Thread: Hell: Ancient Mariner, media tart Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000605
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
As I said in this post [slightly edited from the original]

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
In answer to the question of “tipping off” The Times, we appreciate your concerns and are happy to respond…

When a Ship of Fools feature, with genuine news value, is about to be published we usually issue a general press release to several hundred newsrooms, worldwide, in one go. It's a list built over many years through the PR consultancy I run. We (Ship of Fools H&A) deemed the Cosmo/Fr Peters issue more complicated and sensitive.
I think that is absolutely disgusting, for what it is worth. One thing to publicly expose someone, quite another to be touting it to gain extra exposure for the ship. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself you pathetic excuse for a human being.

quote:
From the outset we figured this story was likely to appear beyond the bounds of Ship of Fools. That agreed, it was important to try to ensure it was covered correctly – requiring a skilled reporter with genuine theological nous and proven track record in covering contentious issues. In this scenario, it is better the journalist you know than the newsroom you don't. By working with one paper only, you are likely to get better, fuller treatment – and it spikes the guns of other media you would rather not cover it.

So we made Ruth aware that the story was brewing. Had we not done so it is likely to have been picked up direct from the site by less responsible media – and taken beyond our control. On past record, we considered Ruth would handle it sympathetically and go into some depth, rather than simply pick out the controversial aspects.
This is the same Ruth Gledhill who some people might suggest has perpectuated some very poor reporting in the past. The same reporter some of us spent a considerable time dissecting a totally bullshit report she wrote regarding an academic journal article which was also complete gibberish. Others may not remember this story, but here
is an exposure of the statistics involved by someone who knows what they are talking about.

Some may describe Ms Gledhill as skilled reporter with genuine theological nous . I would describe her as a totally gutless reporter who extracts meaningless reports from intellectual and internet backwaters and blows them out of all proportion into something approaching newscopy in The Times.

quote:
We are pleased with the outcome, in that Ruth’s blog gave the issue a good airing. In fact, she was more than sympathetic to Fr Peters. Her own disappointment was that The Times cut the story for its print edition - but that was beyond her control.
Well that is marvellous, AM. Absolutely fantastic. I bet you got a lot of good hits out of it didn't you. I guess we don't have to look far to see where your priorities are in this incident. I think it is high time your media savvy-ness is held to account on these boards.

quote:
For the past eight years we have tried to be resourceful, from a media point of view. It doesn’t always work the way we want but we always try to get the best result – sometimes in trying, difficult circumstances.
That is total bullshit.

C
<small>[ 11. October 2006, 08:16: Message edited on a spaz of: mr cheesy ]</small>

[ 04. April 2007, 12:25: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 
Posted by David (# 3) on :
 
The Ship is the media, you dickwit.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by David:
The Ship is the media, you dickwit.
Oh right, that explains and validates everything.

The Far-right News, Anti-semitism Today, Bullshit Weekly, and Naturism Standard might also be the media. So what?

C
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by David:
The Ship is the media, you dickwit.
Oh right, that explains and validates everything.

The Far-right News, Anti-semitism Today, Bullshit Weekly, and Naturism Standard might also be the media. So what?

C
Cheesy, the point is that the Ship is read regularly by many journalists precisely because it often makes a news story. It was absolutely inevitable that the Cosmo story would be picked up. Ancient Mariner's actions in alerting Ruth Gledhill were not aimed at maximising media impact but minimising it. Hopefully the story is pretty much dead now that it has been covered by The Times (editors are obsessed with exclusives)- furthermore the way he did it gained the most favourable coverage that could be expected for both the Ship and Cosmo himself. All in all, AM made a good call and got it right.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Cheesy, the point is that the Ship is read regularly by many journalists precisely because it often makes a news story. It was absolutely inevitable that the Cosmo story would be picked up. Ancient Mariner's actions in alerting Ruth Gledhill were not aimed at maximising media impact but minimising it. Hopefully the story is pretty much dead now that it has been covered by The Times (editors are obsessed with exclusives)- furthermore the way he did it gained the most favourable coverage that could be expected for both the Ship and Cosmo himself. All in all, AM made a good call and got it right.
Oh right, silly me. Leaking to the press is designed to reduce publicity not increase it.

Nobody actually reads the Times or takes any account of Gledhill's reports, after all.

Reducing publicity would involve a) not speaking or leaking stuff to the press b) not giving quotes on a plate to the press c) refusing to co-operate with the press beyond that which is said on this website.

Yes, the story would probably get out anyway, but it is more likely to be along the lines of 'x priest recently had to apologise due to allegations on a website' rather than mentioning SoF and/or having quotations from the founders.

C
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
I agree the story is almost certainly dead buried and forgotten aobut except for the vague possibility of hitting the news round up in the church papers but even that I doubt. Almost the only way of resurrecting the story is if Fr Peter’s says something about it publicly or the local press go round interviewing parishioners.
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh right, silly me. Leaking to the press is designed to reduce publicity not increase it.
It can indeed have that effect. When people know that a story is about to hit the news, the best course of action can be to get the facts out in the open as soon as possible. When people feel that when they have the pertinent information before them they are less likely to ask more questions or go on a dirt digging expedition.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh right, silly me. Leaking to the press is designed to reduce publicity not increase it.
Yes, basic news management skills.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh right, silly me. Leaking to the press is designed to reduce publicity not increase it.
Absolutely. That is why the government does it so regularly, to manage the publicity that happens.

This has ended up being a fairly minor ecclesiological matter, where a vicar has behaved badly and been caught out. It is so much better than the alternative headline, as I posted in the Styx, of "Hated vicar fraud".

It is not that no-one reads Ruth Gledhill columns. It is just that those who do are more likely to treat it as it should be treated, not blow it up out of all proportion. There is so much potential material in this, most of which is now irrelevant because the Times has covered it.

AM knows how to deal with the media. From what I have seen of him in my time on the ship, he knows that exceedingly well, and has done a remarkable job over the years of dealing with the media very well.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
Cheesy are you being deliberately obtuse?

Okay here's what we know from Ancient Mariner:

1. In preparation, for the Cosmo story being published on Ship of Fools a discussion has to take place about the PR dimensions of the story.
2. It's clear that the story will be picked up, so some decisions have to be made.
3. A press release is ruled out immediately for obvious reasons.
4. AM suggests briefing one particular journalist to hopefully gain balanced and sympathetic coverage (he wants to avoid a hit on the reputation of Mystery Worshipper and a flurry of washing Cosmo's dirty linen in public).
5. He knows at the same time that the likely effect of such an advanced briefing is to reduce the take-up of the story by other journalists.
6. He also knows that this way the Ship has the best chance of having some kind of control over events.
7. So he makes a phone call to Ruth, sends her an email with the SOF copy and hey presto things pan out pretty much as expected. Happily, Ruth even deals with Cosmo much more sympathetically than he could have had a right to suspect (and AM's briefing may also have had something to do with that).

This way of handling things was realistic, pragmatic and ultimately the kindest option for Cosmo. It was certainly not sinister and vindictive.
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
I've never been called to Hell before - a badge of dishonour which I can now proudly unpin.

