is TRUE or FALSE whether you know the person who made it or not.
But the thing is, Decline of the Logos is NOT anonymous; they are PSEUDONYMOUS.
The point of anonymity is that you are not bound to your opinions, you can "hit and run" and not be challenged for consistency or face much of a right of reply.
But a blog or diary written under a pseudonym is still entirely identifiable AS that person, it's just that they have chosen their own Nom de Plume.
There are several Liberal Democrat bloggers, really rather good and occasionally even award-winning bloggers, who choose to be identified by their own choice of name, rather than their Hard Labour I.D.iot Card Number: Don Liberali, Costigan Quist, The Voice on Lib Dem Voice, and, er, Millennium Elephant (holds up fluffy feet – I AM Spartacus!).
You cannot entirely get away from the idea that Mr Jonathan thinks we are ALL being rude and ridiculous.
Mr Simon Titter-ye-not goes even further in the comment to Mr Jonathan's post:
"One does sense that most anonymous bloggers are in fact rather sad young men sitting in their bedrooms playing fantasy politics."
Well, I'm glad that you can SENSE that, rather than having anything old-fashioned like evidence.
One anecdote – an "anonymous" lady blogger now suing Google for revealing her identity because she defamed and insulted people – one anecdote does not make for a rule.
To say that "some people use pseudonyms to attack other people, therefore ALL people who use pseudonyms should be dismissed as irrelevant" is a stupid generalisation.
There are LOTS of reasons why someone might choose to write under a name that they choose for themselves rather than the name they were given.
Nightjack, for example, was only able to talk about the inner workings of the police force so long as he remained anonymous.
Women writers – and you can look back to, say, George Elliot although more recently Dorothy Fontana found the ambiguity of being "DC" helped her in the male-dominated world of Hollywood television – might find a male pseudonym prevents people making backwards prejudgements about their writing or politics.
Choosing your own name is a POWERFUL action, and you shouldn't go around dismissing people for doing it.
Do Mr Cassius Clay's Heavyweight World Titles not count for anything after he chose to be Mr Muhammad Ali?
Does Mr Cat (formerly Steven Georgiou) Stevens' music cease to count after he chose to be Mr Yusuf Islam?
Did Mr David McDonald never star as Hamlet or Dr Woo because Equity rules meant he had to be Mr Dr David Tennant?
Should we not take Mr Prince Charles seriously as King if (as he has hinted) he chooses to reign as Mr King George VII? (Actually, that last one is a trick question.)
To say "I cannot find this person's real name on their blog so I will not take them seriously as I cannot take someone in a Donald Duck mask seriously," is a straw man – I cannot find anyone in a Donald Duck mask on Decline of the Logos site either, so you are deliberately making them seem MORE ridiculous to justify your dismissal.
Do you think that Muhammad Ali is ridiculous because he "wears a Donald Duck mask"? Does George Elliot "wear a Donald Duck mask"? Or what about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – those are pseudonyms too remember.
The QUALITY of an argument depends upon the ARGUMENT, not on the quality of the person making it. In the Doctor Who story "City of Death", it turns out that the GENUINE Mona Lisa has "this is a fake" written across the canvass in felt tip. Or, as Dr Woo puts it:
"If you need to x-ray a painting to know if it's any good, you are rather missing the point."
On the Web we are identified by who we say we are; that identity extends to the collected body of our opinions and if people are kind enough to read us a lot then they should become aware of our personalities through their experience of our opinions. The name that we choose to represent ourselves under is less important than the associated collection of "what we know about this blogger's opinion".
We all have a kind of "sphere of knowledge" around our name, which is what people think of when they hear our name. It's like what I said the other day about Mr Daniel Hangman and Mr Enoch Powell and everything having CONTEXT. And it links in to what I said political Parties EMPOWERING voters.
If the madness takes you and you stand for Parliament, standing as "Mr Enoch Powell" (to pick a name out of the hat of randomness) or for that matter someone like "Ms Anne Widdy-one" or "Mr Red Ken Livingstone" then you are famous enough in your own right for your name to stand for the things about you and for people to know what that means. Enough people are aware of the "sphere of knowledge" around your name.
