How would compare the beat up on Jen Mar. on the other thread by some of the palyers…. you included? You think it comapres
a) a little
b) a bit more than a little
c) a bit more than a bit more than little
d) Just about right
e) a real real lot.

With what Tim does on his site?

l

ike posting these little provocations in the first place.

Blair uses humor, to make a point Trotsky, unlike you.

Readers could reasonably assume that comments I didnt correct or alter were comments I agreed with.

That’s already considered by many a reasonable assumption, supported not just by what you don’t do – intervene in comments threads but by the things you actively do – like posting these little provocations in the first place.

As I said in comment 10, it’s odd that in all your years of blogging you’ve never noticed how easy it is to stir up your readers to go off and abuse other bloggers. That story is scarcely plausible – it would make you the most haplessly well-intentioned blogger around. Also incredibly stupid.

It’s no less stupid to think you’ll be believed when you protest that you had no clue that it was going to happen, when you’ve shown such evident satisfaction at the outcome in the past.

C’mon Tim you knew exactly how most of your readers would react. That’s why you wrote that post – as a provocation for some of your regulars to attack somebody.
You can spin it how you like, but almost everyone know’s this to be the case.

It’s fine to point at others who have made inappropriate comments but that does not excuse you for your inappropriate post.

This isnt due to time constraints. Its because I dont believe in micro-managing comments. Im happy if things are more or less on-topic and non-obscene, and rarely intervene otherwise.

And, as Ive already pointed out above, the fact that comments are published does not signify agreement. Intervening would override that. Readers could reasonably assume that comments I didn’t correct or alter were comments I agreed with.

Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 3:10 am | Permalink

Sorry, there’s a confusing typo in there. What I meant to say was:

But how is it that, today, Tim can find the time to claim here that his post was merely a gentle typo joke…

Clearly no ones suggesting that this is whats expected of Tim. However, the argument that he can be absolved of responsibility because of the number of comments in his many threads doesnt hold much water in the case of this Terry Wright debacle. Heres why:

Blair commenter Amos, early in the thread, read a hell of a lot more into Tims one-line post than Tim claims to have intended:

Theres a reason Tim Blair linked to you, youre a case study in why everything you believe in leads to dysfunction and misery. Good Lord your life is hell, even I felt depressed reading some of your entries, and what I find amazing, and not a little ironic, is that from a position of complete failure, you can lecture God-fearing, right wing Australia on everything under the sun, as if you arent an utter, utter fuckup and we should all respect YOUR OPINION.

In fact, my first comment in Tims thread was very much in line with his defence of his own post here today:

Amos, I gathered the reason Tim linked to that site was because hed found an amusing typo. How on earth did you manage to infer that he meant to describe its author, Terry Wright, as:
“an utter, utter fuckup”
who, “from a position of complete failure”, provides:
“a case study in why everything you believe in leads to dysfunction and misery?
Talk about taking the ball and running with it.

Tim didnt intervene at this point, and the disgusting comments escalated from there.

Now, I accept the argument that Tim cant be monitoring all of his threads all of the time, and I understand that his administrator lives overseas and is bound by an awkward time difference.

But how is it that, today, Tim can find the time to deny here that his post was merely a gentle typo joke, mocking GrodsCorps assessment of it as something more, but then not have the decency to go into his own thread and repudiate the commenter who misconstrued his post so outrageously?

If this doesnt constitute implicit approval then its a case of sheer gutlessness — fighting by diversion.

Jason Soon: As for Andrea Harris, she and Tim are not the same people

Well, of course. But whats the use of an administrator who wont administrate in a responsible manner, or at the very least lead by example?

When Andrea finally found her way into the thread, she produced this deliberate misrepresentation of Terrys comment about what he claims triggered his drug use:

“I wrongly turned to alcohol and drugs when I woke up beside my dead wife one morning.
Wow, immediately, like he had it right there on the nightstand? You know, instead of drinking a glass of water or something, he immediately started injecting

This is utterly disingenuous and beneath contempt. Again, Tim is fully aware of this comment its documented in the GrodsCorp post, which hes read. And again, instead of doing the decent thing censuring someone from his own fold who, considering her role, ought to know better — hes over here taking a swing at The Editor.