I'm happy for my 'media-savvyness to be held to account', mr cheesy. I wonder how you first heard about this community? It certainly won't have been through publicity generated by a fabulous marketing spend. In eight years we have never spent a single penny, IIRC, on external advertising. Why's that? Possibly because less than 100 board members contributed anything to keep these boards open in one recent 12-month period.

So, without guaranteed revenue streams, our only option is to make the most of our skills in publishing, design, journalism and PR. You may be one of those who discovered Ship of Fools through the personal recommendation of a friend. Many do. But chase the line back and you will soon discover the prime mover probably read a piece in a national paper, heard us on the radio, saw a Mystery Worshipper report of their church - something of the like.

Mostly we put witty, informative, ironic stories out to the media. On this occasion it was an internal issue which had to be aired. For the sake of transparency and the credibility of one of our flagship projects, which had been abused in print, we decided the matter could not be dealt with behind closed doors. We, who live by the oxygen of publicity must, at some time, be prepared to suffocate through it.

You may disagree with our approach but be very careful what names you call me. Your very presence on these boards may be because I put on the big hair, flashed those long lashes and seduced Ruth Gledhill into splashing Ship of Fools across the front page of The Times.

[ 11. October 2006, 10:02: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
 
Posted by fight-club for the soul (# 11098) on :
 
Cheesy, your ass-hattedness knows no bounds. Admit that you are developmentally challenged when it comes to your understanding of managing the media and leave it be hmmm?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:
This way of handling things was realistic, pragmatic and ultimately the kindest option for Cosmo. It was certainly not sinister and vindictive.
This is both concise and accurate. I think part of the agonised reaction this has caused is the unstated assumption that anything Christian is synonymous with lovable amateurism. In this instance the Powers That Be have behaved with consummate professionalism. I would ask those who think that they have behaved badly what sort of column inches they think this would have generated if the Ship had contented themselves with banning Cosmo, editing the offending reports and changing the MW policy when the media had got a sniff of the fact that Cosmo had MW'd himself and the Ship had covered it up. And then to ask themselves whether this coverage would have benefitted either the Ship or Cosmo.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
And it wouldn't have been more direct or honest to have made it clear from the outset that the story had been fed to Gledhill?

Why, when speculation was rife about whether RG had found the story on her own, was no clarification issued that she was fed it? Especially since the balance of opinion on the Styx thread seemed to be that she probably had found it herself and that it was a bit unfair to accuse the Ship of having fed it to her.

Now that wasn't too "savvy", was it?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Ancient Mariner, your only explanation and justification for your behaviour appears to be that the oxygen of publicity draws people to the Ship.

As we are not talking about the publicity involved in a blow-up church, an online beauty contest, or a snazzy pair of Jesus underpants, I frankly fail to see how that is at all relevant.

Not content to publicly name and shame an offender, you deem it necessary to publicise the fact in a national newspaper. Yes, they may well have found it themselves. But they didn't need to as you have already given them the story.

This has nothing to do with how I or anyone else came to be on this website.

C
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
. Yes, they may well have found it themselves.
If they had found it by themselves it could have been any religious correspondent who could have spun the story completely differently. You must really hate Cosmo to wish that to have happened.
 
Posted by Flausa (# 3466) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fight-club for the soul:
Cheesy, your ass-hattedness knows no bounds.
I'm just quoting this because I thought it was worth repeating.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And it wouldn't have been more direct or honest to have made it clear from the outset that the story had been fed to Gledhill?
I think I agree with this.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And it wouldn't have been more direct or honest to have made it clear from the outset that the story had been fed to Gledhill?
I think I agree with this.
Even a stopped clock gets the time right twice a day, I suppose. [Biased]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Flausa:
quote:
Originally posted by fight-club for the soul:
Cheesy, your ass-hattedness knows no bounds.
I'm just quoting this because I thought it was worth repeating.
Thanks.

Meanwhile it appears in SoF-land that it is entirely reasonable to give your private details to the press.

Are we to expect an expose of the Archbishop who is a member of Freedom and Song? Ministers who are struggling with mental health issues or (horror of horrors) might actually be gay?

Seems to me that there is a great deal of rewriting-as-we-go-along going on here.

No, don't tell me. It was for his own good.

C
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
And it wouldn't have been more direct or honest to have made it clear from the outset that the story had been fed to Gledhill?
I honestly don't know. It strikes me that there was rather a lot of shocks to absorb in the initial announcement.

Cosmo's been fibbing - BAM!
Cosmo's been banned - BAM!
We have, for the firt time ever, decided to out a shipmate - BAM!
Oh, by the way we've shopped him to the Times - BAM! BAM! BAM! BAM! BAM!

I think if Erin's OP had mentioned the Ruth Gledhill thing the Editors and Admins wouldn't have got a hearing. Unless you think that the Es and As have a duty to tell us everything about the running of the site I think there was a case for withholding that information. Whether they should, with hindsight, have kept shtumm as long as they did is another question. But my contention is not that the Editors and Admins are perfect. Merely that they played a bad hand of cards as best they could. I am struggling to think of a different response that would have had better results for all concerned.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Meanwhile it appears in SoF-land that it is entirely reasonable to give your private details to the press.

Are we to expect an expose of the Archbishop who is a member of Freedom and Song? Ministers who are struggling with mental health issues or (horror of horrors) might actually be gay?

Seems to me that there is a great deal of rewriting-as-we-go-along going on here.

No, don't tell me. It was for his own good.

C
I think you have got this wrong here. I don't think that the admins consider it entirely reasonable as they state that this is a one-off kind of situation. You are over reacting.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Meanwhile it appears in SoF-land that it is entirely reasonable to give your private details to the press...

No, don't tell me. It was for his own good.

C
Cheesy, I'm struggling to understand where you're coming from. For the first few pages of the Styx thread you appeared to support the actions that the Admins had taken in fully and frankly disclosing the chain of events which had led to compromising the Mystery Worshipper and the banning of Cosmo and the sockpuppets from the Bulletin Board. It was this openness in the article which revealed who Cosmo really was to the whole world - including the media. Ancient Mariner's efforts to contain the news story are an entirely secondary matter to the decision the Admins had already made on full disclosure.

Finally, your sarky comment about it being for Cosmo's own good. His behaviour has not been to anyone's good, not least his decision to slink away into the night without an apology to the Ship, or the Bulletin Boards.

So any outcomes we're talking about are to do with damage limitation - the least bad options. Please try to stop blowing things out of proportion.
 
Posted by Stevie Boy Wonder (# 11869) on :
 
I've tried to avoid putting my opinion of the admins' actions too strongly until now, but sod it, I can't be bothered any more. I think they've done the right thing overall, and handled a complex situation in the most dignified manner they could.

My only gripe is this issue of Ruth Gledhill's involvement being mentioned so late in proceedings. Mr Cheesy, LynnMagdalenCollege, Nightlamp and myself all jumped to the Ship's defence when mutters started going round suggesting RG had some insider information above and beyond what she could have gleaned fom the site itself. It wasn't until Chesterbelloc asked the question, "Was Ruth Gledhill tipped off by anyone at SoF?" several hours later, that we found out we'd been defending against entirely accurate accusations.

