|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Ancient Mariner, media tart
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
Barnabas---Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you arguing that, once the reasons are given, it is impossible to disagree with the decision without calling the integrity of the decisionmakers into question? Because if that is your argument, I couldn't disagree with you more strongly...
Paige
ENFP, in case it matters...
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
So you're saying that Spawn would have outed the individual in question? I'm assuming that we'd no longer have the pleasure of his company since he'd have been gone from the Ship if he'd done that. It might have been a good scoop for him but it'd have been his last unless he'd been authorized to do so and given the information. This 'outing' required a decision from the top. What you're saying is that after such a decision was made, AM could have chosen Spawn's tiny readership over Ruth Gledhill's larger readership? Fair enough - that would be worse. But it still would have required AM or somebody in management to have sent the details on to Spawn since it was they and not Spawn who were doing the investigation.
The reality is RR, that I'm a freelance which means that although I write a column for The Church of England Newspaper I do work for other newspapers and could easily have passed on this story to Ruth or somebody else, for a reasonable tip-off fee. I could also easily have put two and two together on the Cosmo affair because I keep an eye on the webzine and the Mystery Worshipper. I also happen to know who Cosmo is from outside gossip and his growing reputation as a wit, a preacher and a leader in Anglican Catholic circles. I'm sorry, I'd have had no problem with making a quirky story out of Fr Peter's glowing reports of himself and I wouldn't have considered this a breach of my agreement in signing up as a member of the bulletin boards because this was about the Mystery Worshipper. I could have done this without even mentioning Fr Peter's alter ego on the bulletin boards.
Look, even though he and I don't get along, Andrew Brown is one of the canniest religious affairs journalists around and a regular reader of the Ship and probably would have put two and two together quicker than me as a result of the pulled reports and the subsequent whispering campaign.
Frankly, the openness of the Ship on this one is something I absolutely applaud, and rarely come across in Christian circles. It lost me a potential story and a few extra pounds in the bank account but I genuinely think the outcome was the best that could be expected for all concerned.
Can I just add to this account, that from long hard experience I don't go shitting in my own backyard. In other words, I don't consider the bulletin boards to be anything but separate from my professional life. So I would never divulge any information publicly about any individual that I had learned through my interactions here.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
The post in question has to do with his relationship with Simon and the Board he wants to host. You and I have not been introduced. You seem to be pretty good at telling me what I may or may not think - why don't you stop that. I have no comment to make about how Simon and IngoB patch up their differences.
RR
[ 12. October 2006, 18:59: Message edited by: Raspberry Rabbit ]
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
A RR you have very touching faith that the British media would have no interest in a dodgy priest and you are almost insulting to the resident journalists on the ship that thy wouldn’t have tried to investigate something strange.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ancient Mariner
Sip the ship
# 4
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Look, even though he and I don't get along, Andrew Brown is one of the canniest religious affairs journalists around and a regular reader of the Ship and probably would have put two and two together quicker than me as a result of the pulled reports and the subsequent whispering campaign.
Somehow I can't see the said Mr Brown being to resist running a piece in his media column in tomorrow's Church Times (and, no, I haven't tipped him off).
--------------------
Ship of Fools' first novel, Rattles & Rosettes, is the tale of two football (soccer) fans: 16-year-old Tom in 1914 and Dan in 2010. More at www.rattlesandrosettes.com
Posts: 2582 | From: St Helens (near Liverpool) UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
(I'm having a Gumby moment: "My brain hurts!")
Has anybody done a count on the actual number of threads engendered by this series of unfortunate events?
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
I have been considering starting another one called the Watergate Gospel but then I remembered what is to be a Hellhost.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Look, even though he and I don't get along, Andrew Brown is one of the canniest religious affairs journalists around and a regular reader of the Ship and probably would have put two and two together quicker than me as a result of the pulled reports and the subsequent whispering campaign.
Somehow I can't see the said Mr Brown being to resist running a piece in his media column in tomorrow's Church Times (and, no, I haven't tipped him off).
Right, in which case all that you've spouted above regarding media savvy-ness and damage limitation is complete cobblers.