But if you are merely Mr Oliver Bufton, then standing as "Mr Oliver Bufton" says infinitely less about you than standing as "Mr Oliver Bufton, Conservatory".
That Conservatory label – or Hard Labour or Liberal Democrat label – gives people a handle on who you are, gives them a "sphere of knowledge" to make your name MEAN something to them.
And, like choosing a pseudonym for the Internet, choosing a Party label tells us something about them because it is a CHOICE.
In a world where most people are NOT famous celebrities like me, knowing people's CHOICES is what we NEED in order to decide if we agree or disagree, like them or not like them, subscribe to their RSS feed or mute them on the Blogregator. Knowing where their Daddy's umpteen-greats granddaddy lived or what his job was in the twelfth century does NOT seem particularly useful in this regard.
Knowing someone's "real" name is NOT what is important; what is important is what that name MEANS in terms of ideas and opinions; in the information age it is what that name makes you THINK about.
It doesn't MATTER whether that is the name we were given by someone else or one that we made up for ourselves.
Or to put it another way, as far as posting opinions on the Wibbly Wobbly Web goes, how are we able to tell that, say, "Jonathan Calder" is NOT a pseudonym used by Lord Bonkers?
.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Day 3142: Who would win a fight between Scary Charlotte and Wicked Uncle Costigan?
Saturday:
Scary Charlotte?
Scary Charlotte?
Scary Charlotte?
Scary Charlotte?
There's only one way to find out…
FIIIIIIIIII…ind out who wins Liberal Democrat BOTY of the Year!
My money's on Mr Mark Reckons, anyway…
.
Scary Charlotte?
Scary Charlotte?
Scary Charlotte?
Scary Charlotte?
There's only one way to find out…
FIIIIIIIIII…ind out who wins Liberal Democrat BOTY of the Year!
My money's on Mr Mark Reckons, anyway…
.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Day 2785: The Genius of Ms Mortimer…
Saturday:
…is that she guessed my FAVOURITE diary of the year without being told!
Day 2466: EXCLUSIVE: Millennium Meets Mr Balloon: the Interview
Who can challenge the wisdom of a lady with such PERSPICACITY!
It is obvious to everyone that she is going to win this year's Blogger of the Year Award. So that is why I am nonimating… Daddy Alex*.
Oh, I am SUCH a naughty gonk!
I do hope you'll vote for me anyway!
Meanwhile, Daddy has suggested that we all do his TONS OF FUN meme, the awards you cannot lose 'cos you award them to YOURSELF.
If you are going to recommend ONE Fluffy Diary, please recommend my Interview with Mr Balloon. It's my favourite!
But if you're going to see TWO… no wait, that's Austin Powers…
Having already picked that one as my overall winner, I should like to nonimate a post each for each of my other ARCH-ENEMIES…
Mr Frown:
Day 2681: Görd-erdämmerung (Twilight of the Frown)
Master Gideon Oboe:
Day 2661: Gideon Goes for Gordon
and His Worship, the Beardy Weirdy of Canterbury:
Day 2597: Every Burkha has a Silver Lining
Then, on a more positive note, something about DOCTOR WHO; this one which was particularly praised by Daddy:
Day 2462: Mysteries of Doctor Who #12: Who sends the Doctor after the Key to Time.
But there are also one whole GROUP of diaries that I am particularly proud to have got:
Day 2501: The Leadership Interview… Chris Huhne meets Millennium (and some other people)
Day 2514: The Leadership Interview… Nick Clegg meets Millennium (and some other people)
Day 2528: Lessons in Leadership: Millennium Elephant talks to Dr Vince Cable MP
Day 2614: Man of the Moment: Ed Davey meets Millennium Elephant (and some other people)
Day 2641: Millennium Elephant meets Ron the Dinosaur (oh and Mr Danny Alexander and some other people)
Day 2684: A Hundred (and-forty-one) Days of Mr Clogg
Day 2759: Liberal Youths: Millennium Elephant (8*) talks to Ali Wood (15) and George Duffett (12). And of course Ms Jo Swinson (28)
And the one that even made it to the Grauniad:
Day 2543: Nick Clegg: His Hand on My Bottom
Day 2544: The Pat of Power
This has been (thanks to some SERIOUS catch-up back-posting) my NINE HUNDREDTH fluffy diary, and was brought to you by the miracle of Daddy's TONS OF FUN meme!