I reiterate: I think the admins did the best they could with the actual handling of how the news was presented to the "outside world". But I think they've left a few of us feeling rather stupid and a little less keen to defend them in future.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Cheesy, I'm struggling to understand where you're coming from. For the first few pages of the Styx thread you appeared to support the actions that the Admins had taken in fully and frankly disclosing the chain of events which had led to compromising the Mystery Worshipper and the banning of Cosmo and the sockpuppets from the Bulletin Board. It was this openness in the article which revealed who Cosmo really was to the whole world - including the media. Ancient Mariner's efforts to contain the news story are an entirely secondary matter to the decision the Admins had already made on full disclosure.
I agree. Hence I am complaining about the latter not the former. I accept that the Hosts and Admins probably did the best in a bad situation.

I think releasing personal information to the press is entirely wrong.

quote:
Finally, your sarky comment about it being for Cosmo's own good. His behaviour has not been to anyone's good, not least his decision to slink away into the night without an apology to the Ship, or the Bulletin Boards.
Others have expressed the view that this release to the media was kind for Cosmo. Not me.

quote:

So any outcomes we're talking about are to do with damage limitation - the least bad options. Please try to stop blowing things out of proportion.
I agree. But I think that if a person's personal information is released outwith of the ship, this forms a dangerous precedent. Please stop trying to tell me what I should think on something I feel strongly about.

C
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I agree. But I think that if a person's personal information is released outwith of the ship, this forms a dangerous precedent. Please stop trying to tell me what I should think on something I feel strongly about.

C
So you think there is a difference between publishing something on a public webzine and releasing information 'outwith of the Ship'? That is scarcely credible.

I am not trying to tell you what you should think on something you feel strongly about. I am disagreeing with you.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stevie Boy Wonder:
My only gripe is this issue of Ruth Gledhill's involvement being mentioned so late in proceedings. Mr Cheesy, LynnMagdalenCollege, Nightlamp and myself all jumped to the Ship's defence when mutters started going round suggesting RG had some insider information above and beyond what she could have gleaned fom the site itself. It wasn't until Chesterbelloc asked the question, "Was Ruth Gledhill tipped off by anyone at SoF?" several hours later, that we found out we'd been defending against entirely accurate accusations.

I reiterate: I think the admins did the best they could with the actual handling of how the news was presented to the "outside world". But I think they've left a few of us feeling rather stupid and a little less keen to defend them in future.
See, that's my impression of it all too. I accept (with Callan) that it's been difficult for the Es and As in the past few days, but it was something they could and should easily have cleared up at least as soon as the issue was raised on the Styx thread even if not from the very outset. If it was going to cause them flack to admit they'd done it, then they would just have to have explained it the way they later did - why not trust us when it was raised to react reasonably?

Oh, and there's the small fact that IngoB's been banned from hosting his own private board because he dared to speculate about the relative importance to the Es and As of the SoF magazine project to the boards. See here.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I agree. But I think that if a person's personal information is released outwith of the ship, this forms a dangerous precedent. Please stop trying to tell me what I should think on something I feel strongly about.

C
So you think there is a difference between publishing something on a public webzine and releasing information 'outwith of the Ship'? That is scarcely credible.

I am not trying to tell you what you should think on something you feel strongly about. I am disagreeing with you.
Surely it is clear that a whole range of people would read an article in the Times that would never see it on this website (or any of the blogs that quote from it). Many of the parishioners in question, for example, may not be online yet may read the paper. This is obvious to anyone.

C
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
As it was my call, I apologise for being slow off the mark in response to the original request for information re: The Times' article and any embarrassment it may have caused.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Thank you, AM.

It did, I'm afraid, look as if you were hoping the whole thing would drop without the question being asked, and I think that is part of the reason why people are pissed about it.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Many of the parishioners in question, for example, may not be online yet may read the paper. This is obvious to anyone.
Are these the parishioners to whom Fr Peters gave the church newsletter including the faked Mystery Worshipper review? The only person playing at media manipulation here was Fr Peters. Unfortunately for him, it turned out that an excellent singing voice and a pool of cosmophants did not guarantee success at media manipulation.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Surely it is clear that a whole range of people would read an article in the Times that would never see it on this website (or any of the blogs that quote from it). Many of the parishioners in question, for example, may not be online yet may read the paper.
So. Fucking. What.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
Cheesy, I'm really puzzled by all this. Let me try to express the problem, as I see it. Whenever a thread gets started with more than a tangential connection to the Holy Land, you seem to be keen to get involved and share your first-hand knowledge. That's fine, and I find it often helps to ground the discussion in real details. In fact, you often object when people without your level of experience dismiss your comments, because you feel your personal experience gives your considered opinion more weight. Fair enough?

What you now seem to be doing, however, is arguing that even though every shipmate with any degree of media experience seems to be in agreement that this was the best course of action to minimise the damage to all parties, nevertheless you know better, and think it would have been better to just leave the Bullshipper story sitting on the front page (presumably in the hope that no one would read it), and that experience in this case counts for nothing at all.

Is that about the size of it?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Well, TGG, you are right enough that I have least experience of media relations.

But to me the accusation that if nothing had been leaked then the situation would have been worse is a non-argument.

It is nothing to do with my limited media relations knowledge. I don't accept that in this case it helped anything to release the story to the national press. If other reporters had come here and found the story, then it would be someone else's problem.

In the same way, I will be protesting next week about the British arms industry, on the basis that it is a non-argument to allege that we must sell arms otherwise someone else will. They might do. Then it is their weapons killing the children not ours.

I do not accept that it was right for the ship to facilitate wider media publication of the situation. That might not have stopped it happening, but it would not have been the ship which did the tipping off.

C
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well, TGG, you are right enough that I have least experience of media relations.

But to me the accusation that if nothing had been leaked then the situation would have been worse is a non-argument.
<snip>
I do not accept that it was right for the ship to facilitate wider media publication of the situation. That might not have stopped it happening, but it would not have been the ship which did the tipping off.

C
If the Ship had not "leaked" the story then it could have got out as you mention and then the Ship would have got some stick for "covering up" the matter, which would most likely have destroyed all credibility the MW project has ever had.

The Admins done OK, IMHO.

[ 11. October 2006, 12:49: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
With all due respect, Cheesy, that's a total cop-out. You think the editors should have published the story, knowing full well what would happen next on the basis of their extensive media experience, let it happen, and then said "Well it wasn't us, our hands are clean"? And you would have approved of this?

When your website is part of the international media, there isn't a "do nothing" option, other than not to have dealt with the accusations at all.
quote:
Posted elsewhere by Chesterbelloc
Seriously, if that's the kind of "proportionate" reaction we're getting from Simon over discussing a controversial-at-best editorial decision I cannot believe there's not an unhealthy amount of defensiveness going about.
Do you think the amount of defensiveness going about increased after the first 100 posts accusing the editors and admins of everything short of eating babies, or was it when we got past the 400-post mark?
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
AM has apologised for being slow to respond, which seems to me the most significant matter. The questions were whether RG had been given the information prior to it being posted publically. From what I have read, this was not the case, but she was made aware of it being published on the ship, for perfectly good reasons.

