Blogging Tory Mike Brock decides that the quickest way to deal with embarrassing bloggy history is the memory hole:
Post Retracted
I have retracting [sic] my previous post, in response to a desperate request from a friend appealing for my calm over the issue.
And by "retracted," Mike means disappeared entirely. And when an anonymous commenter points out that it's just not done that way:
Deleting blog posts is bad form! You're supposed to revise through updates... you don't DELETE!
Mike unleashes his inner 8-year-old:
File a human rights complaint.
The Blogging Tories: When you want informed, emotionally mature political punditry. But you still want to hear what the other side has to say as well.
AFTERSNARK: Not surprisingly, Blogging Tory and Hitler Youth Scout Leader "Neo Conservative" is all about deleting the embarrassing stuff:
if it's good enough for the cbc and the grope & flail... it's good enough for me
Curiously, Neo doesn't use as an appropriate example the National Post's groundbreaking deletion of a front-page article regarding Iran and Jews and badges. I'm guessing that was just a word limit thing, right, Neo?
Yeah, that must be it. Word limit. Dontcha just hate it when that happens?
P.S. Given that Neo is perpetually obsessed (to the point of being mildly psychotic) about my Wanda Watkins post from months back, one wonders if I could satisfy his obsession by simply going back and -- like a weaselly Blogging Tory -- simply erasing that post permanently.
But I'm guessing that wouldn't really solve anything since I'll bet that, if I did that, then the Neo above who thinks that deleting an embarrassing post is perfectly acceptable and should terminate any discussion about it would suddenly morph into a Neo who sees deleting posts as a clear and public admission of shame which in no way obligates someone to stop yapping on about it for years to come.
Because that's just the kind of mouth-breathing hypocrite Neo is.
22 comments:
Brock says he looked high and low through the depths of Technorati etc. for some sign of “non-conservative” support to Keith Martin’s Private Member’s Bill striking ss. 13(1) from the HRA. Couldn’t find a thing, apparently. Completely failed to note that I guest blogged in support of the motion over at Scott Tribe’s place on the weekend. Clearly, the guy is either: stupid; or, a dishonest hack.
In fact, I also blogged in favour of it. Given a choice about Mike, I'd go with "dishonest."
cc, Red,
what makes you think for a second that he isn't both stupid and a dishonest hack? It isn't like the two are mutually exclusive, just look at FOX's Jon Gibson.
He's not stupid. He's an executive engineer, which, by definition, means he can speak with authority on any number of subjects.
the rev — My bad for putting that way. Of course he's capable of being both.
And CC, yes, sorry for not acknowledging your support also (albeit being somewhat facetious).
red tory, did you post on the subject on or before January 31st, when this post was posted?
Oh, wait... you posted it 3 days later. Clearly I missed the "Search Future Posts Not Yet Written" feature when I wrote that.
*yawn*
Apparently being a Blogging Tory means never having to stand behind what you've posted. Why I'm just shocked! Oh wait a second ... no I'm not.
Now he's trying to characterise the reaction to this as somehow a challenge to his property rights.
Honestly, it's the conservative analysis (if we can even call it that) that gets up my nose far more often than whatever issue it is they're moaning about.
...actually, it's not even that. It's the equivalent, yet again, of calling everyone else Taliban-huggers. Disagree with them, and you're in bed with the terrorists.
Mike, you made several updates after your initial post.
Yeah, all of which were on the same day, or the next.
You were late to the game.
Here's the deal: if you'd like to point me to any leftie bloggers who spoke out for the resolution on or before January 31st, then I will happily update that post and point them out.
I had no way of telling that all six of your updates were made on the same day.
And yes, perhaps I was "late" because I hadn't been following the online fray on the blogs and was responding to Kinsella's column when I came across it late Friday night.
red tory,
The fact of the matter is, you are accusing me of being intentionally dishonest. Yet, I wasn't.
I really was not able to find any blogs on the left that supported the view.
Now, you point to two, I know of another now: Stageleft. But that's three. I find that significant, and I'll probably be contacting all three of you in the near future for something we are trying to organize (a non-partisan effort).
But on the day in question, there was literally more right-leaning blogs than I could count, that spoke up in support of it... and an eerie silence on the left, with the exception of the gratuitous Ezra-bashing.
I assure you, if I had found an example of someone on the left that day, I would have held the person up on a pedestal and congratulated them, just as I congratulated Keith Martin, a Liberal MP.
My apologies then for jumping to conclusions. Feel free to contact me (redtory@shaw.ca) about what you have in mind.
...and an eerie silence on the left, with the exception of the gratuitous Ezra-bashing.
Well, only someone who must have been a zygote up until recently wouldn't understand why this is.
First, off...the Right is characterised by a chorus of screechers who don't see anything wrong with repeating the talking points the two or three "perfessers" among them have supplied them with.
Second, there has been, since time immemorial, a vocal contingent among liberals who are dead set against any kind of limits on expression. Most liberals and lefties are familiar with their arguments and don't see any reason to repeat them ad nauseam.
red tory
"When you want informed, emotionally mature political punditry."
...
"Hitler Youth Scout Leader "
...
" the guy is either: stupid; or, a dishonest hack"
Thanks for the "emotionally mature political punditry".
You're very welcome ... free of charge, too.
Poor daveh ... he must be new here since he's apparently unaware of Neo's relentless reference to me as "Canadian Cecilia" and his more recent suggestion that I'm heavily into porn, which made me assume that making shit up about other people was now on the menu.
Silly me -- I assumed I got to play by the same rules. Apparently not. Darn.
Thank God for the internet. Whatever did the prissy scolds do before it was invented?
Hey, Dave H. (whose Blogger account is like 15 minutes old), here's some "emotionally mature political punditry" for you: get stuffed.
My god, you're not saying Dave H. is a sockpuppet? That's just sooooooo not surprising.
What was the original post anyway? Did it have to do with Mike claiming nobody on the left was supporting Martin's bill (i.e. what he and RT are debating above) or was it something else?
From the screen grab that I got of the Blogging Tories front page last night:
Vote Buying and the Conservative Position on M-446
I’m on record being against government handouts to corporations, even if those corporations employ a lot of people. I thought Harper was too, when he railed against the Liberal Party doing it. At the time, he called it “corporate welfare”. I still call it “corporate welfare”. And as for Jason Kenney equivocating on whether the Conservatives will endorse Keith Martin’s motion on repealing ...
Post a Comment