…is that she guessed my FAVOURITE diary of the year without being told!
Day 2466: EXCLUSIVE: Millennium Meets Mr Balloon: the Interview
Who can challenge the wisdom of a lady with such PERSPICACITY!
It is obvious to everyone that she is going to win this year's Blogger of the Year Award. So that is why I am nonimating… Daddy Alex*.
Oh, I am SUCH a naughty gonk!
I do hope you'll vote for me anyway!
Meanwhile, Daddy has suggested that we all do his TONS OF FUN meme, the awards you cannot lose 'cos you award them to YOURSELF.
If you are going to recommend ONE Fluffy Diary, please recommend my Interview with Mr Balloon. It's my favourite!
But if you're going to see TWO… no wait, that's Austin Powers…
Having already picked that one as my overall winner, I should like to nonimate a post each for each of my other ARCH-ENEMIES…
Mr Frown:
Day 2681: Görd-erdämmerung (Twilight of the Frown)
Master Gideon Oboe:
Day 2661: Gideon Goes for Gordon
and His Worship, the Beardy Weirdy of Canterbury:
Day 2597: Every Burkha has a Silver Lining
Then, on a more positive note, something about DOCTOR WHO; this one which was particularly praised by Daddy:
Day 2462: Mysteries of Doctor Who #12: Who sends the Doctor after the Key to Time.
But there are also one whole GROUP of diaries that I am particularly proud to have got:
Day 2501: The Leadership Interview… Chris Huhne meets Millennium (and some other people)
Day 2514: The Leadership Interview… Nick Clegg meets Millennium (and some other people)
Day 2528: Lessons in Leadership: Millennium Elephant talks to Dr Vince Cable MP
Day 2614: Man of the Moment: Ed Davey meets Millennium Elephant (and some other people)
Day 2641: Millennium Elephant meets Ron the Dinosaur (oh and Mr Danny Alexander and some other people)
Day 2684: A Hundred (and-forty-one) Days of Mr Clogg
Day 2759: Liberal Youths: Millennium Elephant (8*) talks to Ali Wood (15) and George Duffett (12). And of course Ms Jo Swinson (28)
And the one that even made it to the Grauniad:
Day 2543: Nick Clegg: His Hand on My Bottom
Day 2544: The Pat of Power
PS:
*Of COURSE I shall nonimate Citizen Alix as well; what sort of a soft toy do you think I am!This has been (thanks to some SERIOUS catch-up back-posting) my NINE HUNDREDTH fluffy diary, and was brought to you by the miracle of Daddy's TONS OF FUN meme!
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Day 2733: There's little that's Liberal about THIS Conspiracy
Wednesday:
This is going to sound SOOOOO ungracious after they were kind enough to invite me to their meeting, but the "Left Liberal Bloggers Summit" organised by the Labour Conspiracy and the Grauniad this week was DULL with a capital DULL!
I was not sure what I was expecting it to be about going in, but more disappointingly I am really not sure what it was all for coming out!
What I CAN say is that it felt like a typical Labour Students meeting: a panel of the "important people" at the front addressing a lecture hall of us "proles". If you were a friend of the chair you were called by name; if he didn't know you you were made to declare name, rank and blog serial number.
"I don't want this to be a pyramidical hierarchy," declared Labour Conspiracy chairperson Sunny at one point.
"Well what are you SITTING in, then?" replied Daddy Alex.
"And who's in the BURIAL CHAMBER?" added Daddy Richard.
