Saturday, 10 November 2007

Welcome To Olly's World

Endless comments (mostly rejected) saying that Neil Clark only won because Oliver Kamm told readers of Harry's Place to vote for him.

Yes, absolutely everything in the universe happens at the right royal command of their lord and master, if not their very person, Oliver "Dodgy Degree?" Kamm, as instructed on the Straight Left website.

Rich people are called eccentric. Poor people are just called mad. For this and for so many other reasons, the Straight Left/Harry's Place/Euston Manifesto lot are very lucky to be rich, and Kamm himself is very lucky to be filthy rich.

31 comments:

  1. When you say "Endless comments", how many is that? It would be really interesting to know, and it can't be hard for you to count them.

    After all, if there are lots of them, that would give support to the claim that lots of people read Harry's Place and voted for Neil Clark because of Kamm's urging - in other words, a high number of comments would tend to confirm the substance of their claim. If there aren't so many, then it may well be that their powers are overstated.

    Do tell.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I haven't the time to count them as well as read them in order to decide whether or not to publish them.

    In any given day or couple of days, several will be along the lines of "why haven't you published my comment?", so are clearly from repeat offenders.

    Of course, they don't need to work. And they are genuinely that angry that anyone has the effrontery to disagree with them (or not publish their comments), being wholly unused to it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Counting is much quicker than reading. But OK, let's accept that you haven't had time to count them. Do you have any idea how many you've rejected? Are we talking about four or five? Ten? Tens? Hundreds?

    ReplyDelete
  4. David, I'm sure I've seen you complain in the past that you've had comments deleted from Comment is Free and similar - you seemed genuinely angry about that. Angry enough to write angry blog posts, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, but counting doesn't tell me whether or not to publish individual comments.

    Tens on this one subject. Believe it or not, they are still coming. I think that these people knew that Neil would win, so Kamm placed his comments, so that they could then try and convince people that that was the reason for the victory. Well, it hasn't worked.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Do you think it's possible that it's the same person posting under different names?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tens, and it took you all morning to moderate them out? Really? All morning? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sandeep, the only like that that I can recall was when CiF did NOT remove my comment about Kamm's impending imprisonment for criminal harassment of Neil Clark, posted in response to Kamm's last article for them. And yes, I expect that it really was his last article for them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It took me all morning to moderate everything that I had received since yesterday lunchtime, not just on this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I doubt it, Stuart. That person would have to keep very odd hours.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My guess is that it's just me and you on this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Then you can type, and change identities, with the most extraordinary speed, Andrew. I've rejected several comments with the same time as yours.

    ReplyDelete
  13. How many comments have you rejected on this particular thread, then?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Like I said, I never count them. It takes up enough time just moderating them. But if you had to see many of the ones that I reject, then you'd know that it had to be done.

    ReplyDelete
  15. OK - have you rejected any on this particular thread, since the first comment was left about half an hour ago?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Like I said, I don't count them. But lots, certainly given the time frame.

    ReplyDelete
  17. David, I genuinely believe that this whole thread is an exchange between two people: one person posting under a number of names, and you.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I have no evidence that you have a degree. Prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Do you think all the people posting on this thread are BPA supporters? If so, it's a very good sign.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mr Lindsay, I look forward to toasting Kamm's imprisonment - I personally do not drink Alcohol, but I would gladly share an Appletise with you as the Prison Doors slammed shut on this evil man.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Kamm's Pernicious Influence, about which I have written, is assuredly on the wane. But you must accelerate this process.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What's dodgy about Gimlet's degree? I ask becasue that is a new one on me.

    I call it Gimlet, by the way, becasue a gimlet is a small device used to make holes in wood. A small boring tool, in other words.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Fabian, then he/she has written the only comments neither abusive nor off-topic. But believe me, there are a LOT of abusive and/or off-topic ones as well.

    Anonymous 3:14 PM, ask the University of Durham, of which I have two degrees. I know of no source (least of all any that I could correct) which says otherwise. That University even employs me as a College Tutor.

    Zoe, oh no, they are not...

    And The Exile, possibly nothing. But isn't it odd that different sources, which (as in the case of Wikipedia, for example) he could perfectly easily correct, cannot seem to agree as to which institution awarded his Masters degree?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Eh? Oxford, obviously. He took a BA from Oxford in about 1985 and the MA comes automatically seven years after first matriculation, provided you get the BA.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hang on a minute - I just looked at Gimlet's Wikepedia entry. It states that he was educated at New College, Oxford, and the LSE. It says nothing about the degrees. My guess is that he did an M.sc at the LSE, so that makes him an MA (Oxon) and an M.Sc (London)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yes, but he says that the Wikipedia entry is wrong. However, he has done nothing to correct it, an extremely simple procedure of course. Which is very, very strange.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Two things, David:

    1) Why didn't you publish my comment reminding you of some of the occasions on your blog on which you've complained about CiF comments policy? It wasn't abusive or off-topic. I don't think I've got a divine right to have my comments posted here, I just don't see what was wrong with what I said.

    2) If the best way for other people to find out about your degree is to contact Durham University, why don't you contact Oxford University and ask them about Kamm if you're so bothered, rather than speculating on your blog?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Oh, he has a degree from Oxford, all right. It's where the other one is from that is in doubt. It could be one place, it could be another, depending on whom or what you consult. Yet he could perfectly easily set the record straight. Very odd. Very odd indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  29. However, he has done nothing to correct it, an extremely simple procedure of course. Which is very, very strange.

    Since he publicly despises Wikipedia, and delights in highlighting its inaccuracies, what possible motive would he have in correcting errors in his own entry?

    Incidentally, it's not "an extremely simple procedure" to correct Wikipedia errors if you don't have third-party documentary evidence of the facts you're alleging.

    Last year, I tried to correct numerous factual errors in an entry on an artist that I know personally, but the Wikipedia editors kept reverting them, on the grounds that inaccurate magazine/website articles were more reliable than my own horse's-mouth sources - because the former can be given as checkable citations, whereas I was unable to prove the veracity of my claims.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Rich people are called eccentric. Poor people are just called mad.

    Which are you?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Opinions differ on that one, so I never comment...

    Succotash, he'd have no trouble confirming where his Masters degree was from. Would he?

    ReplyDelete