It beggars belief.

Ken Parish: It certainy lowers ant rogenous in my eyes if he was involved in that sort of garbage.

For the record, Ken, I was “Idiot Three” in that exchange. If your opinion of me is lowered because of my involvement, Im sorry to hear it. But Im with The Editor on this one: the joke might have been unfunny and in exceptionally poor taste, but there was no malicious intent behind it, delivered as it was in the middle of an absurd ad-libbed debate about the outcome of a fictitious “naked cage fight” between Tim and Andrew Bolt.

At least in my one experience, Tim incites his readers to go and tear up a thread – as he did with this thread into which he tipped a bucket of brownshirts. A thoroughly nasty business, but an education for me.

I wasn’t condemning Tim, I was suggesting that quite a few of his commenters are nasty thugs who are in the habit of going and monstering people he mentions on his blog. Obviously he knows they do that and some on this thread argue that he’s therefore responsible for them. I don’t accept that proposition and certainly don’t accept that one should be forbidden to write snark lest some dickhead readers may go and monster the objects of the snark (although it’s not conduct I like, admire or encourage). I know there will be lots of readers here who disagree with me, however.

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/01/20/blair-under-the-knife/#comment-227887

Still my point remains. you can’t expect Blair to write annotations associating or disassociating himself from every commenter in his thread of 100s

Ken – Niall made a very nasty joke about Tim Blair’s cancer too on the thread where you wrote that nice piece about Tim. I assume you didn’t notice it. If anyone had accused you of endorsing Niall’s joke because of that oversight I’d regard them as a tool – now consider Blair who has far far lengthier threads. As for Andrea Harris, she and Tim are not the same people, not even in the same country.

You’re best just ignoring them and not descending to their level. Engaging them on any level just encourages them. It’s classic bully behaviour. Fortunately they’re not physically proximate and as well as being bullies they have low boredom thresholds and will soon move on to the next target Tim points them towards. That said, I still think colostomy jobes directed at Tim are repugnant. People who engage in that really do drag themselves willingly down to the level of the Blair comment brigade thugs. It certainy lowers “ant rogenous” in my eyes if he was involved in that sort of garbage.

Looking back over many other comments from previous posts, it is pretty clear that it was my politics that encouraged such nasty comments. I am almost certain that if I was on their side of politics, his readers would not have called me a liar, loser, an utter, utter f*ckup, a classic case of Narcissistic Fuckup Disorder, Terry the junkie, his mental state is currently too fucked up, treat the truth with disdain and make lying an art form, self deluded junkie, getting a dose of his own medicine, degenerate fuckup junkie, very skilled at bullshit etc.

If this is what Tim Blair wants his blog to be like, and defends it as such, then that’s decision.

But it was nothing personal: We were laughing at the mental image of somebody throwing a colostomy bag at another person.

And you call me disingenuous …

Besides which, there are many comments in that thread from the delightful Ant and his friends. Do I implicitly approve of those, too?

Re cancer jokes: forgive me for misunderstanding. I must have been confused by all the laughter, and the fact that my illness was raised (hes been weakened by cancer) in the context of an imagined cage fight. And as for Ants accusation of stalking … how many posts have you run about me? Hmmm?

And how about on Tim’s blog? Comments one through ten don’t seem especially nasty; and much of what follows seems to simply be in the nature of criticism or bitching. Pogria’s comment, which has attracted so much criticism, is a little unsympathetic, perhaps, but certainly makes a valid point in strong terms: that a difficult life does not necessarily cause one to take up heroin addiction. Andrea’s comments, which follow immediately after, are similar.

On the whole, there is very little evidence here for ‘vicious’ commenters: just snark, which is common on the blogosphere.

However, there is another reason Blair’s commenters are sometimes referred to as ‘vicious’, and that is because it is rhetorically useful: moderate commenters who sometimes read Blair’s site feel alienated and therefore are less likely to read the blog which uses these terms in future, or if they do, may respond in kind with insults, thus justifying the description. It also helps to classify all ones ideological opponents as being similarly vicious.

Thus normally affable commenters like Jeremy can get away with describing commenters at Tim Blair’s as ‘the turds who frequent that place’, and not be criticised for their obvious hypocrisy.