Yesh Gvul
Courage To Refuse
Shministim
Pilots
Free The Five
New Profile
Refuser Solidarity Network


Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Comment Rules
About Me:
See my complete profile



Google
Web antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions



Blogs

Sites




Previous Posts



Powered by Blogger

 


Sunday, January 15, 2006

Letter of complaint

I was recently appointed to the Board of Macquarie University's Centre for Middle Eastern and North African Studies. This was due to a number of board members, and staff at Macquarie, expressing support for my work. I was told they wanted to attract journalists, rather than just academics, to the board.

A fellow board member is Federal Health Minister, Tony Abbott (who, I've been informed, has never actually attended a meeting.)

The following letter of complaint was sent to Abbott by a Liberal party blogger hack. It should be noted that Abbott has no influence or say over the make-up of the board and is not, as stated, a patron:

"To the Honourable Tony Abbott, Member for Warringah.

"I have noted with great concern the recent appointment of journalist Antony Loewenstein as a member of Macquarie University’s Centre for Middle East and North African Studies, and I am writing to you partly in protest.

"While I respect the right of the Centre to conduct its affairs without censorship or arbitrary Government interference in its academic conduct, I do believe that as a Patron of the board, a prominent figure in the Liberal Party, a member for the people of Warringah, and as an Australian - you have a responsibility to censure the boards’ appointment of Mr. Loewenstein.

"Mr. Loewenstein regularly makes highly offensive or simply inflammatory comments, although I recognise that this in itself is little reason to decry his association with the Centre. One particular statement, however, has stuck with me for some time, which will offer you an insight into the ideological nature of this particular journalist:

"The defeat of America and its allies in Iraq is vital to ensure similiar [sic] acts are not carried out again."

"While Loewenstein denies calling for the murder of Australian, and American, soldiers, a defeat of the Howard Government’s aims in Iraq will mean not only a defeat for democracy and human rights, but the strengthening of the terrorist movement in Iraq - at the expense of Western forces serving in the country - something he wants to happen in order to change the direction of Australian foreign policy.

"I would like to point out, again, that I agree with the right of Mr. Loewenstein to make any statements in our free and open society - but it is nonetheless upsetting that this journalist has been given such prominence by the Centre, noting his attitudes as well as his lack of formal qualifications - indeed, while he himself states he worked as a journalist for the Sydney Morning Herald, it has been suggested he merely reviewed books at the paper.

"Furthermore, I would like to remind the Liberal Party that while maintaining power at a Federal level since 1996 and introducing widespread reforms, it has had little achievement in gaining the appointment of either moral conservatives or free-market liberals to prominent positions in Australian academia, or - for that matter- at the ABC and SBS television networks, funded largely by the same tax-payers who have, in droves, supported the Liberal Party and the Howard Government in its elections since (before) 1996. To put it simply, I for one would like to see further returns for my vote, with the Federal Government using its funding power to influence appointments in the academic community, and certainly at the ABC and SBS. For you, Mr. Abbott, to rightly censure Mr. Loewenstein’s appointment, would be an excellent start (or you could try instead to justify it).

"I await your reply, but would be upset to hear the common excuse that ‘diversity’ is required within the ABC, SBS and academic community, and the Liberal Party worries about smothering opposing views, as I believe the current situation goes far beyond a diversity of views, and is no doubt strangling to any individual who would dare support the Howard Government, or share the Liberal Party’s values."

Isn't it healthy to see a Liberal party voter supporting the idea of stacking academic and media boards with cronies? It's just not cricket, this man writes, that such "inflammatory" views are expressed in polite society. Furthermore, calling for the defeat of "Coalition" forces in Iraq has become redundant; circumstances have already seen to it.

53 Comments:

Blogger CB said...

I'd say his issue is with you being an inflammatory hack incapable of seeing beyond your own prejudices.

Just a guess.

Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:01:00 pm  
Blogger anthony said...

I read the letter for errors before he sent it, actually. Didn’t realise Abbott wasn’t a Patron. Damn. Little mistakes like that really distract readers from the message (you know, like when you say Israel has Jewish only roads- but they’re actually Israeli roads, *chuckle*).

Isn't it healthy to see a Liberal party voter supporting the idea of stacking academic and media boards with cronies?