The problem for me – and I suspect for the several Lib Dem bloggers sat next to us, and probably for several of the other members of the audience, not least the man who said he would rather gnaw off his own arm than vote for the Labour – the PROBLEM was that the entire affair seemed to be based on the PRESUMPTION that we should be trying to SAVE the Labour (possibly from ITSELF… more probably from the GOVERNMENT!).
Daddy Alex said that as far as they were concerned, there are clearly two sorts of Liberal Left Bloggers: Labour Bloggers and DISGRUNTLED Labour Bloggers!
Okay, I put my fluffy feet up and admit I am being slightly unfair to the panel, most if not all of whom seemed to have even less idea why they were there than WE did! Mr Tim Bloggerheads gave us a brief history of blogging, saying how it really all began on the liberal left, before during and after Lord Blairimort's campaign to make sand smoulder, and that the Conservatories did not get involved until after Mr Dale Winton lost in North Norfolk at the 2005 General Election and decided to do something else with his diary.
In fact I am sure that Mr Winton would be THOROUGHLY thrilled in the "Dear Oscar" sense to know that the Labour Conspiracy were spending so much time TALKING about him.
"My dears: the ONLY thing worse than being BLOGGED about… is NOT being blogged about!"
Much was the wailing on the part of the Labour bloggers that they do not have a big STAR NAME blogger like him or ME! Or denouncing the very idea of star names and saying that they never needed one anyway! And besides those grapes looked really green and sour etc…
Mr Bloggerheads stood aside from all of this, occasionally pointing and laughing. His position appears to be – and forgive me if I have this wrong – bloggers should do BLOGGING. Getting organised, coordinating action, having hidden agendas isn't really in keeping with the whole individual freedom / shooting your mouth off ethos that blogging springs from.
Having AGENDAS was very much what the other panellists seemed to be about, though. There was a man from the Labour Home saying how they set it up so that members of the Labour could feel like they were having a conversation with the leadership. Riiiiight. And there was a lady from the f-word. Apparently this means FEMINISM and is nothing to do with Gordon Ramsey. There was Dan the Angry Man from the Iraqi Interpreters campaign. He gave us a brisk (or brusque) lecture on how to set up an online campaign. (Clue one: if you're not willing to work at it hard full time for more than a year: give up! Clue two: offline campaigning is, still, more important than online campaigning; get your phone calling and letter writing done.) He arrived late and seemed personally cross with each and every one of us for the government having shafted him, his campaign and above all the Iraqis. And then there was one of the moderators of the Grauniad's comment is free. She was there to explain to us why the Grauniad is DIFFERENT to the Torygraph. And apparently it's NOT because the Torygraph still MATTERS.
The only real thing that we learned is that the Green Party are to launch a rival to ConservatoryHome and LabourHome called… "GreenHome" which is… erm… original.
After two hours of this we were all given a two-minute break to stretch our legs and sing the INTERNATIONALE.
Then there was a change of panellists in order to spend another hour on the section billed: "Where are all the women bloggers?". I do not know where the women bloggers are because we spent the hour answering the question: "why can't men just do what feminists tell them to?" (In fairness, at least one of the feminist bloggers didn't know where the women bloggers were either, since she insisted that the only women in the room were the ones on her row, which overlooked the few-but-not-none scattered through the rest of the audience, including our own Mayor Mary. But since her point was "how dare you not name any feminist bloggers" to a man who hadn't named ANY bloggers at all, there may have been more going on there than a fluffy toy can understand.)
What we really learned from this is that there are a wholeSPECTRE SPECTRUM of (often contradictory) things that these particular feminist bloggers wanted: independence, recognition, not to be bullied, not to be ignored, men to support their arguments, men not to "muscle in" on their arguments, the internet to be more inclusive, to be left alone… Blogging, of course, allows you to speak with ALL of these voices, or as many as you choose to, but not if you are going to try and impose some kind of collective unified "purpose". Which brings us back to where we were for the first two hours.
Still, the NIBBLES were nice, and I am sure the sandwiches would have been delicious if they had not been left to mummify in the desiccating atmosphere of the Grauniad's photo gallery. (Some nice snaps, by the way!)
