I apologise to my readers for not having written anything over the weekend, but my presence was required at a number of Social Occasions. On my return I note that a Commenter on Friday's post about Neil Clark's Glorious Victory in the UK Blog Awards has written:
Yes, but from how many people? Especially as he was urging his followers to submit multiple votes right from the start.
Also, he did very poorly indeed in the early stages (this time last weekend he was right at the back of the field) - the real surge started when his candidacy was highlighted on Harry's Place on Monday or thereabouts.
After which a great many people (including me) voted for him multiple times because it would guarantee the most entertaining outcome from an otherwise dreary lineup.
This is typical of the sour grapes I expected from the Neocon fraternity, licking their wounds at such an overwhelming defeat. Yes, Mr Clark urged his followers to submit multiple votes, but as I previously stated this was ENTIRELY WITHIN THE RULES of the competition.
Secondly, Mr Clark may indeed have done very poorly in the early stages of the competition, and his surge may indeed have begun when his candidacy was highlighted on Harry's Place, but surely this itself is Proof that even the readers of Harry's Place know a good blog when they see one! I for one will be interested to see how many comments Neil's blog gets in the next few weeks compared to Harry's Place. My Prediction is that former Harry's Place readers will flock to Neil's blog.
Thirdly, my Neocon Commenter suggests that he voted for Mr Clark "because it would guarantee the most entertaining outcome from an otherwise dreary lineup". Well I cannot speak for Mr Clark, but the last word I would use to describe his Work is "entertaining". If you want that sort of thing, then please read the News of the World. If, however, you are looking for Informed and Critical Comment then read Neil Clark, for I am told he provides just this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thirdly, my Neocon Commenter suggests that he voted for Mr Clark "because it would guarantee the most entertaining outcome from an otherwise dreary lineup".
I see you've caught the same disease that afflicts Clark - that of calling anyone who disagrees with you "a neocon".
And, as with Clark, it's a pointless and counter-productive tactic because you end up casting the net so wide that the label becomes completely devalued - in the way that "Fascist" no longer has much currency following its widespread misapplication in the 1980s.
(You can call Margaret Thatcher a great many things, but she certainly wasn't a Fascist!)
Well I cannot speak for Mr Clark, but the last word I would use to describe his Work is "entertaining".
No blog that features its owner trying to strike up a conversation with a spambot can possibly be described as lacking entertainment value. Even an attempt at silencing another blogger through the courts, normally something that would be deeply unfunny and rather sinister, was made hilarious by Clark's comical ineptitude throughout the entire process. There are a great many other delicious examples.
If you want that sort of thing, then please read the News of the World. If, however, you are looking for Informed and Critical Comment then read Neil Clark, for I am told he provides just this.
"You are told"? What, you don't read the blog yourself? Or you're not competent to draw your own conclusions?
What a bitter lot you are! You had it all only months ago. And now...
Now THAT'S what I call "comical".
Post a Comment