Asking for a reflection (if not balance) of society within publicly funded academic and media boards is fine thanks, rather than allowing Australia’s over-paid, feral-left, elitists to continue their domination. You’ll understand the message well enough when you publish your book and take a look at your scanty profits. Academics with similar views to yours have to leech off tax dollars, because consumers actually reflect the real world.

A little bit of that reality in the ABC, SBS and Uni’s (again- if not, then balance would be good) would be nice- and us RWDB’s have earned it. You can still have your views- but we’re not paying for them.

Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:12:00 pm  
Blogger Wilbourne said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:14:00 pm  
Blogger Wilbourne said...

You had it coming. You clearly stepped over the line with that original comment and refused to back down.

It was also about that time I realised that everything you have to say stems from a delusional sense of privilege as a Jewish Dissenter™ who stands alone in confronting the Evil Jewish Conspiracy™.

Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:15:00 pm  
Blogger Melanie said...

Anotny: "(you know, like when you say Israel has Jewish only roads- but they’re actually Israeli roads, *chuckle*)."

These 'little mistakes' that you base your Israel=Apartheid theories on? chuckle

I'd say that cb made a good point.

Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:32:00 pm  
Blogger Melanie said...

Oh right that was anthony. Hard to tell. lol

Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:50:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

CB said...
"I'd say his issue is with you being an inflammatory hack incapable of seeing beyond your own prejudices."

And I'd say his letter was due to him being an inflammatory hack incapable of seeing beyond his own prejudices. So what else is new?

Monday, January 16, 2006 12:48:00 am  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

More accurately written, the letter would include:

"While I respect the right of the Centre to conduct its affairs without censorship or arbitrary Government interference in its academic conduct, I do believe you have a responsibility to engage in censorship or arbitrary Government interference over the appointment of Mr. Loewenstein.
...
"I would like to point out, again, that I agree with the right of Mr. Loewenstein to make any statements in our free and open society - but it is nonetheless upsetting that these words, "free" and "open", are in fact being taken seriously so that this journalist has been actually allowed to exercise that right! This is not what we elected you for."

Monday, January 16, 2006 12:56:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

It is not a matter of allowing him his say, but allowing it at the expence of the public.

Monday, January 16, 2006 1:59:00 am  
Blogger Pete's Blog said...

AL

Not only have you upset a Cabinet Minister but somebody who's also to the right of Pauline Hanson (who he had locked up).

Onya Antony.

Let me shake your hand.

Pete

Monday, January 16, 2006 2:27:00 am  
Blogger Clumsy Birds said...

No need for a lengthy post. Ibrahamav and anthony summarised my points well.

I would add:

I’m told James smacked you lot down on the difference between censor and censure sometime last year. If you didn’t learn anything from his posts, that’s too bad...

Monday, January 16, 2006 2:39:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Stewie,

What evidence is there that what AL has to say is at the expense of the public? Are you of the opinion there are things the public is better served not knowing?

Stauss would be proud of you.

Monday, January 16, 2006 4:34:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Hey AL,

I bet $50 that the letter was written by Marcian, who posted here recently and challenged you to prove that the US was a terrorist state. I recall that he/she too challenged your cerdentials in a similar way.

You know you're on the right track when you are pissing off this badly.

Monday, January 16, 2006 4:39:00 am  
Blogger CB said...

On the other hand, you could also be on the completely wrong track for pissing off people this badly.
You must subscribe to the 'If everyone's against it, it must be right' school of thought.

Monday, January 16, 2006 6:22:00 am  
Blogger orang said...

Ant,
If you want your book to be a seller you have to stop going down this road. I suggest an additional chapter - call it "Saw the Light" or , "Redemption". Make a pilgrimage to Sharon's bedside quickly before he croaks it, pictures of you with worry beads (or whatever it is jewish people do). A few paragraphs on the old war horse. A few pictures of Sharon's wall which has saved Israel the only democracy in the ME. It won't hurt to have something with Oz Liberal party socialising/shmoozing/arse kissing.A Murdoch or Packer pic with you..Of course White House, camaradarie would be the ultimate, but you don't have much time.


Hope this helps

Monday, January 16, 2006 7:16:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

CB said...
"You must subscribe to the 'If everyone's against it, it must be right' school of thought."