I would still maintain that, despite a few minor errors ( like taking to long to clarify about RG ), the Admins have behaved exceptionally well to all parties - Cosmo included. If I compare with what I would have liked to have done, I realise 1) why I am not an admin, and 2) exactly how gentle they have been.

I think that there is a lot that church press contacts could learn from this. Given how much bad press the church and clergy often get, we need to do something.

Oh, and if you think I am just creeping to the admins, then I will set Simon onto you.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Zeus there's a lot of these threads.

From another one:

quote:
Originally posted by Jenn R:
I wouldn't blame the admins if they decided this had all got too much and closed the boards. They don't get paid. They don't get rewards. They do this for fun.

I don't give a shit if people think I am an arse-licker for saying this, but if you don't respect the people that run this place then fuck off. You don't have to agree with their every decision, you don't even have to pretend to agree with their decisions, but show some fucking respect to the people who give up their free time to provide you with this service. If you can't do that then fuck off, leave the boards. Yes the place will be quieter and some of you will be missed for your contributions to the discussions, but you'll be replaced. Get over yourselves.

 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
The approaches to the media could have done


I think we all agree the first two approaches would have been totally wrong. The third approach is the wisest the fourth approach is something only a wild optimist would even consider doing.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The approaches to the media could have done


I think we all agree the first two approaches would have been totally wrong. The third approach is the wisest the fourth approach is something only a wild optimist would even consider doing.
3 would be wonderful and in my view is what the Admins have striven to achieve.

How would you have done it differently? Come on, details please Mr 20/20 Hindsight.
 
Posted by Stevie Boy Wonder (# 11869) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
As it was my call, I apologise for being slow off the mark in response to the original request for information re: The Times' article and any embarrassment it may have caused.
Thank you AM, apology accepted.

SS, I think Nightlamp was trying to make the point that option 3 was not only the course of action taken, but the best course of action of those available for all parties concerned...
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stevie Boy Wonder:

SS, I think Nightlamp was trying to make the point that option 3 was not only the course of action taken, but the best course of action of those available for all parties concerned...
Quite probably. Looks like my subtlety/irony detectors are as defective as ever. My apologies to Nightlamp.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Cheesy, the point is that the Ship is read regularly by many journalists precisely because it often makes a news story. It was absolutely inevitable that the Cosmo story would be picked up. Ancient Mariner's actions in alerting Ruth Gledhill were not aimed at maximising media impact but minimising it. Hopefully the story is pretty much dead now that it has been covered by The Times (editors are obsessed with exclusives)- furthermore the way he did it gained the most favourable coverage that could be expected for both the Ship and Cosmo himself. All in all, AM made a good call and got it right.
Oh right, silly me. Leaking to the press is designed to reduce publicity not increase it.

Nobody actually reads the Times or takes any account of Gledhill's reports, after all.
Cheesy, I'm going to add my voice to the chorus of "You don't understand how these things work".

In the US we have had a juicy sex-and-politics scandal splashed over our headlines for the last two weeks because TPTB tried to sweep it under the rug (and reacted badly once it was out in the open, but that's another story). To translate it broadly into UK terms, it got the Daily Mail headline treatment rather than the Ruth Gledhill blog treatment.

In the other thread Simon has said that the diocese (et. al.) reviewed items pre-publication as a professional courtesy. Had the ship been interested in "the scoop" or making "the kill", this would not have happened. In all it sounds like skillful and responsible (dare I say ethical? yes, I dare) media handling by an experienced professional team.

Charlotte
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
In the US we have had a juicy sex-and-politics scandal splashed over our headlines for the last two weeks because TPTB tried to sweep it under the rug (and reacted badly once it was out in the open, but that's another story). To translate it broadly into UK terms, it got the Daily Mail headline treatment rather than the Ruth Gledhill blog treatment.
The Rep. Foley affair is an excellent example (still haven't recovered from some random Republican strategist's call that we all "get on the same page"! Hahaha!) But anyway, it's been known for a billion years (in politics, that is -- about five years in real time) that Rep. Foley made inappropriate e-mail and personal contact with his 16ish male pages, and that everyone who knew tried to deal with it privately. In the end, rather than having any control over the story, those who swept it under the carpet had it explode, spattering the halls of Congress with the entrails of any politican attached to the scandal in any way. Who knew what? When? Who else will resign? Will there be criminal charges? None of this would have been necessary if some clever clogs PR savvy party higher-up had decided - right, we can't protect Foley anymore, so we're going to quietly fire him, and go public with all of what we know in the Washington Times or some other relatively sympathetic organ and apologize profusely for any failure to move on him. It's a three-day story, in that case, rather than one that hands control of the House to the other party in midterm elections.
 
Posted by professor kirke (# 9037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If other reporters had come here and found the story, then it would be someone else's problem.
Yes! Do you know whose? The Ship's and Cosmo's to start. Over and over the drone continues...

"The Ship's experts felt it would cause the least damage to the Ship and to Cosmo to leak the story themselves and retain control of the information."

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
why not trust us when it was raised to react reasonably?
I'm not speaking for the admins at all here, but it seems fairly obvious to me that such a trust would have been misplaced.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Just because you understand something almost related to the vague topic that Ancient Mariner specializes in you think you know what you're doing to criticize his professional expertise? What a bloated fuckwit! Do you also tell Alan Cresswell about radiation and physics? There are some people on the ship who can tell me how to do my job, but all of them are in similar fields! What the fuck are you doing thinking you know more than he does when you're completely clueless on a topic he has devoted large amounts of time and energy to?
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
Gee, which Hell call to post to?

I'm had it up to Here with this pervasive attitude that somehow Cosmo is a victim here and the Ship is out to ruin him.

c'mon, people! Cosmo did this to himself! lets not forget that important part of this discussion. If he suffers due to bad press, who's fault is that? is it Ancient Mariner's for his release?

Dear God, he did the kindest thing possible - which Cosmo's actions hardly deserve - and it fucking worked.

Really, it's not just ignorant but embarrassingly naive to think the Ship operates in some sort of bubble. or really to think anyone does. do you think that if Cosmo had hoaxed a print publication somehow the impact would be less?

Give me a fucking break!

How does one get rid of cockroaches? one turns on the light. that's what the media does when it's working right - it shines a light in all those corners.

Cosmo is I'm am sure an oh-so-fine etc etc whatever. but he did something shitty. it is the role of the media to let people know when that happens. because people cannot make their best choices if they are not informed.

Will this hurt Cosmo's career? I hardly think so. like I said up in Styx he's probably getting more prayers and hot dishes than any other time in his life. But IF it hurts Cosmo's career - don't be so stupid as to shoot the messenger. get a fucking grip. Cosmo hurt Cosmo's career.

And if Cosmo thought he was operating in a bubble where the public would never know - not only was that naive of him, but to me that would be the much bigger red flag - does he (or any of us) only behave morally when the lights are on?

Grow up, people. this is how the system works. and it works. We want to know who are neighbors are in the world. we want to vote intelligently and we want to hire intelligently and we want to worship intelligently and that comes about from being informed.

it's so fucking easy to blame the media, but it's just dodging.