I guess we wait and see.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
The story hasn't been in any other newspaper than the Times what so ever and so far it has worked. It was inevitable in would end up in the church times and CEN because the correspondents read the ship.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Look, even though he and I don't get along, Andrew Brown is one of the canniest religious affairs journalists around and a regular reader of the Ship and probably would have put two and two together quicker than me as a result of the pulled reports and the subsequent whispering campaign.
Somehow I can't see the said Mr Brown being to resist running a piece in his media column in tomorrow's Church Times (and, no, I haven't tipped him off).
Right, in which case all that you've spouted above regarding media savvy-ness and damage limitation is complete cobblers.
I guess we wait and see.
C
No I don't think it is in the CEN because I was taken up with other things and didn't think it worth following up. It may be in the Church Times because I agree with AM that I can't see Andrew Brown resisting making a jocular comment about it. It's horses for courses. Church Times/CEN are not in competition with The Times, whereas the Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Independent, Daily Mail and to a lesser extent the other tabloids are.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cometchaser:
Like I said to Paige - I can totally see why people took this revelation as badly as they did, and found it as shocking. it does look bad. So does the Eucharist, to uninitiated eyes.
sometimes a little background is revealing.
comet, ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:
Ancient Mariner said:The option, of course, is to throw the story out as a free-for-all, so some cub reporter, say, on the Reading Evening Chronicle, can screw it up, big-time - dramatising a complicated story in all the wrong ways to advance his own agenda and career (I've worked with too many of those).
Exactly. And watching the paroxysms over the Mark Foley story, here in the USA, is a great example of that. Just how many papers and radio/TV reporters differentiate between emails and IMs? The desire of Republicans to not be accused of being anti-homosexual lead several people in positions of power to tell Foley quietly to stop with the mildly suggestive emails, so mild that the newspapers which had the emails years ago didn't think it was a story worth running. But explicit IMs come out and now suddenly everybody thinks, "you should have done something, years ago!" In retrospect, what they should have done was take the emails to the Page oversight group (a combo of Republicans & Democrats) and put it on them. The mild accusations of being anti-gay would have broadened the base of decision making and culpability. A small exposure, at the time, would have been much, much wiser. In retrospect. 20-20 hindsight and all.
AM has used his experience and tapped on the right window, and good job he has, for all concerned, including Cosmo.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
Am I incorrect?
I think the answer was a resounding "Yes".
You had a bad feeling. I'm not deriding it.
You asked a clarifying question (several, in fact, in quite the nasty tone), and you received a large number of answers from people who know considerably more than you about the subject.
Now, you sound like an ass, because of your stubbornness and refusal to listen. You obviously don't care to understand why they did it because it's far more fun to point your finger and write 'hilarious' posts about how their explanations attract flies from Scotland. Any substantial point you had to make has been lost long ago in a sea of inane obstinence.
I don't see any point in trying to argue reasonably with people who have displayed zero desire to reason or understand.
You have, however, made a remarkable case for why the release of this type of detailed information is not always beneficial.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
The only thing that would give this story any more legs are if the it is proved that Cosmo is the same as the two sockpuppets and to be honest if this is true Cosmo admitting to it a few weeks ago might made the whole thing quite differnet since there would have been no mystery. What would kill it dead is if it is proved that someone else is the two socks.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Andrew Brown saw the story on Ruth Gledhill's blog to begin with, and he found it pretty amusing (it gets a brief mention on his personal blog). Who knows, he might even have a passing chuckle about it in his column, and who can blame him, because in many ways, despite all the sturm und drang here, it is a story of very splendid silliness.
The silliest thing of all, is that someone would hoax a widely-read publication, and then expect it not to be made public. It's been made public in a way that will get it no more than a tiny amount of column inches. When you consider how much coverage the Mystery Worshipper project has had, and how much the press love a silly vicar story, that's not bad at all. Covering things up, as other people have said, can backfire really badly because then the cover-up itself can become the story.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancient Mariner
Sip the ship
# 4
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Somehow I can't see the said Mr Brown being to resist running a piece in his media column in tomorrow's Church Times (and, no, I haven't tipped him off).
Right, in which case all that you've spouted above regarding media savvy-ness and damage limitation is complete cobblers.
I guess we wait and see.