If this had been a really LIBERAL do, though, we would have STARTED with the nibbles and the drinkies (not for baby elephants!) and had some get-to-know-you chit-chat. Then maybe we would have had a couple of speeches from the likes of our panellists. And they could have finished up by giving me the Blogger of the Year Award. Erm.
We would have got to know a few people, maybe found some blogs that we want to read.
We did manage to meet nice Mr Bloggerheads, who sort of recognised Daddy Richard which scared Daddy no end (he is not used to FAME and ATTENTION the way that I am!) And also nice Mr Malcolm of Make Votes Count, Mr Lee Griffin, Mr Chris and Ms Kate Smurthwait who is also a fan of Mr Dr Evan Harris!
But the people of Labour Conspiracy did not make any effort to introduce themselves to us or try to engage us or find out what it was that WE wanted. Au contraire. It was all about what we should be doing for the Labour.
Mr Paul Burblings had bravely spoken up to suggest that left-wing bloggers might be happier with a period of opposition, that after so long in power they had found themselves caught in the position of defending… well, rubbish. A palpable GASP had gone around the room.
"With maybe two years to the election," the Grauniad lady asked, "what is it that we can do to stop the Labour from falling?"
"Give it a good shove," was Daddy Alex's barely subvocalised suggestion.
Now THAT is a conspiracy I WOULD join!
This is going to sound SOOOOO ungracious after they were kind enough to invite me to their meeting, but the "Left Liberal Bloggers Summit" organised by the Labour Conspiracy and the Grauniad this week was DULL with a capital DULL!
I was not sure what I was expecting it to be about going in, but more disappointingly I am really not sure what it was all for coming out!
What I CAN say is that it felt like a typical Labour Students meeting: a panel of the "important people" at the front addressing a lecture hall of us "proles". If you were a friend of the chair you were called by name; if he didn't know you you were made to declare name, rank and blog serial number.
"I don't want this to be a pyramidical hierarchy," declared Labour Conspiracy chairperson Sunny at one point.
"Well what are you SITTING in, then?" replied Daddy Alex.
"And who's in the BURIAL CHAMBER?" added Daddy Richard.
The problem for me – and I suspect for the several Lib Dem bloggers sat next to us, and probably for several of the other members of the audience, not least the man who said he would rather gnaw off his own arm than vote for the Labour – the PROBLEM was that the entire affair seemed to be based on the PRESUMPTION that we should be trying to SAVE the Labour (possibly from ITSELF… more probably from the GOVERNMENT!).
Daddy Alex said that as far as they were concerned, there are clearly two sorts of Liberal Left Bloggers: Labour Bloggers and DISGRUNTLED Labour Bloggers!
Okay, I put my fluffy feet up and admit I am being slightly unfair to the panel, most if not all of whom seemed to have even less idea why they were there than WE did! Mr Tim Bloggerheads gave us a brief history of blogging, saying how it really all began on the liberal left, before during and after Lord Blairimort's campaign to make sand smoulder, and that the Conservatories did not get involved until after Mr Dale Winton lost in North Norfolk at the 2005 General Election and decided to do something else with his diary.
In fact I am sure that Mr Winton would be THOROUGHLY thrilled in the "Dear Oscar" sense to know that the Labour Conspiracy were spending so much time TALKING about him.
"My dears: the ONLY thing worse than being BLOGGED about… is NOT being blogged about!"
Much was the wailing on the part of the Labour bloggers that they do not have a big STAR NAME blogger like him or ME! Or denouncing the very idea of star names and saying that they never needed one anyway! And besides those grapes looked really green and sour etc…
Mr Bloggerheads stood aside from all of this, occasionally pointing and laughing. His position appears to be – and forgive me if I have this wrong – bloggers should do BLOGGING. Getting organised, coordinating action, having hidden agendas isn't really in keeping with the whole individual freedom / shooting your mouth off ethos that blogging springs from.