As I said in a recent pm, to paraphrase a colleague of mine, "I'm just holding up a mirror, people. The face you hate is your own."
 
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
why not trust us when it was raised to react reasonably?
I'm not speaking for the admins at all here, but it seems fairly obvious to me that such a trust would have been misplaced.
I don't post much anymore (I'm trying to learn to listen rather than speak all the time!), so I've hesitated over whether to say anything about this matter---but I think Professor Kirke is wrong here, and I find I feel it strongly enough to put in my .02 worth...

The whole situation stank. What Cosmo did was wrong--full stop, no "ifs," "ands," or "buts." I didn't like the fact that SOF outed Cosmo, but I had no doubt that the Admins did what they believed to be best---and I was willing to give them the full benefit of the doubt.

Until.

Until they admitted---very late in the game---that they deliberately leaked the story to Ruth Gledhill. It may have been a brilliant media strategy. It may well have had the least-worst outcome for the situation.

But it feels wrong. It just does. To me, and apparently to many others.

Maybe it's just that I am still having difficulty believing that the story would have had any "legs." I've been part of online communities for many years. I've seen them come and go---often blowing up just this way (over community misbehavior).

But I have *never* seen an internal community matter make national news. Not even in an online community that, I would hazard a guess, probably makes the Ship look like small potatoes...

Maybe I don't understand the nature of the British press? Maybe they are just so hard up for "news" that the matter of a parish priest posting made-up reviews in Mystery Worshipper would seem juicy. That is hard for me to comprehend. Ultimately, Cosmo is a nobody---why would that story have been interesting enough to make the news (if it hadn't been handfed to the Religion reporter)?

But even if I buy the argument that it *was* news, I am left feeling that the Admins didn't want us to know they had fed the story to Gledhill because they knew it would not play well in Peoria, to use an American phrase. And that, as Chesterbelloc surmised, they hoped no one would ask too many questions about the timeline of Gledhill's blog and article.

When you add in Simon's chucking IngoB from the private boards because IngoB came to some conclusions that one might reasonably come to, given the way things came out piecemeal, the whole thing starts to unravel for me.

Trust really is an issue here---but it is not all about what Cosmo did to abuse trust. Apparently the Admins didn't trust *us* enough to tell us the whole truth until it got dragged out of them, and now they tell us they can't trust IngoB enough to work with him because he made Simon mad.

I, for one, would have reacted much more positively if the Gledhill info had been released from the get-go. And I feel that, if the health of the community is going to be bandied about as one of the reasons for outing Cosmo and planting the story in a national newspaper, we deserved to be told the FULL story from the beginning. We are the community, are we not? Why didn't we deserve to be told what was being done to "protect" us?

Cosmo is not the only one who has damaged trust in this community. I dare say there are no clean hands in this mess now...

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
What the fuck are you doing thinking you know more than he does when you're completely clueless on a topic he has devoted large amounts of time and energy to?
Gwai, with all due respect, those of us who disagree with Ancient Mariner's decision *are* entitled to our opinions---even if we are not all Certified Public Relations Geniuses.

I am probably less entitled than others, because I don't post all that much---but there are a number of folks who are valued contributors here who think the Admins did the wrong thing. Do you really believe they should just "shut the fuck up"?

At the risk of sounding Purgatorial, I'm all for expressing support for the Admins, but when I believe they've erred, don't I have a responsibility to say so? (After I've contributed to the Organ Fund, of course. [Devil] )
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
But it feels wrong. It just does. To me, and apparently to many others.
Yeah, let's just all go on our feelings, because they're always a perfect moral compass.

quote:
Maybe it's just that I am still having difficulty believing that the story would have had any "legs." I've been part of online communities for many years. I've seen them come and go---often blowing up just this way (over community misbehavior).
This one has been around since 1998. Not exactly a fly-by-night operation.

quote:
But I have *never* seen an internal community matter make national news. Not even in an online community that, I would hazard a guess, probably makes the Ship look like small potatoes...

Maybe I don't understand the nature of the British press? Maybe they are just so hard up for "news" that the matter of a parish priest posting made-up reviews in Mystery Worshipper would seem juicy. That is hard for me to comprehend. Ultimately, Cosmo is a nobody---why would that story have been interesting enough to make the news (if it hadn't been handfed to the Religion reporter)?
So you're unaware of the existence of things like the Church Times in the UK? It's a weekly newspaper that covers the Church of England.

quote:
But even if I buy the argument that it *was* news, I am left feeling that the Admins didn't want us to know they had fed the story to Gledhill because they knew it would not play well in Peoria, to use an American phrase. And that, as Chesterbelloc surmised, they hoped no one would ask too many questions about the timeline of Gledhill's blog and article.
Again, your feelings. No facts, just feelings.

quote:
When you add in Simon's chucking IngoB from the private boards because IngoB came to some conclusions that one might reasonably come to, given the way things came out piecemeal, the whole thing starts to unravel for me.
Reasonably? Hardly.

What has struck me is how predictable so many of the responses in the Styx have been. People who have previously shown themselves to be anti-management came out in general against the Editors and Admins -- there has not been a single surprising post there, where someone who has generally been supportive of the management in the past looked at the facts laid out and said, "Whoa. This is wrong."

quote:
Trust really is an issue here---but it is not all about what Cosmo did to abuse trust. Apparently the Admins didn't trust *us* enough to tell us the whole truth until it got dragged out of them, and now they tell us they can't trust IngoB enough to work with him because he made Simon mad.
Again, imputing the worst possible motives, presumably based on your feelings. Yawn.

quote:
I, for one, would have reacted much more positively if the Gledhill info had been released from the get-go.
Whereas plenty of other people would have seized on this tidbit the way mr cheesy has. And so what if you weren't told up-front? Why exactly do you need to know this?

quote:
And I feel that, if the health of the community is going to be bandied about as one of the reasons for outing Cosmo and planting the story in a national newspaper, we deserved to be told the FULL story from the beginning. We are the community, are we not? Why didn't we deserve to be told what was being done to "protect" us?
Frankly, I think the burden of proof is upon you to show why you deserve to know about the editors' decision-making process.

quote:
Gwai, with all due respect, those of us who disagree with Ancient Mariner's decision *are* entitled to our opinions---even if we are not all Certified Public Relations Geniuses.
But your opinion is not an informed one, so it's worth a whole lot less than Ancient Mariner's, Spawn's, or cometchaser's. That Spawn has defended AM's handling of the PR aspect of this whole thing speaks volumes. There's someone who has not exactly been in the editors' and admins' pocket who has looked at the facts and judged accordingly.

quote:
I am probably less entitled than others, because I don't post all that much---but there are a number of folks who are valued contributors here who think the Admins did the wrong thing. Do you really believe they should just "shut the fuck up"?
When they don't know what the fuck they're talking about, yes.

quote:
At the risk of sounding Purgatorial, I'm all for expressing support for the Admins, but when I believe they've erred, don't I have a responsibility to say so? (After I've contributed to the Organ Fund, of course. [Devil] )
Are you among the fewer than 100 shipmates who have done so in the last year? I am.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Paige, expert or no, if I'm looking for a PR guru to help get my message across to best effect, you'd be high on the list! You encapsulate my concerns precisely.

