18 April, 2008...7:54 am
Selective moderation
By The Editor
Hands up who’s had a comment SNIPPED at Andrew Bolt’s blog. Yep, that’s what I thought. Hands down now.
Bolt’s army of moderation monkeys are famous for their hardline stance on comments that present an alternative view to that expressed by their trainer, and are simply not tolerant of comments that link to blogs that are broadly anti-Bolt (while links to pro-Bolt sites are perfectly fine.)
So as a bit of an experiment The Blair/Bolt Watch Project would like you to copy any of your comments that have been rejected by Bolt’s moderation monkeys into the comments of this post, and then compare them to this effort that was published at Bolt’s blog yesterday.
Bring back the WHITE AUSTRALIA POLICY.
Australia has gone down the wrong path.
We need to protect our Anglo Saxon heritage.
We do not need this filth in our country.
It our constitution it mentions the Ayran race in which we should protect.
Get rid of the Muslims they are as bad as the Jews.
14/88.Henry Ford of Camberwell
Thu 17 Apr 08 (01:19pm)
Thanks to Gerard Hennicke for bringing this one to our attention.
91 Comments
18 April, 2008 at 8:56 am
I posted a comment just once at Tim Blair’s blog many years ago. It was totally innocuous, polite, and well intentioned, but I was immediately banned anyway because Blair knew who I was (the crazed wingnuts at Iraq The Model had already labelled me a “troll”).
PS: Did anyone else notice that Murdoch is today portraying Rudd as a Commie?
18 April, 2008 at 9:15 am
Here is one I posted a few weeks back that didn’t make it through the monkeys:
“Hi Andrew, could you explain your links with the Liberal Party?”
Looking back, I should be ashamed of myself for asking such a vile question. I think Andrew has shown with the Henry Ford post what sort of high standards he keeps!
18 April, 2008 at 10:03 am
Oh, where do I start? there are so many. How about this one.
“Of course he’s not fair dinkum, Barry. It’s just a bit of stirring along the lines of “Pinochet was a much misunderstood working class hero”, or “Hitler was a leftoid greeny”.
I doubt that Andrew really believes much of what he writes; he’s just playing a role.”
Or this one.
“Global warming alarmists are child abusers” writes Andrew Bolt.
How long before we hear of the first pedophile using the Andrew Bolt defence?
“But my actions were no worse than Gore or Flannery, your Honour”
18 April, 2008 at 10:03 am
Nice try, guys. If you don’t see that one of your fellow Lefty travelers left that comment there in an attempt to be deliberately provocative, you’re even more stupid than I thought.
Heh.
18 April, 2008 at 10:32 am
TrollWatch - the authorship of the comment is irrelevant to the point of this post. Regardless of who wrote it, the point is that the Bolt moderators apparently found it fit for publishing.
Do try to pay attention to the content of argument, it is so important if you wish to avoid making a total cock of yourself.
18 April, 2008 at 10:35 am
Two points here, Trollwatch:
1/ People with attitudes like “Henry Ford’s” really do exist - I’ve had the displeasure of meeting them.
2/ The point is such garbage can get through, whoever wrote it, whereas questions or points that might make Andy uncomfortable often do not.
18 April, 2008 at 10:41 am
TW, the question remains: why was it allowed to escape the censors? Usually you wouldn’t attribute comments of posters to the blogowner, but when heavy censorship is imposed there is an implication that the trollwatcher leaves in place that which he agrees with.
As for who posted it, my bet was VCAT, following the lead of their Canadian cousins the CHRC, trying to entrap unsuspecting commenters.
18 April, 2008 at 10:53 am
“but when heavy censorship is imposed”
Bolt does not impose “heavy censorship” - not even close. Blair runs sort of a “gated community,” but Bolt prefers to let the blog community see what kind of nuts are out there, and take them down themselves.
18 April, 2008 at 10:59 am
I got snipped for “Foul Abuse” in a thread where Andrew Bolt was pimping the paintings of John Pasquarelli , OK I may have invoked Godwin’s Law by stating that Hitler was also a good painter (as was Churchill). No way was my statement foul or abusive, to state it was is simply a lie on the part of the people who moderate Andrew Bolt’s blog.
I’ve had some rebuttals mysteriously not appear even though posts made after mine did. I can’t be sure but i have to assume that my comments weren’t published because they made Andrew Bolt and his legion of fans look quite silly.
Edit - I got that posting too quickly error again. What’s with that? I only hit the button once after checking my post for errors?????
18 April, 2008 at 11:00 am
“but Bolt prefers to let the blog community see what kind of nuts are out there, and take them down themselves.”
So why was my post snipped for foul abuse?
18 April, 2008 at 11:02 am
And why are the right wing nuts allowed to post foul and abusive posts?
18 April, 2008 at 11:26 am
Ah, the “fake but accurate” defense. ‘Sure, we deliberately planted a fake comment, but it was only to make a point that there really are people like that out there.’