Having AGENDAS was very much what the other panellists seemed to be about, though. There was a man from the Labour Home saying how they set it up so that members of the Labour could feel like they were having a conversation with the leadership. Riiiiight. And there was a lady from the f-word. Apparently this means FEMINISM and is nothing to do with Gordon Ramsey. There was Dan the Angry Man from the Iraqi Interpreters campaign. He gave us a brisk (or brusque) lecture on how to set up an online campaign. (Clue one: if you're not willing to work at it hard full time for more than a year: give up! Clue two: offline campaigning is, still, more important than online campaigning; get your phone calling and letter writing done.) He arrived late and seemed personally cross with each and every one of us for the government having shafted him, his campaign and above all the Iraqis. And then there was one of the moderators of the Grauniad's comment is free. She was there to explain to us why the Grauniad is DIFFERENT to the Torygraph. And apparently it's NOT because the Torygraph still MATTERS.
The only real thing that we learned is that the Green Party are to launch a rival to ConservatoryHome and LabourHome called… "GreenHome" which is… erm… original.
After two hours of this we were all given a two-minute break to stretch our legs and sing the INTERNATIONALE.
Then there was a change of panellists in order to spend another hour on the section billed: "Where are all the women bloggers?". I do not know where the women bloggers are because we spent the hour answering the question: "why can't men just do what feminists tell them to?" (In fairness, at least one of the feminist bloggers didn't know where the women bloggers were either, since she insisted that the only women in the room were the ones on her row, which overlooked the few-but-not-none scattered through the rest of the audience, including our own Mayor Mary. But since her point was "how dare you not name any feminist bloggers" to a man who hadn't named ANY bloggers at all, there may have been more going on there than a fluffy toy can understand.)
What we really learned from this is that there are a whole
Still, the NIBBLES were nice, and I am sure the sandwiches would have been delicious if they had not been left to mummify in the desiccating atmosphere of the Grauniad's photo gallery. (Some nice snaps, by the way!)
If this had been a really LIBERAL do, though, we would have STARTED with the nibbles and the drinkies (not for baby elephants!) and had some get-to-know-you chit-chat. Then maybe we would have had a couple of speeches from the likes of our panellists. And they could have finished up by giving me the Blogger of the Year Award. Erm.
We would have got to know a few people, maybe found some blogs that we want to read.
We did manage to meet nice Mr Bloggerheads, who sort of recognised Daddy Richard which scared Daddy no end (he is not used to FAME and ATTENTION the way that I am!) And also nice Mr Malcolm of Make Votes Count, Mr Lee Griffin, Mr Chris and Ms Kate Smurthwait who is also a fan of Mr Dr Evan Harris!
But the people of Labour Conspiracy did not make any effort to introduce themselves to us or try to engage us or find out what it was that WE wanted. Au contraire. It was all about what we should be doing for the Labour.
Mr Paul Burblings had bravely spoken up to suggest that left-wing bloggers might be happier with a period of opposition, that after so long in power they had found themselves caught in the position of defending… well, rubbish. A palpable GASP had gone around the room.
"With maybe two years to the election," the Grauniad lady asked, "what is it that we can do to stop the Labour from falling?"
"Give it a good shove," was Daddy Alex's barely subvocalised suggestion.
Now THAT is a conspiracy I WOULD join!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Day 2606: The Terrible Tale of Master Max Gogarty's Going Away
Tuesday:
You have probably heard this one already:
Young Max, a talented young writer™, was going on holiday, in order to have a GOOD time and meet LADIES.
Unfortunately, the Grauniad decided that it would by JOLLY LARKS to give all the readers of their CommentIsFreePublicity a chance to HEAP extra-special helpings of CHOICE SCORN upon the be-Aviatored young head of the eager adventurer.
For it turns out that Maxie hadn't so much written for Channel Four's drama "Skins" as written for their, er, WEBSITE; and that Maxie's dad hadn't so much not written for the Gruaniad as, er, HAD.
Quite soon, Max's daddy (who is a freelance journalist who only OCCASIONALLY works for the Grauniad… mostly he works for his own firm that, er, helps people make useful contacts in the media) was saying that Max wasn't going to be carrying on with his diary and he hoped everyone was happy now!