C
I know this is Hell and all that but the louder you shout and the more robust your language, mr c, the less inclined I am to discuss important issues with you.
I mention Andrew Brown because his column is, perhaps, the only other place I would have definitely anticipated the story running this week (other than The Times) when the SoF feature was loaded on Sunday. Hunches play a large part in a scenario where you want an exact science in place, cheesy. Sorry, it's never going to happen.
I might also add that Andrew is member no. 4945.
[ 12. October 2006, 21:44: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
--------------------
Ship of Fools' first novel, Rattles & Rosettes, is the tale of two football (soccer) fans: 16-year-old Tom in 1914 and Dan in 2010. More at www.rattlesandrosettes.com
Posts: 2582 | From: St Helens (near Liverpool) UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
RR, if you think the folks running this site are so full of regurgitated bollocks, why are you here? Why aren't you at a bulletin board run by people whose ethical decisions you embrace? I'm mystified that you invest time & energy in a location with which you are at such odds... Obviously you can do it, but why would you?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
Barnabas---Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you arguing that, once the reasons are given, it is impossible to disagree with the decision without calling the integrity of the decisionmakers into question?
Paige
ENFP, in case it matters...
Of course not. It is possible to register disagreement about the wisdom or appropriateness of actions taken by the E and A without calling into account their integrity. What I have been trying to say to Raspberry Rabbit is that comments like this
quote:
People did what they wanted to do - and did so in a cavalier manner with little regard for the consequences.
impugn the integrity of the E and A. Phrases like "did what they wanted to do", "cavalier" and "disregard for consequences" represent personal attack on the motives and integrity of the people who carried those action out. That is the difference. If for example you believe that the E and A should have, on principle, maintained absolute respect for confidentiality in this situation then that is a respectable disagreement to lodge. If you believe the news management has been counter productive or has been unethical in its content then you can register that disagreement and explain the ethical error as you see it. That is different to the sustaining of a personal or personalised attack on motives, intentions or integrity of other folks.
Because this is Hell, folks can sound off and that's fine. Maybe I was wrong to introduce a Purg element into the discussion? I mean no harm and no offence.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
first off, I apologize to everyone for that horribly long winded rant on page three. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) I am entirely too easily triggered. I know that and I am working on it.
Also - Paige, I did misinterpret your post as far as "praying" for a turn of heart, and going back to review I still think the language is at least ambiguous in that sentence. But your point is taken.
but I don't think I misinterpreted quote:
And I confess that the contributions by AM, cometchaser, etc. have shored up my bad feelings about the press in general---especially the need to make "Faustian bargains" with them.
which is really what i was reacting to.
but again, and as I emphasized at the very beginning ofthe post, I wasn't having a go at you but at the overall pervasive feeling that the press is some evil entity that must be bargained with. (the Faust reference, etc)
my entire point was that the media is not operating in a bubble, it is responding to the audience.
And I don't care if you watch TV. if that's all you took from the post, you missed the point. But I understand it was very long and wordy and I probably would have skimmed it as well.
Comet
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
May I point out that Ancient Marnier is a raspberry tart.
Not a blueberry one like Kiwigoldfish
That scoundrel! <--see AM there ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
[edited cuz of: technical problems trying to showcase tarts. hopefully resolved. ]
[ 12. October 2006, 22:05: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
RR, if you think the folks running this site are so full of regurgitated bollocks, why are you here? Why aren't you at a bulletin board run by people whose ethical decisions you embrace? I'm mystified that you invest time & energy in a location with which you are at such odds... Obviously you can do it, but why would you?
Oh for God's sake...if I read that question one more time, I think my head will explode. (Much to the delight of many, I'm sure...)
Believe it or not, it IS possible to disagree with the management and one's fellow posters---quite vociferously, in fact---and still think SOF is a good place to learn, discuss, and hang out on.
Do we HAVE to take the uber-American-patriotic line "Love it or leave it!!!" in every fucking context? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Barnabas, thanks for the clarification. I hope it's clear which camp I fall in.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fabula rasa
Shipmate
# 11436
|
Posted
comet, please don't apologise for your rant. I thought it brought a helpful dose of reality into a debate that has, in some ways, been long on utopian idealism and short on connection with the world as it is.