I do appreciate all the efforts Simon et al. are making to get things right for the community, but I reserve the right to raise my concerns about how successful they're being - precisely because I care about this community too. And, sorry and all, but Simon's reaction to IngoB's Styx posts sucked big-time - and I'm having real difficulty understanding how certain others can't see that it might be a least a bit sucky.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
What has struck me is how predictable so many of the responses in the Styx have been. People who have previously shown themselves to be anti-management came out in general against the Editors and Admins -- there has not been a single surprising post there, where someone who has generally been supportive of the management in the past looked at the facts laid out and said, "Whoa. This is wrong."
Tortuf? Pyx_e? Eliab? Chesterbelloc?

Just because Cosmo's fan club cannot bear to believe that Cosmo could ever act in an underhand manner and Bingo believes that he is cleverer than everyone else on the Ship doesn't mean that everyone who takes issue with the hosts and admins does so in in bad faith. As I've said, I think the right decisions were made but I think (hope!) that they were painful and difficult decisions and I can see how some people would have preferred that other decisions were made, even if I disagree with them.
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
It's intrigung how people here who work in the media understand the dilemmas we face in dealing with journos, deadlines, exclusives etc - while those who don't, from some High Moral Ground, seem quite happy to tell practitioners how to do their job.

As members of this community you have a right to criticise, even scrutinise our course of action - but it would be much more helpful if it came with advice borne out of practical experience.

[ 11. October 2006, 16:53: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Paige:

quote:
Maybe I don't understand the nature of the British press? Maybe they are just so hard up for "news" that the matter of a parish priest posting made-up reviews in Mystery Worshipper would seem juicy. That is hard for me to comprehend. Ultimately, Cosmo is a nobody---why would that story have been interesting enough to make the news (if it hadn't been handfed to the Religion reporter)?
The priest who took my confirmation class was fond of remarking that one of the functions of the Church of England clergy was to provide good copy for the News of the World. Cosmo isn't a nobody, he is a Vicar in the Church of England and in a small country with a parochial print media that makes his doings relatively newsworthy. The press take an interest in Ship of Fools and they take an interest in naughty vicars. This story had both.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And, sorry and all, but Simon's reaction to IngoB's Styx posts sucked big-time - and I'm having real difficulty understanding how certain others can't see that it might be a least a bit sucky.
Probably because they, like me, remember that Ingo has never missed an opportunity to tell us how much we all suck. I do get so tired of people repeatedly poking the hornet's nest and then getting all shocked when they get stung.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Ok, so maybe Simon's response was natural and normal and understandable in that context, but I still maintain it was an unjust over-reaction to what IngoB actually said in that thread - and that was the putative justification for what Simon did.

And that's what smarts. But don't worry, I'm not expecting anyone to care about it, and I'm not going to be jumping ship any time soon. Just having my tuppenceworth.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Tortuf?
Didn't exactly look at the facts, now, did he? His reactions were emotionally OTT in the extreme.

quote:
Pyx_e?
Has pitched major fits about admins in the past.

quote:
Eliab?
Went on and on at me about how surprised she was at me being bitchy in Hell of all places, so I wasn't surprised at her reaction in the Styx. She's going on feelings.

quote:
Chesterbelloc?
Has been a supporter of management here? I would have put him in the "neutral/don't care" category.

quote:
Just because Cosmo's fan club cannot bear to believe that Cosmo could ever act in an underhand manner and Bingo believes that he is cleverer than everyone else on the Ship doesn't mean that everyone who takes issue with the hosts and admins does so in in bad faith.
I've accused no one of acting in bad faith.

quote:
As I've said, I think the right decisions were made but I think (hope!) that they were painful and difficult decisions and I can see how some people would have preferred that other decisions were made, even if I disagree with them.
I can, too. I'm sure different people would have made different decisions. But attributing underhanded motives to the editors and admins, which so many have done, is something else again entirely.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Tortuf?
Didn't exactly look at the facts, now, did he? His reactions were emotionally OTT in the extreme.

quote:
Pyx_e?
Has pitched major fits about admins in the past.

quote:
Eliab?
Went on and on at me about how surprised she was at me being bitchy in Hell of all places, so I wasn't surprised at her reaction in the Styx. She's going on feelings.

quote:
Chesterbelloc?
Has been a supporter of management here? I would have put him in the "neutral/don't care" category.
For one thing you're shifting your ground. Tortuf's reaction may have been emotional but the fact remains that he can hardly be classed as anti-management. For another you seem to be suggesting that being a supporter of management is incompossible with ever disagreeing with them. Pyx_e has thrown hissy fits in the Styx in the past. He's also been a host. So does that make him pro or anti? I'd have hoped people who go about their business abiding by the 10cs were automatically considered pro-management until they made a point of starting inane threads in the Styx or whatever.

quote:
I can, too. I'm sure different people would have made different decisions. But attributing underhanded motives to the editors and admins, which so many have done, is something else again entirely.
I agree that is entirely wrong. But I don't think that everyone who disagrees with the decisions that were made is doing that.

[ 11. October 2006, 17:29: Message edited by: Callan ]
 
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Yeah, let's just all go on our feelings, because they're always a perfect moral compass.
So apparently it's okay to express unqualified admiration for what *everyone* has agreed was a tough call, but not okay to disagree about aspects of how it was done? Glad we've got that straight...

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
This one has been around since 1998. Not exactly a fly-by-night operation.
Ummm...I wasn't saying it was. I was *trying* to point out that online community matters are usually only interesting to...members of that online community. Not sure why that's so controversial...

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So you're unaware of the existence of things like the Church Times in the UK? It's a weekly newspaper that covers the Church of England.
According to the Church Times' own website, their readership is around 80,000. The Times, in November 2005, reported a readership of 692,581. Big difference in the level of publicity there...


quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What has struck me is how predictable so many of the responses in the Styx have been. People who have previously shown themselves to be anti-management came out in general against the Editors and Admins -- there has not been a single surprising post there, where someone who has generally been supportive of the management in the past looked at the facts laid out and said, "Whoa. This is wrong."
First, I haven't responded in the Styx, so I can't be blamed for that. Second, I'd appreciate your pointing me to posts where I have been unsupportive of the management. If you are going to tar me with the broad brush, I'd appreciate the evidence first.

(And BTW, what does "unsupportive of the management" really mean? Do we have to constantly be licking boots and rubber-stamping every decision in order to show our support?)

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Again, imputing the worst possible motives, presumably based on your feelings. Yawn.
I think not. I'm drawing conclusions based on what Ancient Mariner and Simon did and did not say. The Admins had plenty of opportunity to tell us they had fed the story to Gledhill before they did. They chose not to.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And so what if you weren't told up-front? Why exactly do you need to know this?
Because it's an important part of the story. And, as I said: "...if the health of the community is going to be bandied about as one of the reasons for outing Cosmo and planting the story in a national newspaper, we deserved to be told the FULL story from the beginning. We are the community, are we not? Why didn't we deserve to be told what was being done to "protect" us?"