Heh.
18 April, 2008 at 11:35 am
In fairness to Mr Bolt the offending post has been taken down with the following …”SNIP You disgusting creep. Apologies to readers for the error in letting this foul stuff get through.” but fair dinkum, it sat there for over 18 hours with comments being added to it!!!!
18 April, 2008 at 11:43 am
The comment that was submitted by Henry Ford was only part of the story. There were a number of similar posts in the same blog that stated similar or hateful items.
Almost but not quite the same as Alan (how did that get in there) Jones inciting people before the Cronulla riots.
I could not count how many posts I have had snipped by the bolt-erators. The vast majority ask serious and reasoned questions relating to conflicts between Andrew’s posts. the last example was why he was saying Media Watch was so good one week because they had a go at the Age while the following week his friends at the Oz were shown to have been dodgy at best with their reporting of the Aborignal Affairs minister visiting North Queensland.
He even re-posted the report as an attack piece and when it was pointed out that the report was incorrect and he should update the blog… snip snip
18 April, 2008 at 11:48 am
Trollwatch,
I posted examples that dispute your points about the moderation on Andrew Bolt’s blog, why are you ignoring them?
To reiterate, why are posts censored for being foul and abusive? Why are foul and abusive posts made by what appear to be extreme right wingers tolerated?
Edit - Mods at Blairboltwatch, I am NOT POSTING TOO QUICKLY! any chance of an error page that actually indicates why I need to submit again?
18 April, 2008 at 11:51 am
I remember when Bolt was hocking those paintings. Geeze they were shithouse. I think they are now in Prahran Cash Converters.
18 April, 2008 at 11:58 am
OMG! An offensive comment that is highly likely to be a plant was up for 18 hours, then taken down with an apology. Gee this is really worthy of a blog post.
And, obviously it was a plant. The perfect grammar of the first three sentences, followed by a creatively misspelled sentence is the key.
18 April, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Not sure what you were trying to say with your reply to my post TW. You think I’m lying?
heh
18 April, 2008 at 12:23 pm
In my couple of years of playing in the cesspit, I was never snipped, nor censored.
Instead, Mr Bolt would leave sarcastic comments after my posts insinuating that I was young/gay/stupid/socialist/greenie/hysterical - not addressing whatever issue was raised in my comment, of course. This would lead to a raft of posts from his fans abusing me. Is that a dog whistle I hear?? In particular, some guy called big Al, and another one called universal would instantly pounce. Wow, those guys would put the boot into me something bad. Their comments would often lurch inot the realm of “hey little dumb missy, you need a good seeing to, haven’t you got a fella to keep you in line” . Real creepy misogynistic stuff. Another guy called Greg Williams of Perth got mouth breather - ish after a while, calling me Livvie Lovvie Princess. *shudder*
Bolt then progressed to insinuating that he knew where I worked, who I worked for and what my full name was. - which completely set the dogs off. They were baying for blood.
I was quite freaked out. That’s about the time I backed away slowly, trying not to get eye contact.
He really doesn’t play fair.
In summary - sometimes Bolt deliberately leaves comments in because he knows they will set off the pack into a frenzied attack. And what is more satisfying to a blogger than 20 or 30 extra comments posted, even if they are irrelevant to the blog topic?
Stupid bully.
18 April, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Liv, I do remember the posts that GW o P used to post. He was disgusting. I know a few took great pleasure in calling him ‘diesel’ after the former vfl player with the same name to annoy him.
Jeremy may know but was it he who was expelled from Bolt land over a tiff on one topic? then he turned up in Boltwatch? or am i confusing him with another.
18 April, 2008 at 12:37 pm
“some guy called big Al, and another one called universal would instantly pounce”
LOL - universal, couldn’t debate him/herself out of a wet paper bag, his/her posts consist of little more than insults, just the other day universal accused another of being childish, he/she is a hypocrite but don’t let that worry you, just ask universal to back up his/her statements, the silence will deafen you.
18 April, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Liv, I’m pretty sure I remember reading your comments and seeing the abuse you used to cop from the knuckle-draggers.
I didn’t know about Bolt trying to bully you with veiled threats about revealing your identity, but I’m not surprised — he’s done it to a few people. A real stickler for ethics, our Andy.
18 April, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Dam Buster - GW was banned from Bolt’s Blog of Biohazards after getting into a silly stouch with another poster called Phil Maguire. A simply charming man. Not.
Bolt deemed the argument worthy of his intervention, and sided with the Mountain Cattle Man (who always seemed to be on line. Not very Mountain Cattle Man-ly. I’m just sayin’). GW managed to worm his way back into Lord Boltalot’s graces eventually. But he now has faded into bloggy oblivion, huzzah huzzah.
And I feel like I know waaaay too much about these guys and their pathetic little battles.
Moving on now….
18 April, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Jews, Muslims…. meh
The real problem is the bloody whities with thier blonde hair, pale skin and terrible personal hygiene.