However, in the current climate, all attempts to build bridges and lower the temperature (to mix metaphors inexcusably) are very welcome. I, for one, am grateful for your contributions.
[xposted with the world]
[ 12. October 2006, 22:07: Message edited by: fabula rasa ]
Posts: 465 | From: scepter'd isle | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
LynnMagdalenCollege
I was reacting to Ancient Mariners offer of rehashing an argument which I thought was bollocks the first time. In terms of 'why I am here' it's because most of the time the conversation is lively, the exchange of ideas is interesting. The people are generally friendly. I read more than I post. I get some good ideas.
Every once in a while, however, there is this blip - really wacky behaviour from people who normally get things more or less right - behaviour on the part of responsible individuals that is uncharacteristic. Shit, I mean if it was the norm all the time there'd be no point in staying around. It's precisely because it's not the norm that it makes it so difficult to watch. Usually it's a capricious authoritarian sort of thing which passes with time - wrong phase of the moon or summat.
This is a little different and notwithstanding Spawns promise/threat that he'd have made sure the story came out I hadn't thought the rest of them were such amoral twaddlers. It seemed a malicious thing to do. But hey, I'm just a rabbit.
Anyway - I'm done. More to life than this. Move on.
RR
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
Cometchaser--I cross-posted with you.
I did understand your rant---and, in my not-very-articulate way was trying to say that I knew what you meant and had tried to change my media consumption habits as a result. I take very seriously your injunction not to feed the beast if you don't like what you get on the tube, airwaves, etc.
As for "Faustian bargain"--I thought one of the media folks on the thread actually used that term. Sorry if I pulled it out of my arse...
For the record, some of my best friends are journalists... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
And with that, ladies and gents, I'm going to crawl back into my hole and be quiet for a while again (*after* I go tangle with Vesture, Posture, Gesture down in Dead Horses that is...)
Pace,
Paige
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
Oh for God's sake...if I read that question one more time, I think my head will explode. (Much to the delight of many, I'm sure...)
Believe it or not, it IS possible to disagree with the management and one's fellow posters---quite vociferously, in fact---and still think SOF is a good place to learn, discuss, and hang out on.
You misunderstand my question, Paige. I don't have a hard time understanding why someone who disagrees with management (and fellow posters) would remain on a site; I have a hard time understanding why someone who feels the way that RR expressed would remain on the site. I have no idea what RR actually feels or believes - I can only go by the posts. And it's something I don't understand. You are taking it to a much higher level.
RR, thank you for explaining; I appreciate it.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
...For the record, some of my best friends are journalists...
...but you wouldn't want your daughter (or son) to marry one! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Ross // it's been a long day down at the word factory...
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
Charlotte---I was just getting tired of the accusation that, if you questioned the decision, that meant you weren't "supportive of management." (I still have yet to get a satisfactory definition of what that means, BTW. Though I did donate to the Organ Fund yesterday, so I hope that demonstrates to some small degree that I do, indeed, support the Powers That Be. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
Good for you.
I'm plenty tired (not "just getting") of the accusations that those of us who are supportive of management are toadies, boot-lickers, or worse, which is why I asked the question about just who your target was. If you were aiming for Ruth, you were very wide of the mark.
Next time you want a definition from one person, could you try harder to avoid sliming a large number of the rest of us with the overly broad brush?
okTHXbye
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Paige:
quote:
As for "Faustian bargain"--I thought one of the media folks on the thread actually used that term. Sorry if I pulled it out of my arse...
I think I was the first one to use the expression. I am inclined to forget that what is said with a twinkle in one's eye looks stark and unforgiving on the page.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
May I point out that Ancient Marnier is a raspberry tart.
Not a blueberry one like Kiwigoldfish
That scoundrel! <--see AM there
Duchess,
There are two - count 'em, two - hell threads devoted to silliness and blowing off steam about this whole affair.
In contrast, this is a serious hell thread about it all.
Do not be so stupid as to confuse the two again.
Sarkycow, hellhost
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
comet
<tangent>
Clearly I'm not the only one who thought your rant was both pointed and effective. More power to your elbow in your news director role. I can well imagine the flak you get.
</tangent>
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Genie
Shipmate
# 3282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
I might also add that Andrew is member no. [removed].