The Grauniad's travel editor issued an "apology" that amounted to rather more of a telling-off for the readership than an admission that he had allowed into print a piece of second-rate schoolboy prose that should have been sent back heavily marked with "must try harder".
And, of course, he ducked entirely the fact that much of the comment on the blog was criticism not directed at the boy, but at the paper (and the editor) that pasted up such cheap filler in place of some proper material.
Then the Grauniad commentators – the so-called commentariat – weighed in, and were soon denouncing the MOB with a cutting "ooh, you bullies" or sympathising with Maxie for "His Hate mail hell".
And I DO sympathise with poor Max. He is not MUCH older than me, and I know that I would be VERY UPSET if hundreds of people posted comments like those on MY fluffy diary.
On the other fluffy foot, I would try not be so THIN SKINNED about it either. And not JUST because I have elephant skin. Hundreds and thousands of people publish their diary on the Wibbly Wobbly Web every day: if you want to get it publicised by a big newspaper site – or even just the Grauniad – and ESPECIALLY if you get the feeling you are going to get paid REAL MONEY for it, then you have to be a CUT ABOVE the average. Otherwise a whole lot of those hundreds and thousands of people will have EVERY JUSTIFICATION in saying "Oi, that's no better than what I might write!" Which is what happened.
I am afraid that the bleating commentators of the Grauniad want SPECIAL TREATMENT for one of their own. Or at least the SON of one of their own. (NO, not necessarily a Grauniad writer, but a member of the same "chattering class".) And it's true that it can't have been very pleasant. But they are WRONG to call the responses "Undemocratic".
There isn't ANYTHING that is quite so DEMOCRATIC as a comments column in full flood: DEMOS KRATOS, the POWER of the MOB as the Ancient Greeks used to put it.
In our "democracy" we have the idea of protection of the minority, to make sure that all voices can be heard and to free people form conforming to the majority. But that doesn't mean giving the minority – or the individual – a free pass to do anything. That is called special privilege: the old divine right of the ruling class.
And it is funny and revealing (though not really unexpected) to see the Grauniadistas standing up for THAT!
You have probably heard this one already:
Young Max, a talented young writer™, was going on holiday, in order to have a GOOD time and meet LADIES.
Unfortunately, the Grauniad decided that it would by JOLLY LARKS to give all the readers of their CommentIsFreePublicity a chance to HEAP extra-special helpings of CHOICE SCORN upon the be-Aviatored young head of the eager adventurer.
For it turns out that Maxie hadn't so much written for Channel Four's drama "Skins" as written for their, er, WEBSITE; and that Maxie's dad hadn't so much not written for the Gruaniad as, er, HAD.
Quite soon, Max's daddy (who is a freelance journalist who only OCCASIONALLY works for the Grauniad… mostly he works for his own firm that, er, helps people make useful contacts in the media) was saying that Max wasn't going to be carrying on with his diary and he hoped everyone was happy now!
The Grauniad's travel editor issued an "apology" that amounted to rather more of a telling-off for the readership than an admission that he had allowed into print a piece of second-rate schoolboy prose that should have been sent back heavily marked with "must try harder".
And, of course, he ducked entirely the fact that much of the comment on the blog was criticism not directed at the boy, but at the paper (and the editor) that pasted up such cheap filler in place of some proper material.
Then the Grauniad commentators – the so-called commentariat – weighed in, and were soon denouncing the MOB with a cutting "ooh, you bullies" or sympathising with Maxie for "His Hate mail hell".
And I DO sympathise with poor Max. He is not MUCH older than me, and I know that I would be VERY UPSET if hundreds of people posted comments like those on MY fluffy diary.
On the other fluffy foot, I would try not be so THIN SKINNED about it either. And not JUST because I have elephant skin. Hundreds and thousands of people publish their diary on the Wibbly Wobbly Web every day: if you want to get it publicised by a big newspaper site – or even just the Grauniad – and ESPECIALLY if you get the feeling you are going to get paid REAL MONEY for it, then you have to be a CUT ABOVE the average. Otherwise a whole lot of those hundreds and thousands of people will have EVERY JUSTIFICATION in saying "Oi, that's no better than what I might write!" Which is what happened.