No not really. Factually baseless cases are easy to dismiss. It's those with a modicum of truth that tend to linger. If Ant's critics feel his message is false, then surely facts will prove it so. If they find his message akward or inconvenient, then that's the luck of the draw, which is why they will resort to hysterical name calling, mud slinging and doomsday scenarios.

If AL was as mistaken as some suggest, then why do his arguments go unanswered? Why couldn't Sandy Gutman nto rebut him without using the holocaust justification, and even then, probably fail regardless?

This modus operandi used to be most efective, but like the boy who cried wolf, has a limited shelf life.

Monday, January 16, 2006 9:10:00 am  
Blogger Melanie said...

orang "If you want your book to be a seller you have to stop going down this road"

He wouldn't even have interest in his book or a position on the board of Maquarie Uni ME studies if he wasn't a Jewish anti-Zionist. Ya think its because he's so talented? Antony knows it and that's why he pushes his Jewishness so much.

Monday, January 16, 2006 9:26:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Melanie,

I'm surprised at you. Are you suggesting the Jewishness opens doors to peopel's careers? Careful or Ibby will clip you behind the ear.

If Antony wasn't Jewish, he'd be dismissed as an anti-Semite. Perhaps you shoudl wait for the book to come out so that you can then pick it apart.

Monday, January 16, 2006 9:45:00 am  
Blogger anthony said...

Addamo, you just lost $50.

Antony linked to the blog where he found the letter (I’m assuming he was either googling his own name again, or reading work by a real journalist- Tim Blair), and the writer stopped by.

Monday, January 16, 2006 1:27:00 pm  
Blogger boredinHK said...

A couple of points which may be slightly off centre-
Is being a blogger now considered to qualify a rperson as a journalist in Australia?
Journalists here in Hong Kong have generally rubbished bloggers who claim to be journalists because as they see it bloggers rarely try to present a balanced analysis of the issues being written about .
"Where is the backgound research , where is the presentation of the contrary viewpoint for each argument ? " seem to be the basis for their criticism.
Perhaps it would be better or more correct to call yourself a commentator rather than a journalist? Your website does tend to be focused on championing certain viewpoints and while the comments allow for dissent wouldn't it be preferable to have these views prominently discussed in each item?

The letter writer has also asked that the incumbent government the following -
"To put it simply, I for one would like to see further returns for my vote, with the Federal Government using its funding power to influence appointments in the academic community, and certainly at the ABC and SBS. For you, Mr. Abbott, to rightly censure Mr. Loewenstein’s appointment, would be an excellent start (or you could try instead to justify it)."

The call for Mr Abbott to publicly criticise your appointment is a cheap shot but you can't complain or pretend to be surprised that a government will attempt to fill public board and authority positions with supporters.
If this really shocks you I would be surprised but this whole letter and reporting it to your readers all seems a bit like a PR stunt for your own benefit .
Or am I being too suspicious ?

Monday, January 16, 2006 1:38:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Bored,

The fact tahtsomeone has written a letter to a politician and suggested politically motivated appointments, while typical, is nonetheless the seeds of cronyism.

What's next, demanding that certain journalists be hired by certain publications in return for votes?

Monday, January 16, 2006 2:11:00 pm  
Blogger boredinHK said...

Addamo_01,
Cronyism abounds in these decisions and I accept that it is part and parcel of politics. Seed ? It is already a forest.
I think it was a Labor politician , after Neville Wran and Labor won in 1976 who said something to the effect that
"now we have won the election we are in charge of the cake shop and we get to choose who eats all the tarts ".Others may know who said this ? I think it could have been Laurie (Jack) Ferguson ?
One letter writer will not sway much and I think the thrust of his complaint is that the current government hasn't been agressive enough getting ideological sympathisers onto public boards and corporations.

Monday, January 16, 2006 2:34:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Good point Bored.

Monday, January 16, 2006 2:56:00 pm  
Blogger smiths said...

very amusing, Journalists here in Hong Kong have generally rubbished bloggers who claim to be journalists because as they see it bloggers rarely try to present a balanced analysis of the issues being written about
you have to work long and hard to find publications where journalists present balanced analysis,
they know what they can and cant write, theres more journos than there are jobs you see,
anyone read an anti-uranium mining piece in a mainstream paper lately, or even a balanced one, very much doubt it,

antony, i know i'll get slagged for saying this but the muppet critics of youre work here are just plain wrong, you are doing a good job, keep it up

Monday, January 16, 2006 4:12:00 pm  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

Thanks.
The 'muppets' are mostly frustrated and powerless commentators with access to the web. May they continue!