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Frankly, I think the burden of proof is upon you to show why you deserve to know about the editors' decision-making process.
Because they made it "my" business, and the business of the community, by deciding to write the article explaining what they had done and their reasons for doing so and follow it up with a thread in the Styx. *They* are the ones who made the big deal about openness and transparency---you can't blame me for taking them at their word.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Are you among the fewer than 100 shipmates who have done so in the last year? I am.
Bully for you.

As for me, I'll have to go back and check my credit card statements---but I have contributed to the fund a number of times in the last five years, so I'm only a partial freeloader, even if it's been a while.

But in the interest of showing that I'm a Friendly and Loyal Critic, I'll go and donate right now...thanks for the reminder.

[x-posts all over the place while I was typing this..]

Chesterbelloc---thanks for your kind words.

Ancient Mariner---I understand that you have a professional expertise that I do not, and that you are working in a journalistic context that I do not entirely understand. So I would like to ask you a question: Do you find it so hard to look at things from *my* perspective, and understand where a number of us are coming from? Can you find no validity whatsoever in the issues we've raised?

Callan---as always, your post was enlightening. I appreciate the context.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
I suspect that if Ingo were to acknowledge that it was unseemly for a person closely associated with the boards and running his own Ship private board to impute repeatedly the worst possible motives to the leadership, filling any perceived informational gap with evil intent and to apologize about that (not about disagreeing with the outcome, which anyone is free to do), then who knows what might happen?

Paige: So, do you believe that the Ship simply should have done what it always does when it prints a story? Releases a general press release to hundreds of papers and journalists? And re: its getting picked up, I don't think you realize how widely read SOF is among CofE types. It would have got out -- indeed, Spawn says he would have absolutely run with it. I'm guessing he wouldn't have been as gentle as Ruth Gledhill.

But, by all means, everyone continue to assume the Editors and Admins are all core evil. It seems to satisfy so many here. What a pity we wasted all this evil on creating an online community when we could have been out putting cigarettes out on puppy feet or similar.

eta: multiple crosspost, obviously. Too tired to edit anything, though.

[ 11. October 2006, 17:42: Message edited by: Laura ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Err RuthW. Isn't Eliab male? Looks like it from the profile.

On the main drag, and from the end of your post

quote:
I'm sure different people would have made different decisions. But attributing underhanded motives to the editors and admins, which so many have done, is something else again entirely.
That is what has upset me. I hope after people have reflected, perhaps more calmly, there may be some reconsideration of the critical positions some folks have adopted. Perhaps more importantly, the way these have been expressed. There is no harm in reviewing, in the light of all the information given and all the responses to questions. Note the word questions. Questions are not the same as accusations, veiled or open, of bad faith. It might be a good thing to step back, take a breath, and try to see this in the wider context of the value we each give to this community. Some damage has been done by this feeding frenzy.
 
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
But, by all means, everyone continue to assume the Editors and Admins are all core evil. It seems to satisfy so many here. What a pity we wasted all this evil on creating an online community when we could have been out putting cigarettes out on puppy feet or similar.
Now see, this type of nonsense is what pisses me off the most. I don't think *anyone*, including IngoB, has assumed or implied that "Editors and Admins are all core evil." That's a straw man, and you know it--and it's particularly disappointing coming from you. But it's a great way to avoid having to discuss what are, admittedly, difficult issues...

quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Paige: So, do you believe that the Ship simply should have done what it always does when it prints a story? Releases a general press release to hundreds of papers and journalists? And re: its getting picked up, I don't think you realize how widely read SOF is among CofE types. It would have got out -- indeed, Spawn says he would have absolutely run with it. I'm guessing he wouldn't have been as gentle as Ruth Gledhill.
Callan's earlier answer goes some way to helping to explain my confusion about why anyone outside of SOF (and Cosmo's parish, presumably) would care about this story to begin with.

For me, the botton line is this: the Admins outed Cosmo and fed the story to a newspaper with a very large circulation---and they did so under the banner of the need for openness and transparency. They weren't open and transparent with us---and now are apparently angry at being called on it. I'm disappointed to say the least.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
This story is a bit of a dead duck as far as the media are concerned just look on news google and put in Vicar and you will see what I mean.
If Ancient Mariner wanted to make a big splash with the story he completely failed.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
Yes, it's the assumptions about motivations from the very outset that put my pot on. The position of most of who have managed to twist their knickers into a macrame flower-pot holder is basically "My starting assumption is that Cosmo is a victim and that the admins are all evil, now it's up to the admins to prove the contrary".

The "Not volunteering the information about the journalist" thing is one example. Why stop with the information A-M released? It proves nothing! Don't you want a transcript of the conversation he had with the journalist? How do you know he said what he said he said? Do we have witnesses? How do we know there isn't a conspiracy involving the Times? How do we know we won't all be outed tomorrow? How do we know an airliner hit the Pentagon? How do we know the world is round?

People who have decided ahead of time to believe the worst will always find a justification for believing the worst. There's nothing wrong with holding your friends accountable, and the Styx thread was explicitly started to allow that to happen, but it's normal to give your friends the benefit of the doubt about their motives unless or until there's evidence that makes this difficult or impossible. Several shipmates knew that the admins had been evil before they had any evidence to go on regarding motives, so it was only really a question of how they were going to reach the conclusion they had decided in advance to reach.
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
Ancient Mariner---I understand that you have a professional expertise that I do not, and that you are working in a journalistic context that I do not entirely understand. So I would like to ask you a question: Do you find it so hard to look at things from *my* perspective, and understand where a number of us are coming from? Can you find no validity whatsoever in the issues we've raised?
This is not addressed to me and is probably none of my business.

but that has never stopped me before.

I, for one, do understand where you're coming from. I also understand how all of this must look to those uninitiated in the ugly underclothes of the news biz.

However, I again say it is naive to condemn AM for what was a good decision. It's one of those things - like, perhaps, chocolate pudding (american) - that looks pretty nasty but one should trust the cook.

Should we all live in a world where we can sit down together, have a great respectful love-fest of a discussion and then hug, and move on? GREAT! But you know as well as I that that is not possible.

Seriously. It's been explained over and over why the decision was made, and I dont want to go there again. go back and re-read if you're still unclear.

As for readership of various publications - that really is not the point. the point is that the potential damage (how about front page of the times? slow news days happen!) was avoided. However, the church news numbers cited are not small numbers. and it only takes one nosy reporter.

Also - one large reputable paper running with something on page 38 or whatever it was is better than letting a small paper headline with it. because standard rule of thumb is that the organization that scoops the story is the one that de facto determines the importance of the story. no matter how big it is. And smaller publications will often defer to the editorial decisions of larger pubs, just because they assume a wider knowledge base of the editorial staff at the large (and probably better paying) organization. Therefore, if a small regional or trade pub (in a sense a church paper is a trade publication) ran with a two inch "isn't this cute?" buried story, it doesn't guarentee the story getting buried. but a bit fat zinger like a national paper (I'm assuming the Times is that) making those choices does influence whether any other publication picks it up. Sort of like, "if the Times doesn't think it's worth more than one correspondent's 2 hours' work, then I'm not going to bother!"

