Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Ethical questions » Our learned friend champions Twatter again

Our learned friend champions Twatter again

Our learned friend never ceases to amaze me in the way that he is so keen to suggest that what we do on line should be entirely discrete and separate from our real lives and that when individuals act like idiots in twitter or other social media Jezza wants them to be immune to any blow back when their targets take umbrage and seek to find out who they are and who they work for.

Click for source

Oh dear our learned friend is stretching credulity with this one. In the Andrew Crook piece that our learned friend links to at the end of his post the main example cited concerns Jim Schembri contacting the employer of another journalist Josh Taylor. Call me naive but wouldn’t some one like Josh Taylor’s employer be very well known?

I have the luxury of being able to play on the net when ever I please but I can’t help thinking that so many of those who tweet incessantly should really just put the smart phone down during work time and concentrate upon the tasks that their wages are paying for. Further to that its incredibly stupid to think that their is any real separation between on and off line in any real sense any more. There in lays the biggest problem with Jeremy’s argument here; in an age when there is such convergence is it realistic to think that what people do online should be immune from any criticism or that an employer has to be protected from the knowledge of what their employees are doing, often during work time, on the net?

Its like I always say about internet anonymity, post as if you are doing so in your own name and always do so in a manner that is polite and affable because that way when you are inevitably connected to the words that you have published you will not suffer any unpleasant consequences for the silliness and indiscretions that you thought were so hip and cool when you sent them out into the ether. 

Cheers Comrades

Advertisements

22 Comments

  1. busby777 says:

    good morning

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Right back at ya Tessa 🙂

  3. Ray Dixon says:

    Consider this hypocrisy:

    By publishing (on Crikey, a mainstream news website that is obviously read by people at The Age) Schembri’s ‘behind the scenes’ treachery in contacting people’s employers over their online behaviour, both Crook and Sear are also guilty of attempting to bring Schembri’s behaviour to his employer’s attention, albeit less directly.

    Those two might as well have sent an email to Schembri’s boss saying, “Do you know what Jim gets up to?” That’s effectively what they’ve done. Actually they’ve done more than that by lambasting Schembri’s reputation to the world.

    Jeremy just doesn’t get it!

  4. busby777 says:

    purr!

  5. Ray Dixon says:

    My comment @ PP didn’t make it through the moderators and has been deleted. It wasn’t: offensive, derogatory or a put down. I’ve tried again (see link to screenshot below). The new comment is much the same as the one Jeremy has deleted so I wonder if that will get the same treatment. What a hypocrite:

    Photobucket

  6. Ray Dixon says:

    Reposted comment deleted too. The boy can’t handle opposing opinion, or anything that makes him appear a hypocrite. And he complains about censorship and others’ online behaviour?

  7. Iain Hall says:

    Have you noticed how there is no debate there these days Ray? That has to be down to one simple thing and that Jezza and Dave ruthlessly exclude any comments that are outside the very narrow far left/Green paradigm all they want is a chorus of the like minded

  8. Ray Dixon says:

    I think it’s more that Jeremy has a thin skin and can’t take fair criticism of his style and arguments. He also harbours a grudge.

  9. damage says:

    Is this different in any substantial way to publishing the name of a parking officer who booked you?

  10. Iain Hall says:

    That is an incident that had slipped may mind damage but it is most apt in relation to our learned friend’s newly found belief that people should not be named

  11. craigy says:

    Its fair enough though Ray and Iain, you have been obsessed with him for some time. It is especially hypocritical of Iain to feel upset about getting moderated, given his comments in the past about HIS sandpit and how he makes the rules+ his trolling and ongoing flame war with JS. A war that is only continuing by the posts u and Ray write.

    Although I guess a deep love of Mr Bolt keeps up Iains rage at PP and JS as they tackle his odious typing on a daily basis.

  12. Ray Dixon says:

    What’s “fair enough” Craigy? That he won’t put through opposing comments? That’s okay with you?

    And why don’t you speak to the issues instead of just claiming that Iain and I are “obsessed”? That’s a cop out on the topic, which is whether or not contacting employers about someone’s online behaviour is legit and the hypocrisy of Jeremy effectively doing the same thing – by putting it all up on Crikey.

    Jeremy is a prolific blogger on a high profile news website and, therefore, it’s perfectly valid, topical and appropriate to write the occasional rebutall post, and it’s hardly “obsessive”. What is obsessive though is Jeremy’s almost daily focus on one Andrew Bolt. Talk about over-doing it.

  13. Craigy says:

    It’s fair enough that they won’t publish Iain’s comments, as for yours, I’m not sure what you have done to upset them, but they can ban who ever they like. Are you telling me no one has been banned or moderated at this site? I remember Iain even editing my posts when I was acting up.
    (and I’ll admit at times I deserved it).

    As for JS being a hypocrite, I don’t think it follows that writing about something that was already public is the same as contacting someones boss, you’re clutching at straws…..

    PP isn’t the only site that uses Bolt as major content. He writes to get people talking, he has to take the good with the bad like all public opinionistas.

  14. Ray Dixon says:

    Craigy, your comments are disingenuous.