Monday, January 16, 2006 4:52:00 pm  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

Most of this is ho hum from the usual hecklers (has Ant called this the "echo chamber"?), but Anthony's description of Blair as a "real journalist" is quite a laugh.

Cut and paste plus sarcasm does not make real journalism. Blair has said it himself: the art of popular blogging is to say as little as possible - that is, copy someone else's work, link to it, and come up with a couple of one liners. The commenters will fill in the gaps - and since they are anonymous they can get away with being far more offensive than the actual blogger. You could train a chimp to do it - in fact I suspect this has already been done.

By contrast, whatever your views on Loewenstein's politics (and your immature ad hominem and fallacious attacks aside), he at the very least authors his own material and clearly states his position on the issues discussed in his blog. Your attempts to call his integrity and writing abilities into question simply reflects your inability to engage constructively on issues of importance.

At the blog of a "real journalist" the commenters would ridicule you for disagreeing, make fun of your typos, and eventually call on the administrator to ban you. So criticise all you like, and preferably engage on the topic of what is posted, but comparisons with Blair - a crude comedian with a keyboard and a patronising wit - only show you for the insignificant conservative apparatchik that you are.

Monday, January 16, 2006 5:18:00 pm  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

Thanks for that, DBO.
Perhaps it's just me, but I always thought that a journalist actually had to leave his office, speak to people, get a sense of what other people are saying, and yes, monitor the centres of power. My forthcoming book is evidence of that, as my second book will be too. This blog is an entirely different beast.

This definition of journalism, sadly, doesn't apply to many 'journalists' in this country.

What's so hilarious is that as my work reaches more people - and I receive many emails of support - the attacks just seem to increase. It's a yawn, and usually best ignored.

Monday, January 16, 2006 5:30:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

So about the book. Do we as regular patrons, so to speak get a signed complimentary/mates rates copy?
(I swear I will never say a bad thing about you again)

Monday, January 16, 2006 5:59:00 pm  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

Nice try. And I wish I could.
Depends how much you pay me to write good things about Israel. Then I may consider it.
My bank details are...

Monday, January 16, 2006 6:04:00 pm  
Blogger boredinHK said...

I was writing after speaking to foreign correspondents and business journalists. The ones I know here are frequently attacking cronyism and corporate governace issues , they don't operate in a dangerous environment( east and north east asia ) so they do get out and about quite a lot.
My comment about being a commentator is a compliment actually. You know the sort of 1/2 to 1/3 page of more serious analysis type of writing.
If your readers aren't happy with the quality of the papers they read all I can suggest is more online reading.

Monday, January 16, 2006 6:32:00 pm  
Blogger James Waterton said...

DBO - are you aware of Blair's day job? And his CV? It's patently obvious he's a "real journalist".

Monday, January 16, 2006 8:54:00 pm  
Blogger James Waterton said...

addamo - the nature of Loewenstein's "arguments" do not befit conventional rebutting - mainly because it is Loewenstein who refuses to answer his critics. He merely posts a link to some (more often than not) ideologically driven article. Ant seldom - if ever - posts his own content. Then it's easy - he just leaves the commentariat to scrap over someone else's opinions. Maybe, if we're lucky, Ant will pop into the thread, to blithely tell those refuting the article to "enjoy your delusions", only to disappear again in a cloud of self-righteousness.

How is this advancing an argument, and how can you possibly claim that he goes unanswered?

Monday, January 16, 2006 9:02:00 pm  
Blogger anthony said...

So, dirt, Antony is a ‘real’ journalist for being a failed SMH online book-reviewing cadet (or so I’ve heard) and publishing on New Matilda, but Blair, who’s had his work published in the Bulletin (I think he might be a full time employee, dunno), is not?

Hmmm.

Now you’re giving us quite the laugh, dirt.

Thats like saying I'm a Journalist, because I had crap published in my high school magazine. Bwha ha ha!

Monday, January 16, 2006 9:05:00 pm  
Blogger James Waterton said...