Anyway, they all look the same to me.
18 April, 2008 at 12:54 pm
It’s not that my identity (or the revelation of it) really matters, Ant. I wasn’t going to be sacked (at least I hope not !), or lose some sort of position of authority or whatever…
But a highly paid so called professional (?) shouldn’t resort to bullying or privacy threats, whether he is doing it for kicks or he is doing it because the target genuinely annoys him.
More’s the fool me, but I was really surprised that he even bothered to stoop that low.
By the way - I wouldn’t be surprised if my posting here today results in someone who is attached to semi-colons harping on about knowing where I work or what my name is. He has done it as well. But THAT didn’t surprise me.
It just pissed me off.
18 April, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Yes, people like that really are out there and I feel they trawl the letters pages of newspapers, blogs and so forth in their attempts to dredge like minds into their conspiracy theory, right-wingnut stupidities. For example, a couple weeks ago I had a letter published in the SMH on the topic of Iemma’s idiotic proposal to jail the parents of truants. Last week, there landed in my letterbox a hand-addressed envelope bearing a 50c stamp, no return address. Inside were 2 badly reproduced pamphlets on the issue of Holocaust denial, that is, how the Jews made it all up.
Why the fuckwit who sent it would think I would be in the least bit interested in this bullshit is beyond me - perhaps he or she assumed that because I live in Brisbane, I worship at the altar of Pauline Hanson and own a pair of jackboots.
And then, on Wednesday, as I was making my way to the pub, a complete stranger made a comment to me as he passed by, “I didn’t know we were in China”. I had no idea what he was on about until I realised that, a few steps in front of us, was an elderly Asian man with a bag of vegetables.
They’re out there all right, and typically, they’re all over the blogs of people like Bolt and Akerman like a rash on a 5 buck hooker.
18 April, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Liv, was the Pernicious Semicolon after you as well? How the hell did that happen?!
18 April, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Its also hypocritical to the max, banging on about ‘free speech’ and then attempting to silence those who don’t agree with you by threatening them with loss of employment etc…
18 April, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Hall? I, er, um…*cough*…..well. It’s a bit embarassing, actually. I got stuck into him a few times when I just couldn’t resist. It’s a habit I am trying to break, this whole “when you see something moronic on a blog, say something snarky in return” thang. He got all Googly on me, put a few links together and decided to give me a scare by taking a stab at guessing my name and where I worked.
Muppet.
18 April, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Yep. Not like you people don’t have form for that or anything.
18 April, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Actually, you were banned for being a nasty, lying, trouble-stirring troll, “Liv.”
See what I mean about Lefties and their somewhat casual views on honesty?
18 April, 2008 at 1:36 pm
No he hasn’t. He’s still on, under a different screen name. He’s even admitted it, so Bolt must not have a problem with that.
18 April, 2008 at 1:41 pm
What about your form TrollWatch? You still haven’t addressed my rebuttal of your ridiculous claim that there is no heavy censorship on Andrew Bolt’s blog.
One more time, why are posts that are not foul or abusive labeled as such and completely censored?
18 April, 2008 at 1:54 pm
What ?
I was never banned.
Pull your head in.
18 April, 2008 at 1:58 pm
i’ve put in many posts that don’t get a run. none of them abusive. he doesn’t like anyone with experience in an aboriginal community disagreeing with him, that’s for sure.
it’s common for him and his supporters to feel victimised if someone puts a counter point. it’s like they take that as abuse and a right to abuse back.
could you imagine someone as insulting as trollwatch putting counter points there? and don’t get me started on alan of sydney.
and yes greg williams was at boltwatch crying to us how bolt doesn’t love him anymore. it was pathetic.
18 April, 2008 at 2:31 pm
TrollWatch, after opening his account on this thread by quite spectacularly failing to understand the point being made, is simply covering himself with glory now.
Calling other posters liers, getting his facts wrong, abusing people without provocation and deliberately avoiding legitimate questions being asked of him in relation to the actual topic of discussion. He’s the perfect illustration of a Bolt supporter - nothing substantial to say, only vapid abuse and cowardly dodging of legitimate debate.
What a monumental tool - can we all just ignore him now and get on with it?
18 April, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Pathetic little Greg Williams of Perth. He skulked away from Bolt’s blog after a couple of bannings each followed by the sort of undignified and humiliating apology that left him looking like Bolt’s bukkake boy when Andrew deemed to allow him back into the fold.
Then after the inbred hilarities of the stoush with farmer Phil (posting at Bolt’s with one hand, putting out bushfires with the other), Greg staggered into Boltwatch and underwent a 12-step de-dutching program. Things were looking good and he even stated that Lefty’s forum was more open to debate than Andrew’s.
Sadly, the unfortunate clown fell off the wagon and was back at Bolta’s. He is now known as Kiwi.
18 April, 2008 at 2:59 pm
243k - I had seen the ‘kiwi’ posts.. now it makes some sense.
