Reading through the comments on Neil Clark's Guardian Article - the first, I hope and expect, of many - two points stand firmly out.
The first is the breathtakingly sour reaction of the (in his words) "warmongers, the bully boys and the smear merchants". One commenter is compelled to point out that, out of the four Million bloggers in the UK, Neil received "only" 1,116 votes. Pedants would, no doubt, take great delight in pointing out that (assuming that all of these 1,116 votes were from different people and not the same people voting on a repeated basis AS THE RULES ALLOWED), this represents "only" 0.0279% of the Blogosphere.
SO, and this cannot be emphasised enough, WHAT? HE WON. Is that so difficult to understand? Sadly, it does, indeed, appear to be the case.
Secondly, however, and more interestingly, is the IDENTITY of those commenters so angry at Neil's having won this award. As my previous Post noted, one claims that "voting for Neil Clark's blog became a comedy meme". The Author of this claim is a commenter by the name of "Thermaland". A little digging around, however, reveals that "Thermaland" is also a regular commenter on Harry's Place. Ergo, a Neocon.
Surprise, surprise...Not!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Patrick,
You are right again. Of course the neocons would say that the warmongers at Harrys Place rigged the vote. They would claim that they have many thousand of readers, as one of the biggest blogs on the internet, and as evidence by their hundreds of comments, and impact on mainstream media. (Not that David is that far away from replicating that, after all, he posted a comment on CiF earlier giving his details should they wish to ask him for a column, which I am sure cannot be far away). they would further no doubt argue that given that the Rules allow for multiple votes by the same person, that Neil only received just over 1,000 votes, and thaat the voting pattern showed a late surge shortly after his candidacy appeared on Harrys Place, this it is entirely reasonable to suggest that their votes swung it.
Pah, I say. Pah to them. Stupid neocons. It is so easy to rebut these claims, as follows - we merely point out that they are neocons, and therefore BY DEFINITION are lying, as David has said. What more evidence do we need?
Ron you are indeed absolutely correct. The Neocons would also doubtless claim that Neil's "only" having won 0.0279% of the potential vote somehow does not constitute a "landslide". But it was, and remains, a landslide.
On your second point, I can, again, indeed, only concur. Anything a neocon says, is, by definition, a lie, whether or not it is true.
Mr Dawn,
I've come across your remarkable blog and wish you well with it in these early days. You should be aware of one or two salient points, however.
First, I'm not a neoconservative and I voted for Neil Clark in the important award you refer to. Secondly, part of my reason for doing so was as recompense for the fact that I have necessarily exposed him to a certain amount of ridicule owing to, among other things, his fraudulent conduct in posting testimonials to himself under female pseudonyms on third-party websites. Thirdly, and most relevant to you as a declared supporter of the British People's Alliance, David Lindsay has been caught out in still worse fakery than Mr Clark. He invented a personality (unusually for a BPA sock puppet, of the male sex) called Martin Miller, who not only posted fierce defences of Mr Lindsay on HP, but also wrote to the editor of Comment is Free urging her to give Lindsay a column. This appears to be a case of Lindsay's fabricating job references - a very serious matter.
In the circumstances, I'm sure you'll see the impossibility of Lindsay's remaining leader of the BPA. I intend to challenge Neil Clark for the party's candidature in Wantage, and I demand an open selection procedure instead of the arbitrary decision of the leader. I shall then challenge Lindsay for the leadership of the party unless he sees sense and steps down now to avoid further scandal. I invite you to support me in this venture.
Anything a neocon says, is, by definition, a lie, whether or not it is true.
Read a lot of Kafka, do you Patrick?
A little digging around, however, reveals that "Thermaland" is also a regular commenter on Harry's Place. Ergo, a Neocon.
It will be somewhat startling news to Sonic, Benjamin, Zin, Flanker, Resistor and many other HP regulars that the mere act of posting comments there, regardless of content, makes them "Neocons". In fact, some of them might find the suggestion rather offensive.
I'm not sure if I should be saying this, but given the increasingly widespread interest in Mr Lindsay and BPA, I really feel I must.
Patrick, this is going to come as something of a shock, but I have to tell you that have, in popular internet parlance, been "whooshed". You see, the BPA is, like Mr Lindsay's entire blog, a (very sophisticated) hoax. You have fallen for a long-running - and brilliantly executed - practical joke.
There isn't space to go through all the evidence here. But read over the blog again - particularly the posts relating to the BPA. You'll see.
Again, I'm reluctant to do this, because I appreciate sophisticated japery, but I feel this has gone too far. Sorry Patrick. And very sorry, David.
Stanislaus, are you sure? If so would you mind emailing patrickmichaeldawn@gmail.com?
Post a Comment