I believe that Blair is the news editor of The Bulletin. I seem to remember reading that he's also wrote for and edited Time, and been editor-in-chief of Sports Illustrated.

I'm sorry, but anyone who claims Blair isn't a journalist is an ignorant, presumptuous moron.

Monday, January 16, 2006 9:15:00 pm  
Blogger James Waterton said...

By the way, DBO - cluck cluck cluck.

Monday, January 16, 2006 9:25:00 pm  
Blogger anthony said...

Hmmm... the answer for this oughta be good. I can smell it now: 'but, but, but, he's a journalist for the eeeeevil Murderoch empire.' (Or whoever runs the Bulletin).

Monday, January 16, 2006 9:56:00 pm  
Blogger James Waterton said...

Heh. Close. However, no longer can they squawk "he's a shill for Kerry Packer!"

Monday, January 16, 2006 10:02:00 pm  
Blogger anthony said...

I dont know, James. Packer was such a dastardly Right-Winger, he'd probably come back from the grave to exploit workers, and (this might sound familiar) kick beggars!

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:01:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

James,

"How is this advancing an argument, and how can you possibly claim that he goes unanswered?"

That's a fair point, yet again, I would be surprised if he would be in a position to rebut the same argument over and over again, every time someone demanded proof.

I myself have become pretty over ti with reposnding to pro war arguments based on total dissinfiormation. The argument pops up time and time again and you get pretty bored with repeating yourself.

Looking at Tim Blairs blog, it's hardly any different in that respect.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:34:00 am  
Blogger James Waterton said...

Addamo - that's not the point. The point is he never puts forward his own case - he just relies on someone else's work, then rounds off with some flippant remark, presumably to indicate a level of understanding that is frequently proven to be superficial when events start unfolding. His utter unwillingness to flesh out his postings with even the barest hint of rationale adds further weight to the impression of a mind with a superficial understanding of events.

You cannot be accused of not being willing to engage or not knowing your subject matter - sometimes you don't want to discuss. Sometimes I don't, either. You probably know the feeling - you just can't be bothered, but you could if you wanted to. I have never got this impression from Antony, because I have never seen him get down and dirty in a thread and start defending his position. Does he have one, or is he just riding the intellectual coat tails of the Magnificent Three - Pilger, Chomsky, Fisk?

PS. I have had disagreements with Tim Blair in the thread before, and he's been willing to have it out with me. Tim's also a lot more careful than Antony regarding what he posts - thus he is significantly more impervious to criticism on specifics.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:03:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

James,

Fair enough. Best that AL answer for himself. I will say, that much of the subject matter he addresses is pretty complexed. The Israeli Palestinian situation is pretty much impossible to debate in the framework of a thread, because every incident/event can often be traced back to an earlier one, which in turn has it's own back-story.

I noticed for example, your link to Blair's critique of Scott Ritter, where he quotes specific passages from Ritter’s first book as evidence that Ritter was in favor of the invasion of Iraq, but then omits the conclusions that Ritter draws at the end and his rational for being against military intervention.

Even more disingenuous, is that he alludes to the notion that someone changing ones mind from supporting to opposing the war is a evidence of flippery, yet the pro war supporters who populate his blog consider the opposite transformation to be a moral epiphany.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:31:00 am  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

Fellas, I am aware of Blair's non-blogging work. His regular piece in the Bull is just a condensed version of his blog. Real clever. I'd suggest that a "real journalist" is one in the field, not behind an editor's desk.

Anyway, my long-winded rant was my opinion - so take it or leave it. I was responding to Anthony's comparison between Blair and Loewenstein. Perhaps a case in point would be the juxtaposition between Blair's recent "vocabulary" post and the content of, say, Loewenstein's last dozen or so entries.

Anthony, I didn't say Loewenstein was a "real journalist". That's your phrase, and ad hominem (again). I simply disagreed with your characterisation of Blair.

Cluck cluck cluck.

You can always get a rise out of the troops if you criticise the great man. Utterly predictable. I'm happy to leave you to your delusions, boys. Enjoy. I'll get on with the tiring job of being ignorant and presumptuous.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 6:36:00 am  
Blogger anthony said...