18 April, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Ha ha, I remember Greg Williams. When I first visited Bolt’s moronic enclave about a year and a half ago, he was one of the more common posters, along with a guy called Dan_W who used to team up regularly. Greg Williams seemed to like responding to my posts and at one point called me a coward who would “spit on Australian troops” because I said that the Iraq invasion was ill-conceived and disastrously carried out. I also remember his little sook fest when he ran to the Bolt Watch site to try make some new friends after he fell out with some even more bizarre Boltist creatures. I couldn’t beleive it was the same guy, the abusive blowhard, experiencing the real bolt for himslef, running to Jeremy, who kindly took him under his wing. I say the same name posting on Albrechtsen’s blog a couple of days later. Apparently the guy is a Grandfather - how pathetic.
18 April, 2008 at 3:01 pm
“243 k” wow is kiwi Greg Williams? Thats hilarious
18 April, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Come on, “Sue Gant”, I mean “Liv.” You’ve been banned repeatedly for foul abuse and dishonesty. When you switched to “Sue Gant,” Bolt gave you a break and let you post again, but he’s not so stupid that he doesn’t know you’re the same person.
Do you think everyone is as dumb as you are?
18 April, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I have to admit though, Bolt’s moderators have in the last 6 months or so, actually become less heavy-handed in their selective moderating, although they are still far from even close to being fair. The fact that both of the ones I know, share his same warped view of the world are testament to this. Like this useless clown for instance. http://www.slattsnews.observationdeck.org/. He’s a bit more like Blair, in that he makes less effort than Bolt to hide his underlying prejudice, immaturity, ignorance, and lack of empathy towards those unlike him, whilst seemingly by his lack of visitors, much more friendless.
“Liv” the thing that has always struck me more than anything about Bolt and his flock of fools is their complete lack of self-insight and extraordinary hypocrisy. Trying like Bolt to patronise about morals, maturity, dignity etc, but being the most insidious, obnoxious and juvenile fools you can come across. Add to that abusive and threatening. Like this imbecile Troll Watch here, who in all likelihood equates any disagreement with his idiot overlord as that of a troll.
18 April, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Ha, Dan W!
Yes, he was a crack-up. Remember when Bolta’s little intellectual concubine ‘Ash’ would go to the trouble of compiling the ‘Moonbat of the Week’ competition? That little venture came to an end when Dan W won most weeks and even claimed the one and only ‘Moonbat of the Year’ prize (which she only announced when pressed by a number of lefties on the site).
I would have my posts snipped when I would refer to Dan as ‘MotY’.
Good times.
18 April, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Yeah, I noticed that whole “Sue Gant = Liv of Melbourne” thing. Very amusing.
Sue Gant is not me, and Bolt knows it. He’s just stringing you guys along as well as hoping I’ll pop my head up to try and prove you all wrong.
Well, tough.
I’m done with posting in that place and have been for some time.
Just as I’m done feeding you, Troll.
Buh-bye.
18 April, 2008 at 3:20 pm
TrollWatch trolled:
“Do you think everyone is as dumb as you are?”
Hang on a minute TrollWatch, you’re the one who is unable to back your ridiculous claim, who are you to call others dumb, you don’t come across as particularly bright. Anyone can say anything, those of us with integrity and nous have the ability to back up our claims.
18 April, 2008 at 4:29 pm
poor or Troll Watch is probably a bit too used to engaging in the empty throw-away linism of Bolt’s pack of mindless drones, with abscence of having to back up statments with logic and evidence. Having been conditioned to simly preaching with the rest of the monkey’s in the Bolt Church, he thought he could come over here and knock a few heads with his profound insight. Upon realsing that although everyone agrees with him at Bolt’s site he is really just an intellectual fly-weight, he degenerates into the typcial defensive, get-more-abusive tactic of boltists.
18 April, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I’ve attempted to leave comments on Bolt blog several times, none of them were in any way offensive or ‘pointless’.
They all illustrated how rediculous Bolts stance was on a variety of issues, and just how offensive some of his tirades were to some people, but Bolts Gestapo wouldn’t allow differing opinion.
18 April, 2008 at 5:40 pm
How come you’ve try to block “TrollWatch” from commenting now? Selective Moderation at work? LOL!
18 April, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Here’s what I tried to post 3 times before.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillards_own_memory_blank/
If Bolt was wrong, why didn’t you correct him?
TrollWatch
18 April, 2008 at 6:07 pm
What the fuck is with The Trolliest of Trolls calling themselves “TrollWatch” like they somehow care about reducing the blight of blog whores from the internet.
TrollWatch needs a mirror, not a computer to watch Trolls…
18 April, 2008 at 6:30 pm
It’s not only what gets snipped that’s interesting but what doesn’t even get airspace is also quite revealing. His love affair with General Pinochet is pretty much off limits. If you compare his arguments for dismissing the Armenian Genocide with those of Holocaust Revisionists you won’t get posted and obviously Zionism is a very touchy subject. The list is endless. Very touchy about Hitler and Nazism. Mind you, abuse of Muslims, Aboriginals and Multiculturalism is pretty much open slather. Very strict (normally) on anti-semitism which is a good thing but his definition is very broad. Pointing out that his so called book was not in fact published “last year” as stated on his blog seems to be a source of embarrassment but as he has pointed out on a number of ocassions, the I.T. staff at the Herald sun are not too bright. But as many have pointed out, compared to Tim Blair’s Blog, he is freedom of speech personified. Compared to Andrew Landeryou, he is an absolute gentleman. The removal of Slattsnews from his links list is also a mystery that he won’t discuss. The only time I got SNIPPED was when I linked to Stormfront but that was probably because I pointed out that he gets used as source material there as well as on other far right websites including that of bigot and racist Darren Hodges (Voice of the Shire). He is very sensitive about that. And no, I am not Liv (Hi there).
18 April, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Sue Gant ! Finally we meet.
I have never bothered to correct the misapprehension that we are one and the same seeing as (a) that would involve me posting there once again and (b) no one would believe it any way.
By the way - love your work.
Have a good weekend, people.
18 April, 2008 at 7:06 pm
@ Kev
“If Bolt was wrong, why didn’t you correct him?”
Are you saying that everytime Bolt gets something wrong someone should correct him? Why? What reason can you give? Please no “stupid lefty” comments. It’s a reasonable question & I’d like a reasonable answer.
Thank you
18 April, 2008 at 7:51 pm
I got a few posts rejected in the early days because I came over to Bolt to abuse him in response to all the Bolties posting on the Courier Mail website. I cleaned up my act a bit to get posts through. I recently got a post rejected -> I commented. He replied with “Are you trying to say …”. I replied “Don’t put words into my mouth I did not say”. He got uppity and sounded like a lawyer saying “I did not put words into your mouth”. I got rejected when I posted “You did too put words into my mouth”.
I think that any poster that uses the phrase “Ever heard of IP addresses” to indicate they know your identity is speaking a furphy. They are just trying to bluff you.
Speaking of sock puppets and misnomers. Does any one else think that Barry Bones is a rightie in disguise - Possibly Bolt himself?
18 April, 2008 at 7:55 pm
re above post :
He replied -> “He” is just another blogger not Bolt.
19 April, 2008 at 2:31 am
Here’s a little something I wrote after the Bolta ‘rebutted’ Ray Cassin for suggesting he and all his hard-core conservative mates may be doing nothing more than angrily waving their dicks in the air (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/ray-cassin/2007/12/09/1197135284089.html):
‘I suggest people people should read Cassin’s complete article, instead of merely relying on Andrew’s representation of it.
‘Appointments to the boards of public broadcasters and museums matter, because the boards make decisions. But all the sound and fury expended by the warriors in commentariat mode has evidently mattered much less. Indeed, the battlers whom they liked to extol as the opposite of the reviled cafe-lurking ‘left’ proved immune to it.’
Perhaps the most valid point in Cassin’s argument is the idea that for all of Bolt, Henderson and Albrechtsen’s influence on the election, Middle-Australians weren’t listening, far too concerned with work-choices, which in retrospect, was obviously the defining election issue.
Bolt’s interpretation of Cassin’s article appears only to suggest that
a) he fails to understand irony
and
b) judging by the blog title ‘Cassin mourns: Andrew Bolt can never be defeated’, he thinks far too highly of himself.’
Little surprised that one got through, really. Most of the follow-up comments were divided between the predictable friendly banter and usual ‘you wacky lefty lunatics! OH, how only those from MINE moral high-ground doth LAUGH at thy foolishness! HEAVENS! Mine moral high-ground hath given me VERTIGO!’ bullshit. Though one comment struck me as interesting:
‘Perhaps it is you who doesn’t understand irony. I’ve observed overtime how the left uses irony - it uses it as a sword. There is much venom in their irony. Yet, when I see it used by those more right, it tends to be more playful, like stringing one along.’
Can’t help but notice the similarities between this lil’ speech and the Bolta’s characteristic tone. Could one of his readers have been focusing a little too closely? Or could the Bolt have responded HIMSELF under a pseudonym? What? Are you suggesting I am leaning more towards the former? Shut Up. Stop putting words in my mouth.
19 April, 2008 at 2:33 am
Oh, and by that, I meant latter. Shut Up. It’s been a long night.
19 April, 2008 at 11:43 am
Did you ban Trollwatch/Kevin of Brissie? If so, why? His posts aren’t abusive - they just don’t agree with you. I assume that you have not, as it would be highly hypocritical to selectively ban people who disagree with you on a blogpost alleging selective banning of people who disagree with Andrew Bolt.
19 April, 2008 at 11:58 am
Wait there’s more …..
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/maybe_cubas_man_could_run_us_better/#commentsmore
This is just getting tiresome! Why don’t we just give every Abo a million bucks, get them to sign a form saying they want no more and let ‘em go! Don’t worry about the dough-it’ll all come back as taxes paid by the breweries! Or better, just walk away from the problem. Nothing, nothing, will satisfy the Abo industry until all we white sods have beetled off to somewhere else. I for one, give up. No, I’m sorry for that!
Amazing Scenes (Reply)
Fri 18 Apr 08 (03:05pm)
Isn’t the use of the term “ABO” a tad offensive/racist? To be fair to Andrew he does use the PC term “Indigenous Australian’s” so there could be problems with the knuckleheads he employs as moderators.
19 April, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Nic, nobody’s been banned here.
20 April, 2008 at 10:04 am
“Did you ban Trollwatch”
I reckon he just shut up rather than rise to the challenge!
20 April, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“The removal of Slattsnews from his links list is also a mystery that he won’t discuss. ”
You should have seen Slattsnews just before he got the job of bolt moderator. Let’s just say, Mr Slattery spent a few days cleaning that putrid site up before starting work at the Hun.
Some of the more offensive stuff may of course had been cached before the mop and sponge job.
21 April, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Out of curiosity:
Who are the moderators on Bolt’s blog?
Who is Owen who contributes so many articles?
Who is Alan of Sydney?
What is Iain’s current moniker on Bolt’s blog?
21 April, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Hell, I have not looked at Blot’s site for over a year, apart from the references via Boltwatch.
Alan of Sydney used to intrigue me, in that he was such a precious, bitchy little princess. He would cry if any nasty people said beastly things (like disagreeing) with Andy. Alan was clearly besotted with Andy and appeared to be well researched and highly informed as his views were obviously based on thousands of hours of listening to right wing crackpot radio shock jocks and racist cab drivers.
At some time Alan had heard the word “Arrant”. He attempted to put it in every post. Oh, and he seemed to want some kind of feudal system where only wealthy, landed gentry had the right to vote and poor peasants could well, be dismissed as “latte sipping lefties” and “do gooders”. (Both terms being killer blows that he of course would not have heard on talkback or read in his pin up boy’s raving rants.)
I do remember the frenzied attacks on Liv and another victim of gang attack called Jayne. She enraged them because she kicked the bejesus out of their arguments with logic and statistics.
21 April, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I have been banned, censored, snipped and sniped at so many times, in so many guises, there’s no way I can remember. It’s become a hobby of mine actually. It’s true Blair is a vicious, violent, nasty arsehole and his followers are even worse.
But Bolt is a different animal altogether. I reckon I’ve read him online since he began, and the change over time has been hilarious. At the start he was all sweetness and light, embarking on this brave new world and thrilling to its possibilities. He chuckled good-naturedly that he was sure he’d get some robust discussion, but that was exactly what he wanted.
Slowly, gradually, Bolt changed. (In no particular order) he got mean, nasty, sullen, bullying, denying, haughty, indignant, holier-than-thou, and finally (with the granting of fulltime moderators) sneering with derision. It is rare now that Bolt himself ducks down from the ivory tower to comment on the site, preferring to allow the mods to do that with free rein. And I’m sure he has no idea what his mods are doing, nor that they are banning/censoring comments.
And as someone else said, Bernard Slattery is one of the main monkeys, a real throwback dickhead, a failed journo who reveals his true self (towhit: racist, sexist, all-round smalltown bigot) on his laughable blog AND via his role as Bolt’s doorbitch. Bernie has summarily ignored my posts at Bolt’s site several times just because I have dared to question him on his blog, such as when I pulled him up on his sexist posts.
Actually, I think it’s quite fitting that Bolt employs Slattery as his moderator. Their egos are both like glass.
22 April, 2008 at 7:15 am
Doublespeak
What is Iain’s current moniker on Bolt’s blog?
On the infrequent occasions when I do post to Andrew’s blog I do so in my own name.
What always amuses me about this sort of thread is that most of the loudest complaints come from people who often have their own blogs.Any Blogger, Andrew Bolt included, has the right to moderate comments as they please. Even I have had comments rejected by Andrew’s moderators.
So what!
There are an almost infinite number of other venues to express your opinion about the things written by Bolt and Blair as the existence of this particular blog demonstrates.
22 April, 2008 at 10:52 am
Doublespeak - don’t bring ;;;; here, please.
22 April, 2008 at 12:11 pm
“There are an almost infinite number of other venues to express your opinion about the things written by Bolt and Blair…”
Oh, really? Do tell. Apart from this one, name one venue to express an opinion about Bolt and Blair. Apart from personal blogs, which you derided earlier.