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
How is that not 'outing' him?
Even if he does link to his own site with a 'who I am' section in it, does that really negate what Erin said at the beginning of the Styx thread?
(edited for spelling)
[ 13. October 2006, 09:35: Message edited by: Genie ]
--------------------
Alleluia, Christ is risen!
Posts: 762 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
Andrew Brown.
Information which is made explicit - his name, his occupation as a journalist, his website.
If I put in my profile that I am Tony Blair, then you are not outing me, if you announce on the boards that I am Tony Blair.
How about you try to gain a little understanding of wtf you are talking about before you explode with shock and righteous indignation?
Sarkycow, hellhost
[ 13. October 2006, 09:42: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoo
Mighty Pirate
# 254
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
If I put in my profile that I am Tony Blair, then you are not outing me, if you announce on the boards that I am Tony Blair.
Especially if Tony Blair is your board-name...
BTW... I might also add that Stoo is member no. 254.
[ 13. October 2006, 09:45: Message edited by: Stoo ]
--------------------
This space left blank
Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Genie
Shipmate
# 3282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Andrew Brown.
How about you try to gain a little understanding of wtf you are talking about before you explode with shock and righteous indignation?
Sarkycow, hellhost
My apologies for irritating you, sarky. I was not experiencing shock or righteous indignation. I was experiencing uncertainty and anxiety that maybe I'd misunderstood Erin's reassurance in the Styx that quote:
your information is safe with us
and that maybe there were circumstances under which I could be 'outed' which did not involve anything I'd done wrong. I have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean I want to be revealed to the world.
And my asking the question was precisely what you suggested I do - trying to gain a little understanding. How else can I do so apart from asking question?
--------------------
Alleluia, Christ is risen!
Posts: 762 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
- The and the phrasing 'how is this not...' made the tone of your post a little stronger than mere uncertainity to me, particularly in the current context. I accept opinions may differ; however you might want to look at using different phrases in future.
- You can also seek out information for yourself - by checking the profile to see what is reveled, perhaps, before assuming someone is being outed - rather than simply sit and ask questions.
- Good apology
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Sarkycow, hellhost
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Genie - I did have the same thought as you. However, as I couldn't be bothered to check the profile, I assumed that the situation was as Sarky said - that the profile of the member was clear and explicit as to who he was.
Not, of course, that you should believe everything you read in people's profiles. Only the bad stuff.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Are you beeetches still going on here?
Not everyone, mind you, you beeeetches KNOW who you are. Go read the latest post by Tomb in the Styx thread and be ashamed for the idiots you are.
Then do us all a favor and stick a live weasel up your ass, teeth and all. The sound you would make then is what the rest of us are hearing from you now.
And just as relevant.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
little too much coffee this morning MG.
*breathe in.... breathe out...*
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
No, not enough. Just had my first sip, thanks.
Wait till I've had my three cups and a 44 ounce Diet Coke, than I'll really get started in on them.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Are you beeetches still going on here?
Not everyone, mind you, you beeeetches KNOW who you are. Go read the latest post by Tomb in the Styx thread and be ashamed for the idiots you are.
Then do us all a favor and stick a live weasel up your ass, teeth and all. The sound you would make then is what the rest of us are hearing from you now.
And just as relevant.
Way to go, MadGeo! Now if you'd only firm up your position on the environment as well ...
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
May I point out that Ancient Marnier is a raspberry tart.
Not a blueberry one like Kiwigoldfish
That scoundrel! <--see AM there
Duchess,
There are two - count 'em, two - hell threads devoted to silliness and blowing off steam about this whole affair.
In contrast, this is a serious hell thread about it all.
Do not be so stupid as to confuse the two again.
Sarkycow, hellhost
Sarky,
Okay, got it. Will stick to appropriate threads to deal with this silliness urge. Sorry about that.
-dutch
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Ancient Mariner and other media savvy types, please can you explain how your strategy has worked given the longer exposure [and apparently inaccurate ] article in the Church Times.
I have been told repeatedly that speaking to Ruth watsit was the right thing to do and that it would lead to the burying of the story. This has not happened.