I don’t believe it is ad hominem. It’s at the centre of the issues here. The Centre for Mid East and Nth. African studies wanted- we’re told- to give a spot to a Journalist. Whether or not Antony is a real Journalist is actually important to this thread. By definition he is, but you seem to change definitions at will.

So if the board is after a journalist, and you didn’t say Antony is one, then should he have been appointed a member of this board- part of Macquarie Uni and no doubt funded by tax-payers?

And don’t be so hard on yourself, dirt, your opinion matters to all of us. For me- you’re like the step-dad I never had or needed because my parents didn’t divorce…

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:21:00 pm  
Blogger James Waterton said...

Hehe! DBO is using the frightfully clever tactic of turning my words against me in an ironic fashion! Brilliant! Who ever would have thought of it?

Interesting how you figure that an editor (who is more often than not a very senior journalist) is in fact *not* a journalist.

I can't blame TB for concentrating on the lighter side of things. He probably wades through enough heavy prose in his position as news editor of Australia's leading news and current affairs magazine. Jesus, DBO. Are you trying to sound cognitively dissonant or do you enjoy painting yourself into a semantic corner?

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:22:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

Well, journalists or not, the way it works at TB country, he links to a couple of sites with a one liner, opens the spring door out back and throws it to the pack of yelping curs who try and outdo each other with "you da man" postings. Whenever any dissenting poster dares to rear their "lefty" head, if a concerted attack by the lap dogs is not be enough to run them off immediately, the curs squeal to the blogg "administrator" who then bans them. - Why? "We're happiest fondling each other without people watching.."

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:38:00 pm  
Blogger James Waterton said...

Well, if that's the case one wonders why the lefties waste their time posting there.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:40:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

James Waterton said...

"Well, if that's the case one wonders why the lefties waste their time posting there."

Yeah I can count them all one one hand.

TB does what Ant does, only with more spite and vitriol James. Sorry, but that's what I see whan I go there.

When Ant's blog came in at number 10, (TB's was nowhere toi be seen) the best that TB could say abotu it was that Ant got beaten by a blog sponsored by Volvo.

Real big of him.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 1:57:00 am  
Blogger James Waterton said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 4:09:00 am  
Blogger James Waterton said...

Hrm. What "honour" would I desire more?

1) Coming 10th in some lame blog comp whose judging panel was peopled by a bunch of hacks supporting themselves on Govt arts payola (read lefties, or at least "progressives")

2) Writing the most popular blog in Australia

Real tough one there.

And if you truly can't see much difference (beyond politics) between TB's blog and Loewenstein's , I truly wonder whether you've spent any time at Blair's at all.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 4:11:00 am  
Blogger orang said...

james, the BIG diference is Ant has infinitely more tolerant (maybe he needs the volume) of dissenting political views. Although this is ostensibly a lefty site, more often than not you see a lone partisan (addamo) being insulted by whole coven of bitches and spiteful RWDB's. This would not happen over at TB's. They are team players and work as a pack. One sign of weakness and you're dead meat. If you hang in there and get a few good shots in - you're banned! Easy peasey, back to being a centrist blogg...

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:28:00 am  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

Ah, the old popularity test. When it suits, of course.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 11:32:00 am  
Blogger James Waterton said...

No: they just think your positions are idiotic. The culture at Blair's is different - Blair and the commentariat are generally pisstakers. So when some overly sincere lefty comes in with the objective of setting everyone straight (mostly utilising the same old tired arguments, I might add), they tend to get laughed out of the room. It's funniest when they start getting all hot under the collar and throw a tanty.

DBO - so you reckon having the most popular blog in Australia counts for nothing, but WOW, coming tenth (or even first) in some shitty blog comp with a left-leaning judging panel is sooo much more indicative?

Before you give me the Neighbours rationale about how popularity doesn't necessarily equal quality - let me point out that the average blogger is a rather more discerning and mentally capable individual than the average citizen. A blog popularity rating has a much stronger correlation to quality (though it is not always right, it must be said - take Webdiary as an example) than, say, TV ratings.
I know what I'd prefer to use as a barometer of quality.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:32:00 pm  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

"DBO - so you reckon having the most popular blog in Australia counts for nothing, but WOW, coming tenth (or even first) in some shitty blog comp with a left-leaning judging panel is sooo much more indicative?"

Not what I said, is it?

Thursday, January 19, 2006 5:52:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home