And as for your belief that Bolt can moderate comments as he pleases, we are not talking about some hairy little gnome sitting in his smelly bedroom blogging about the comparative worth of Darth Maul and Darth Sidious. This is a well-paid blowhard columnist employed by “Australia’s biggest selling newspaper”, a very public media outlet that would surely profess to be open to any and all opinions. Bolt himself has often claimed to welcome dissenting views (as long as they are ‘civil’ of course- and we know what that means). Bolt’s forum today even opens with: “Discuss ideas here, where you’ll find more debate - and originality - than at the usual Rudd summit.” Debate? Or a conga-line of suckholes. (Hell, Latham has to have been good for something!)
22 April, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Ahh, the herpes of the Internet has arrived. Even though I have nothing to do with this marvelous blog, can I ban Hall?
Hall, chances are your comments were moderated at Bolta’s blog because they would have contained links back to your 100 + blogs.
Why don’t you just fuck off and go and play with the little kids OK?
22 April, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I confess to being a regular reader and irregular poster to Bolt’s blog. Ater months of regularly referring to Alan of Sydney as a “moron,” a quasi-scientific term which I felt entirely accurate, I have been regularly snipped for abuse since.
My personal favourite though is not having comments posted at all. On one occasion, Andrew railed against some leftist, grant seeking academic by demanding that he have the courage of his convictions to be responsible for the financial consequences of his own actions, and not seek others to do it for him. In response I simply asked how much of the damages and costs awarded against him in the Popovic defamation case came out of his pocket, and how much came out of Rupert Murdochs. That one never saw daylight…
22 April, 2008 at 5:02 pm
What are you on about claiming that I have derided personal blogs? I have quite often reminded dissenting commentators (at my own Blog) that starting their own blogs is a better option than complaining about moderation decisions that I have made myself. But for every leftard who complains about the articles and blog posts from Andrew there are just as many conservatives who write pieces in agreement with the Bolt argument and I bet any one of those would be open to civil discourse on the issues.
Really Steve the principle is exactly the same for Bolt or any gnome you care to cite, a blog is the fiefdom of its author and they can make the rules to suit themselves.
So what exactly is wrong with asking your commentators to be civil? Are you incapable of civil debate then? But remember that a major newspaper has to be far more aware of the potential for litigation and I suspect that it is that concern that may drive some of the rejections that so vex you and your fellow leftatrds.
I think that Andrew actually does a fine line in sarcasm that is sadly almost entirely lost on the very humourless left.
22 April, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I have been snipped- and I’m a typical right wing loon. The snipping is not of ideas but of content length…its to avoid psudo essays being posted. Any person can read nearly any post and see differing views- most are from conservatives (naturally) but leftists are not discriminated against.
Get over yourselves.
22 April, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Iain - from wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm)
Sarcasm[A] “Morganne” is stating the opposite of an intended meaning especially in order to sneeringly, slyly, jest or mock a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound. Sarcasm can also be used in a humorous or jesting way depending on the intent of the person speaking.
Andrew’s issue is that in the written form it is difficult to convey sarcasm accurately, again from wikipedia:
“Sarcasm can be difficult to grasp in written form”
You may follow it because of your extensive reading of his blogs. Others will miss the point (from either side) and take the post seriously.
22 April, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Oh I agree DBOP that sarcasm can be difficult to perceive in written form I follow it not because I am such an avid reader of Andrew’s Blog (which I seldom read ) but because I am not seeking to read the most sinister meaning into everything that he writes there.
In fact I suspect that you and most of those complaining about his moderation policy read him more consistently than I do.
But Matthew makes a very valid point about comment length and I bet that if you lot were honest many of your comments that don’t make it are generally rather long and turgid. a high volume blog like Andrew’s certainly favours the succinct over the long winded.
22 April, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Iain. Here. Again. I need a new reading list.
22 April, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Iain Hall:
“In fact I suspect that you and most of those complaining about his moderation policy read him more consistently than I do.”
So, by that you are admitting I know rather a lot more about Bolt’s moderation policy (and practice for that matter) than you, who claims to seldom read him.
I don’t know you from a bar of soap but it’s obvious you’ve made an impression on others here (sarcasm). I’m getting to know why. (sarcasm)
23 April, 2008 at 8:43 am
Damian
what is your problem? Can’t stand any sort or contrary opinion I suppose.
Steven
I have been talking about general principles here and I do not claim any inside knowledge of the workings of Andrew’s moderation policy.
When it comes to conveying emotion in text ,that is why they invented emoticons…
;)
23 April, 2008 at 9:42 am
Someone should write a song about your love of emoticons, ;;;;.
23 April, 2008 at 11:13 am
Jeremy
Pray tell, what is wrong with emoticons?
:)
23 April, 2008 at 11:30 am
Forgive me for my sins.
24 April, 2008 at 9:19 am
About 2 of my 100 or so comments at Bolt’s website have not been published and 1 of them snipped. I do not know why the 2 were not published as they were not much different from others that I had posted and which had been published. The one that was snipped was an angry attack on Bolt and his perpetual love for Blair. It was cathartic and right in principle but the language was unpleasant in hindsight.