I am afraid that the bleating commentators of the Grauniad want SPECIAL TREATMENT for one of their own. Or at least the SON of one of their own. (NO, not necessarily a Grauniad writer, but a member of the same "chattering class".) And it's true that it can't have been very pleasant. But they are WRONG to call the responses "Undemocratic".
There isn't ANYTHING that is quite so DEMOCRATIC as a comments column in full flood: DEMOS KRATOS, the POWER of the MOB as the Ancient Greeks used to put it.
In our "democracy" we have the idea of protection of the minority, to make sure that all voices can be heard and to free people form conforming to the majority. But that doesn't mean giving the minority – or the individual – a free pass to do anything. That is called special privilege: the old divine right of the ruling class.
And it is funny and revealing (though not really unexpected) to see the Grauniadistas standing up for THAT!
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Day 2545: Once, Twice, Three Times a Lady…
Thursday:
Continuing his efforts to be GENDER BALANCE to the FORCE by eliminating all of the Jedi… er… Mr James "Anakin" Graham has tagged me with an MEME.
Mr Anakin also expresses some DOUBT as to MY fluffy gender. Honestly, young master padwan: James Bond, DVDs and Cars – how many CLUES do you NEED!?!?!?
It says here that I have to encourage everyone to go and nonimate bloggers on the Gender Balance Awards page. GO! Nonimate! Right, done that.
Now I have to nonimate three lady bloggers myself. Well THAT is EASY – how can I nonimate anyone OTHER than my EXCELLENT cohorts from our interview panels?
So, first, Ms Mary who is not only bright and charming but also has the most gumption of all of us, being the one who got out there and got elected. And also also has the support of an ELEPHANT of her very own, whose name is ETHELRED – and HE has a special badge just like me!
Second, the loverly Ms Alix, regent to the People's Republic of Mortimer who's natural whimsy and graceful off-kilter stance CUNNINGLY conceal a keen and insightful analysis. Plus, she likes CUDDLES!
And third, obviously in the interest of BALANCE, Mr James himself. Doubt MY gender will you, lady?
Continuing his efforts to be GENDER BALANCE to the FORCE by eliminating all of the Jedi… er… Mr James "Anakin" Graham has tagged me with an MEME.
Mr Anakin also expresses some DOUBT as to MY fluffy gender. Honestly, young master padwan: James Bond, DVDs and Cars – how many CLUES do you NEED!?!?!?
It says here that I have to encourage everyone to go and nonimate bloggers on the Gender Balance Awards page. GO! Nonimate! Right, done that.
Now I have to nonimate three lady bloggers myself. Well THAT is EASY – how can I nonimate anyone OTHER than my EXCELLENT cohorts from our interview panels?
So, first, Ms Mary who is not only bright and charming but also has the most gumption of all of us, being the one who got out there and got elected. And also also has the support of an ELEPHANT of her very own, whose name is ETHELRED – and HE has a special badge just like me!
Second, the loverly Ms Alix, regent to the People's Republic of Mortimer who's natural whimsy and graceful off-kilter stance CUNNINGLY conceal a keen and insightful analysis. Plus, she likes CUDDLES!
And third, obviously in the interest of BALANCE, Mr James himself. Doubt MY gender will you, lady?
PS:
Though if I'm doing this properly, obviously Ms Linda wins that third nonimation for vim, vigour and vitality. Also, there are not many people who are big enough to take even the kindest meant of constructive criticism; Ms Linda DID, becoming MUCH more positive in the second half of the Leadership contest. Good for her!PPS:
It seems I'm also supposed to name three ladies I should like to see blogging. That is QUITE tricky, but I think I must settle on Mrs the Queen (One's YouTube account does not count, your Britanic Madge); Fenella Ffiorag from Chorlton and the Wheelies; and Ms Alisha Dixon if only to see if she will be dancing with Mr Vince again nest year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)