    To start with, Iain has only banned people who have been constantly abusive. And even then, he’s taken a long time to do that and allowed them plenty of time and more than enough rope. I have banned people too – abusive trolls only though. Your ‘shrug of the shoulders response’ as to why my balanced and reasonable comment at PP was not allowed is far too pro-Jeremy and borders on ‘whatever he does is okay by me’, regardless of how wrong, baseless and hypocritical it is.

    I don’t think it follows that writing about something that was already public is the same as contacting someones boss

    It wasn’t “already known” that Schembri contacted employers until Crook made it public at Crikey. Then Jeremy linked to that post and embellished on it. That’s like linking to defamation – it makes you equally liable for the offence.

    The point is that writing about Schembri’s behaviour in a forum widely read by journalists – and, of course, The Age – is much the same thing as contacting his employer (The Age) to complain about his behaviour. It’s less direct but actually more damaging. If you can’t see that then you are being blindsided by your devotion to Jeremy (for whatever reason you have).

  15. damage says:

    Iain this is clearly another instance of Jeremy changing his mind and being prepared to admit that his previous view – and actions extending from that view – being in error.
    I think that the name calling is no longer accurate. Jeremy is clearly experiencing an epiphiny in some respects. Crhist with the most senior socialist in the nations history unraveling at the seams it is clear to anyone with any brains at all (and JS is a very intelligent dude) that it’s time to rethink a lot of thinks on the sinister.
    It’s clear that having read every word and listened to every utterance of Bolt’s for the past 10 years that Jeremy’s beginning to see the light. There’s some adjustment and I’m sure he’s not comfortable, but never look a gift horse in the mouth.
    Next – Bolt’s second most avid reader – the Strathewen strutter – will begin to turn. And then your quest will have come to something.

  16. Ray Dixon says:

    the Strathewen strutter

    LOL. I will pay that one, damage (well, even a stuck clock is on the right time twice every day). Craigy has a strange belief and it goes like this: If it’s on PP it’s right!

  17. Craigy says:

    “I have banned people too – abusive trolls only though. “

    So you do have limits to your ‘freedom of speech’ Ray. Then it’s okay for you to make that judgement but not okay for the guys at PP. Righhhhhht….

    Ray, have seen you get all wound up at people you argue with and your judgement on who is abusive and a troll is no better than anyone on the net.

    I didn’t read your comment at PP that didn’t get up, it may be fine but they just don’t like you, and as Iain has said about this place, who gets to play here is up to him, same goes at PP. Jesus Ray they moderate my posts when ever I comment there, stop sooking about what you know is normal behaviour for those running blogs these days.

    Anyway, you have an abusive troll right above your last comment, who YOU think has a sense of humour…..go figure! And there is only one word for it…..WELCHER!

    Oh and it was public if you read the links Ray, as I said you are clutching at straws….

    “Schembri hit back on Twitter, but also emailed Taylor’s editors”

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/03/02/schembri-now-punks-your-employer-if-you-tweet-criticism/

  18. Ray Dixon says:

    Craigy, the only people I have banned are ones that are out and out creeps like the bloke you referred to in your comment. Even then, if he makes a reasonable comment I will let that through.

    they moderate my posts when ever I comment there,

    Yes, all PP comments go into moderation. But mine was DELETED. Stop being obtuse and deliberately dumb, Craigy.

    And you didn’t see my comment @ PP? Yet you responded to me? It’s right here, – scroll up.

    it was public if you read the links

    Yes – Crook of Crikey made it public, aided and abetted by Sear of Crikey.

  19. Ray Dixon says:

    Have you found it yet, Craigy?

    Hint: You can either use the little arrows at the side of your computer screen or click on this link to read all 10 words of my PP comment – should that have been deleted?

    https://iainhall.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/or-learned-friend-champions-twatter-again/#comment-71929

  20. Craigy says:

    “Yes – Crook of Crikey made it public, aided and abetted by Sear of Crikey.”

    No, Shembri tweeted his email to the boss himself Ray, just say sorry I was wrong and I’ll forgive you.

    Sorry, I didn’t see the comment and it IS fair enough, but as I said they don’t like you and it’s their sandpit….suck it up…..

    BTW, I’m not defending Jeremy, I don’t agree with all he or PP posts, I am defending Iain and all the other bloggers including you and the PP boys, who hold the right to ban or moderate whoever they like.

  21. Ray Dixon says:

    I’ll check what you’re saying about Schembri and get back to you, Craigy, but as for saying, “they don’t like you and it’s their sandpit….suck it up”, that sucks and shows a complete double standard (by both Jeremy and you).

    Jeremy has commented here and at my blog Alpine Opinion. He is not banned from either site even though he’s quite often rude & arrogant. He’s not as bad as you-know-who so I let his comments through, as does Iain, even though they are often disparaging and unwarranted ad hominen attacks.

    I am not (and never have been) rude to Jeremy yet he blocks my comments at both PP and his home blog because “he doesn’t like me”?

    I think you’re telling the wrong person to “suck it up”.

  22. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy
    You are of course dead right about any site-owner having the final say but that does not mean that the moderation decisions that they make can’t be legitimately criticised, our learned friend may be the subject of some merrymaking by Ray Leon and I but our criticism is almost always about the silly ideas that he comes out with and even you will agree that he does come out with some silliness often enough (like his brain fart about sending people smuggling boats back to their owners if they are sea worthy) he is a source of good laughs though!

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: