Response to critics

This comment has just appeared from me on Shane Richmond's blog:


Late response to critics

Anyone wishing a prior exposure to the torments of everlasting damnation should visit some of the blogs that developed as a local galaxy around Colin Randall's "Salut!".

Although most have now wisely blocked comments from anonymous or unregistered usernames, there is still a lot of what you call "mudslinging", Shane, thanks in part to blogmeisters who are loathe to moderate for fear, presumably, of appearing authoritarian.

But that still leaves scope for mischief makers to post abusive comment under a registered pseudonym, and then point the finger of suspicion at another contributor, and then take a back seat when the accusations start flying.

It can be rough and tough in the dirty world of personal blogging.

That is why I back you so strongly, Shane, in the robust line you have taken on the need for moderation, and your right to do it without having every decision picked over by us contributors.

Most of my posts get accepted, but when they don't, I can usually guess why it was withheld, and then try not to push my luck too far the next time.

Perhaps I might be allowed a brief response to Louise and Anne Gilbert in your previous thread, claiming I was inconsistent or hypocritical in supporting moderation, and your right to set your own rules.

Louise says I have tried to impose my moderation criteria on her, denying her editorial freedom.

But that's because she allows a lot of comment to appear on her blog that I (and probably yourself) would consider defamatory, eg when people (including myself !) are falsely accused of "trolling" ie posting abusive comments under the cover of newly-created pseudonyms.

That is the only serious point of contention I have with Louise - her excessively light-touch that has allowed certain individuals occasionally to give her blog the character of a kangaroo court.

In fairness, it has happened on other blogs too, within the "local galaxy".

As far as the charge of hypocrisy is concerned, it is because I am alleged to have blocked ALL comments (a defence against the kangaroo court merchants).

But that is nonsense. As mentioned on an earlier thread here, I am inviting emailed comments instead, which, provided they meet my criteria of acceptability (similar to your own, Shane) will be integrated into the body of the post.

That way I hope to offset the obvious disadvantage of hindered access by creating an open-ended forum, and eliminating the all to common "disconnect" between post and comments.

Colin Berry at 24 Mar 2007 08:24

Comments invited, email only to: sciencebod01@aol.com

Blowing the whistle on an internet troll

This was supposed to be inserted as an update on the previous post, but Blogger is playing up, preventing me from inserting new text, and throwing up error codes that make no sense.

So I'm having to create a new post, which is not a bad thing, on reflection. It provides an opportunity to compose a fitting headline that sums up my present predicament concerning the individual who posts under the nom-de-plume "Richard of Orléans".

The fact that he and I have had dealings and issues for nigh on a year does not diminish the seriousness of this man's disturbing behaviour. If anything it makes it worse, especially as he and his ilk are the reason for my having to abandon personal blogging, and batten down the hatches right now ( ie removing the Comments facility).

So I composed a reponse, published here yesterday, illustrating an instance of R of O in unmistakeable trolling mode, albeit a mere 3.5 on the relevant Richter scale, but compounded in this case by a worrying element of stalking.

The comment was published this morning in its entirety, I'm glad to say. Here's the link. My critique, if one call it such, is currently the last (No.16) on the thread.

There's a lot more I could say, but I shall leave it at that for now.

Although not accepting comments, emails are welcome, and may be published, unless you request otherwise.

sciencebod01@aol.com