So either a) you were wrong and the leaking of a story to the national media led to the further story in the Church Times
b) you were wrong in that the leak to the Times did not prevent the story in the Church Times
Either way, you are demonstratably wrong.
As we agreed in the beginning, this story would have inevitably reached the national media and there is no sign that the story is necessarily dead and buried. So in once sense, the leak may not have made any difference.
Yet in that circumstance, the difference is that you leaked the personal information to a national newspaper.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Ancient Mariner and other media savvy types, please can you explain how your strategy has worked given the longer exposure [and apparently inaccurate ] article in the Church Times.
I have been told repeatedly that speaking to Ruth watsit was the right thing to do and that it would lead to the burying of the story. This has not happened.
So either a) you were wrong and the leaking of a story to the national media led to the further story in the Church Times
b) you were wrong in that the leak to the Times did not prevent the story in the Church Times
Either way, you are demonstratably wrong.
As we agreed in the beginning, this story would have inevitably reached the national media and there is no sign that the story is necessarily dead and buried. So in once sense, the leak may not have made any difference.
Yet in that circumstance, the difference is that you leaked the personal information to a national newspaper.
C
Which only goes to show that you should have reads Spawn's last response to you.
quote:
No I don't think it is in the CEN because I was taken up with other things and didn't think it worth following up. It may be in the Church Times because I agree with AM that I can't see Andrew Brown resisting making a jocular comment about it. It's horses for courses. Church Times/CEN are not in competition with The Times, whereas the Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Independent, Daily Mail and to a lesser extent the other tabloids are.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I have been told repeatedly that speaking to Ruth watsit was the right thing to do and that it would lead to the burying of the story. This has not happened.
I don't think that anyone claimed the story would be buried but rather that by releasing it prior to speculative reporting there was a measure of control retained by the Ship as to its content.
This has in fact been proven. As Simon's closed thread in the Styx shows, because a version of the story had already been released, to the press and on this site, Simon has been able to fully challenge the Church Times for misquoting. Without that initial story written by Simon, that would not have been possible.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Ancient Mariner and other media savvy types, please can you explain how your strategy has worked given the longer exposure [and apparently inaccurate ] article in the Church Times.
I get this strong impression that you are unable to read what people post and understand them when you don't agree with them.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Which only goes to show that you should have reads Spawn's last response to you.
quote:
No I don't think it is in the CEN because I was taken up with other things and didn't think it worth following up. It may be in the Church Times because I agree with AM that I can't see Andrew Brown resisting making a jocular comment about it. It's horses for courses. Church Times/CEN are not in competition with The Times, whereas the Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Independent, Daily Mail and to a lesser extent the other tabloids are.
No, actually, I did read it very carefully. I was told that Spawn and others had specific media knowledge, so of course it was down to me to take account of what they said.
We now have an account [rather more than a jocular comment] in the Church Times which is causing further controversy. The leak did not stop that.
The media scrummage has not died down. The leak has failed in its stated objective.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruth Gledhill
Media strumpet
# 10885
|
Posted
I have so enjoyed reading this thread. For the amusement of all, I am copying here a letter that our editor received from a lawyer who reads The Times. In our complicated, fast-moving 'Times', it illustrates how easy it is for all of us to get confused over what the issues really are. I thought it best not to identify the lawyer concerned. Ruth.
Dear Sir,
I refer to an article contained in your religion correspondent, Ruth Gledhill's on-line blog as also to an article under her byline published by yourselves yesterday, both referring to the "naming and shaming" of the Rev David Peters as being someone who had misused internet anonymity to advance his personal interests.
Those who inhabit glass house, they say.... I accordingly refer you to the following link and to the allegations made against Ms Gledhill
therein:
http://revjph.blogspot.com/2006/10/ship-of-fools-fooled-by-times.html
Pehaps you would be kind enough to clarify the matter with your correspondent? I am sure that you abhor double standards as much as all right-thinking people do and - on the face of it - this as yet unanswered allegation appears to suggest your correspondent guilty of such . Not something one expects from someone who writes a religious column in a prestige publication.
Yours faithfully,
Posts: 27 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
basso
Ship’s Crypt Keeper
# 4228
|
Posted
All becomes clear!
Welcome, Ruth.
Posts: 4358 | From: Bay Area, Calif | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
