Benjiwatch - 11 comments
Read this thread at David Aaronovitch's new blog, and the follow-up here, and tell me they don't make your heart sink.
One of the great things about Harry's Place is that its comments section provides the left-wing UK blogosphere with a single location for most of the sniping, trolling, and posturing that goes on, thus sparing other blogs from the pointless abuse and personality battles that some people really get off on. So the last thing we need is for that group to spread to other blogs.
That's not to condemn all HP commenters. Besides, occasional gems are revealed amid the mass of text, but - let's face it - it takes a huge amount of commitment, and a fine tooth comb to find really worthwhile stuff. I guess that's free speech for you.
Anyway, I was discouraged. It was almost as bad as this: Whale meat 'made into dog food'. Or this.
![[Valid Atom]](http://www.bloggers4labour.org/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed")
11 comments so far...
Aaro should consider himself lucky all he's got so far is Benjamin - let's hope he never has to deal with any of the various real plague at HP, the UK equivalents of Little Green Footballers.
At least Harry's Place is actually home to some debate, which is testament to its popularity.
And it's blatantly unfair to compare its commenters with those at LGF. The drill at LGF seems to be that a link to an article validating their position is posted and about 7000 people reply to it by saying "islam is a caner on humanity" or "we mustn't appear weak - nuke the moon"
Most of the HP commenters appear to be well read, at the least.
I think one can tell that Aaronovich is a somewhat inexperienced blogger. For a start he seems to believe he is writing a personal blog. He is not, in my opinion. He is writing on the website of a national newspaprer. The blog is owned by them, not him, and he is their employee.
That makes his current behaviour towards me somewhat inappopriate, in my view.
And no blogger I know of would start a whole thread about me - inviting comments about me and my utterances - whilst deliberately barring me from responding in that comment thread. Hence abuse and various untruths are thrown at me in the comment thread (to add to Aaronovich's initial abuse in his own post) and I cannot respond directly and swiftly.
Two points for Benji, in the knowledge that he won't grasp either of them:
(1) The fact that *in Benji's opinion* Aaro's blog is this, that or the other is irrelevant - it's Aaro's blog, not Benji's, and he decides how it is to be operated. Strange as it may seem, Benji has no God-given right to invade other people's space uninvited.
(2) If you go back and read the post that Benji has been whining about for the past few days, you'll see that Aaaro invites examples of Benjaminisms in the comments and then says that *after that* Benji will no longer be welcome. In other words, instead of whining here, there and everywhere, Benji could have commented directly on the post in question - if need be, using one of his many alter egos and (ahem) alternative IP addresses. The fact that his ego didn't allow him to is his problem, not Aaro's.
In short, there's no reason why anybody else should give a toss, except to the extent that it provides another pretext for laughing at Benji. Some day he might even realise what a laughing stock he is - but not quite yet.
What a load of crap.
I don't condone multiple identities, but I'd rather see some kind of name than "anonymous". As for multiple IP addresses, that's the reality of the Internet: begs the question of why an IP-based block was placed in the first place. If I see a comment here that's completely inane, or offensive, I'll just delete it. It doesn't particularly bother me whether other people might consider it laughable, or stereotypical, or hackneyed. Surely the problem at HP (and others) is that the commenting community is so tight-knit that it's more important that people 'check in' regularly, fight their 'enemies' and support their 'friends', than actually say something that directly addresses the blog article in question. No wonder many of the big-name bloggers have removed the facility.
If you go back and read the post that Benji has been whining about for the past few days, you'll see that Aaaro invites examples of Benjaminisms in the comments and then says that *after that* Benji will no longer be welcome. In other words, instead of whining here, there and everywhere, Benji could have commented directly on the post in question - if need be, using one of his many alter egos and (ahem) alternative IP addresses. The fact that his ego didn't allow him to is his problem, not Aaro's.
He made it quite clear on his blog that the comments he cited that I made on his weblog (consisting of two sentences) were to be my LAST, and he has not denied this in correspondence - I outlined my understanding of his post to him directly. This understanding of his original post is shared by others (such as Aaronovitch Watch) and is correct.
The blog is owned by the Times newspaper (his employers) and is part of the Times site.
âWhat a load of crapâ: Charming! Calm down, dear, itâs only the blogosphere. Itâs a pity that your sense of humour seems to have deserted you temporarily, but thatâs the Benji Effect, I guess.
âI don't condone multiple identities, but ...â: In other words, you donât oppose them either, which is also a pity, as theyâre one of the nastier aspects of the net. What good purpose can they serve? Itâs no surprise that attention-seekers like Benji make extensive use of them to get round bans from comments boxes.
âI'd rather see some kind of name than âanonymousâ: Whatâs the difference? You still donât know whoâs commenting, and - at least in theory - it should help you focus on the content of the comment. Anyway, I chose anonymity because the Blogger.com rigmarole for signing in is such a pain in the bum. Big deal.
âthe problem at HP (and others) is that the commenting community is so tight-knit ...â: Agreed, thatâs the one substantive point youâve made. It doesnât alter the fact that Benjamin in particular is a determined and incorrigible trouble-maker who hasnât the slightest interest in âdirectly addressing the blog article in questionâ, but seeks to hijack every thread on every blog that allows him access. Youâve been lucky not to be bombarded with his repetitive drivel - so far, anyway.
Finally (really): the mere legal ownership of Aaro's blog is an irrelevant piece of formalist nitpicking, typical of Benjamin's boneheaded approach to complicated issues. The point is that the Times has given Aaro space in which to make his own rules - and if one of those rules is to ban Benji, most people in the relevant sub-section of the blogosphere will applaud, and laugh, and then move on, leaving you and Benji alone to take it all very seriously indeed.
Itâs been fun, but only briefly. Bye!
Oops - sorry about all those funny characters in the previous comment.
Bye, again.
but seeks to hijack every thread on every blog that allows him access
A straighforward and obvious lie.
At Harry's Place, where most of my comments appear, I don't comment in all threads.
As for the content of the comments themselves, some are on the topic of the original post, some are not. This is the case with many comments by other commenters.
Just thought I would correct Anon's lies.
Itâs no surprise that attention-seekers like Benji make extensive use of them to get round bans from comments boxes.
I did, but then I was unbanned and asked to use my own name and email address. I have complied with that request. I much prefer to use my own name and email address.
<< Home