Interestingly one of my posts from yesterday was removed from a discussion without comment. I do not know which moderator removed it. So my record here is about 1 in 5 posts being removed by moderator.
24 April, 2008 at 9:55 am
Iain,
The only comment made here about length of posts was made by a confessed “right wing loon” in Matthew.
Do not make assumptions on flawed information.
24 April, 2008 at 11:06 am
Have you checked out the following on Bolt’s Blog today ….
‘It’s true that bloggers sometimes accidentally put up comments from readers which they’ve failed to read properly. Last week, for instance, a Leftist troll sent a foul racist slur to my blog, pretending to be what he imagined a Right-winger to be, and a fill-in moderator let it slip through. It was removed as soon as Jon Faine kindly and privately alerted me to its existence, having been contacted by the suspected perpetrator in the hope of causing me embarrasment.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/best_and_brightest_barbarian/
I don’t mind Jon Faine stealing my thunder (yes I sent him an email) but Bolt’s accusation that I infact posted the obscene comment is totally false and he knows it.
I actually phoned The Herald Sun the day before the offending post was removed to lodge a complaint as well as sending an email to the Editor and even Bolt himself. It took a good eighteen hours to remove the post. For Bolt to blame a slack moderator is just a smokescreen. If I hadn’t contacted Jon I reckon it would still be up there. If not for the anti-semetic part it would have stayed because the same sort of comments about Muslims or Aboriginals for that matter is considered fair game.
Is Andrew telling porkys? You decide.
24 April, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Gerard,
Why didn’t you use the “reply” to respond to Henry Fords disgusting post? The Moderators would have picked it up straight away and removed it a lot sooner.
These are the comments that were left by some posters.
* Ben replied to Henry Ford
Thu 17 Apr 08 (02:29pm)
Rubbish, Henry.
* Peter o the west replied to Henry Ford
Thu 17 Apr 08 (03:02pm)
It our constitution it mentions the Ayran race in which we should protect.
Wrong, Henry.
In 1967 the Constitution removed the two discriminatory clauses against aboriginals. The White Australia policy was never any part of the Constitution (amendments to the 1901 version are still traceable). The Commonwealth was given the power to enact laws in reference to immigration. They then did, but only as Acts of parliament.
* Matt replied to Henry Ford
Thu 17 Apr 08 (03:37pm)
See your psychologist, URGENTLY!!!!!
* Steve replied to Henry Ford
Thu 17 Apr 08 (09:11pm)
Nice try Troll, but no cigar.
* We’re not as stupid as you seem to think! replied to Henry Ford
Fri 18 Apr 08 (10:01am)
“Henry Ford,” you’re not fooling anyone. You are a lefty loser deliberately trying to stir up trouble by posting “provocative” comments like that.
Nice try, but no cigar. Go back to BoltWatch.
Wanker.
Gerard, why did you not post a “reply” to Henry Ford if you were offended? I suggest that you wrote the post to cause mischief.
btw, a lot of posts do get lost along the way, the Fairfax blogs also have a similar problem.
24 April, 2008 at 4:03 pm
D Man - By your own post a number of people actually did reply over a period between 1:19pm and 10:01am the next day.
Surely if they went to the effort they oculd have mentioned it? I have done it before myself and had posts snipped to take out abusive comments.
Based on the follow up posts by Bolt it was intentionally left in place to stir the emotions and to accuse the “hateful left”
24 April, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Henry Ford was a bit a give away wasn’t it? I mean he was an anti-semite and a follower of Hitler wasn’t he?
http://www.thememoryhole.org/fordnazi.htm
24 April, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Oh, by the way D-Man, the reason I did not write a post replying to “Henry Ford” was that I have been banned sometime ago with the following comment from Andrew -
“If your cause is reflected in you, it is evil. I shall ask Bernie whether you should be banned from this site, which you stain with your presence.”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mcmullen_in_the_wars/
I probably deserved it but I reckon he’s good at dishing out the abuse but not very good at taking it.
24 April, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Oh, his haughtiness knows no bounds. I imagine he imagines himself as some sort of Mr Chips character- a benevolent autocrat, who everyone loves, honours and respects dearly, and whom he loves in his faux-grumpy style, despite their cheekiness.
25 April, 2008 at 6:37 am
Considering Bolt removed the comment from his blog it is a little disingenuous to claim that it somehow represents his views or has his tacit support.
What I find interesting is that if you type the first three lines of the offending letter into google, this site appears as the number one listing.
Who exactly is hosting hatespeech on the internet?
6 May, 2008 at 1:48 pm
As to the foul and abusive posts the mods consistently allow to be posted keep an eye out for the clearly racist posts of regular posters spencer de vere, tony coburg & ronald reagun (there is prob more but these r the regulars).
Have noticing their offencive posts allowed time and again over a long time.
will try and find examples and post here.
6 May, 2008 at 3:07 pm
RVW, sounds like a useful exercise. I reckon you should author a guest post here once the examples have been rounded up.
Leave a Reply