And to the decision on when to let everyone know about the media release - you know what? I make tons of decisions like that every day. I dont announce them. know why? who the fuck cares? I am paid to make editorial decisions so the rest of the public doesn't have to make their own. AM is too. (well, dunno if he's paid, but he is charged with it!) Honestly, after I wrote a story should I include a caveat as to why I chose to speak to X source but not Y source?

that's for me and an editor. not for the whole world.

I give major kudos to these guys for even going there. knowing full well that it would look bad to folks who don't get how it works.

If I had to take such heat for my stories, and such judgemental refusal to listen to reasoned explanations, I'd pump gas.

Comet

No doubt this has crossposted with half the world...
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
But, by all means, everyone continue to assume the Editors and Admins are all core evil.
Wow. That’s quite a sweeping statement. And here I was thinking they were folks like the rest of us, who could possibly just be human. “Core evil”. Double wow. Impressive. [Overused]
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
I don't think *anyone*, including IngoB, has assumed or implied that "Editors and Admins are all core evil." That's a straw man, and you know it
To pick one of far too many examples:
quote:
Pyx_e:
... the ship... ends up exercising the worst sort of un-accountable, star chambered, controlling and manipulative styles of leadership imaginable... the one sided and oft vague report by Simon... Simon’s biased and unhelpful rant... For all it’s posturing most of the ships leaders are card carrying Christians... we have seen the ships leaders act in a spiteful and vindictive manner
Pyx_e just knows that the decision was spiteful and vindictive. He knows that this is because the ship leadership are un-accountable, star chambered, controlling, manipulative, one-sided, biased, unhelpful and posturing. (And all that from about half his post.) And he knows this without asking a single question because...
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
I don't think *anyone*, including IngoB, has assumed or implied that "Editors and Admins are all core evil." That's a straw man, and you know it
To pick one of far too many examples:
quote:
Pyx_e:
... the ship... ends up exercising the worst sort of un-accountable, star chambered, controlling and manipulative styles of leadership imaginable... the one sided and oft vague report by Simon... Simon’s biased and unhelpful rant... For all it’s posturing most of the ships leaders are card carrying Christians... we have seen the ships leaders act in a spiteful and vindictive manner
Pyx_e just knows that the decision was spiteful and vindictive. He knows that this is because the ship leadership are un-accountable, star chambered, controlling, manipulative, one-sided, biased, unhelpful and posturing. (And all that from about half his post.) And he knows this without asking a single question because...
I have never accused Admins of being evil, I think they did the right thing. In fact, I posted several times on the Styx thread defending that position.

So, if you wish to use Pyx_e to attack me, you're swinging with the wrong crowd. There is a perfectly decent hellthread to attack Pyx_e, go and use it.

My beef is with the way the news was released to the national media, nothing else.

C
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Pyx_e just knows that the decision was spiteful and vindictive.
Well, gee, if 'spiteful and vindictive' = 'core evil' we're all in deep shit.

(Trying this one on for size: "Oh that Adolf Hitler, he was just SO spiteful and vindictive." - Nope. Not working for me.)
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
A story running in the church times would have more affect on Cosmo than in the Times. Numbers mean little it is who the readership are that count.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
I'm trying on "Laura, the community would like you to know that you are not as bad as the author of the worst genocide of the last century" as a basis for mutually respectful exchange, and finding that it doesn't fit either.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

My beef is with the way the news was released to the national media, nothing else.
You have yet to come up with a better plan other than not to release it which has been pointed out to you could have been a worse for everyone.
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
My beef is with the way the news was released to the national media, nothing else.

C
Cheesy, in all seriousness, what more needs to be said? help me out here. I'm not speaking for AM or any of the rest, but I think I see what's going on here and I have explained it best as I see it. what am I missing?

Help me out here. in light of what's been said by myself and Ancient Mariner and Spawn and Ruth and the bazillion-dozen others here, what are you still worked up about?
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
But, by all means, everyone continue to assume the Editors and Admins are all core evil. It seems to satisfy so many here. What a pity we wasted all this evil on creating an online community when we could have been out putting cigarettes out on puppy feet or similar.
Now see, this type of nonsense is what pisses me off the most. I don't think *anyone*, including IngoB, has assumed or implied that "Editors and Admins are all core evil."
Hey, I wasn't addressing you in particular. But as we're in ... (yup) Hell, I felt a little hyperbole might be called for, under the circs. You have no idea how depressing this has all been for those of us who really, genuinely, thought carefully about all of this.

Ah, well. That's life, I suppose.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cometchaser:
Cheesy, in all seriousness, what more needs to be said? help me out here. I'm not speaking for AM or any of the rest, but I think I see what's going on here and I have explained it best as I see it. what am I missing?

Help me out here. in light of what's been said by myself and Ancient Mariner and Spawn and Ruth and the bazillion-dozen others here, what are you still worked up about?
I have nothing else to say. As can be seen from this page, it is others who are now keeping this thing going by bringing other stuff into the thread.

I stand by my OP. I accept that Spawn, AM and others have far more media knowledge than I, but I still think it was a totally wrong thing to do.

If you others want to continue trading blows, then carry on, but don't pretend it has anything more to do with me.

C

[ 11. October 2006, 18:38: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
I'm trying on "Laura, the community would like you to know that you are not as bad as the author of the worst genocide of the last century" as a basis for mutually respectful exchange, and finding that it doesn't fit either.
It's a start. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
Oh, and by the way Mr C, I kind of resent the fact that you call The Times the 'national media', implying that Ship of Fools somehow isn't.

Some 250,000 unique visitors came through the site in one month recently - and that readership is international.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I still think it was a totally wrong thing to do.
come come you were critical in the OP and we are waiting for you to find another plan that would have been better all round. If you can't you may as well admit you were wrong.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Oh, and by the way Mr C, I kind of resent the fact that you call The Times the 'national media', implying that Ship of Fools somehow isn't.

Some 250,000 unique visitors came through the site in one month recently - and that readership is international.
The Times sells nearly 665,000 copies a day. That is a bit of a difference.

That includes people in Reading, people unconnected to any christian church, people who don't ever go online, people - in fact - who have never heard of SoF nor would care if they had.

SoF has a big hitrate for websites of its kind. It is nothing approaching National media.

C
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I still think it was a totally wrong thing to do.
come come you were critical in the OP and we are waiting for you to find another plan that would have been better all round. If you can't you may as well admit you were wrong.
I have already told you what I think was wrong and right. I am obviously too media-unsavvy to come up with a solution which would have worked.

That does not mean that I am wrong about the underlying issue - namely that this should not have been leaked to the national media.

If you want to read that I am wrong, bully for you.

C
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
I know plenty of people who are spiteful and vindictive (Too many really. Those are very common human failings unfortunately.) and have even been known to exhibit those characteristics myself on occasion, but I was getting kind of excited to think I knew some folks who were core evil, even if I only knew them indirectly over the the internet.

I shall henceforth think of Laura as Cruella DeVille instead of as Lady Marchmain.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
For those of you doubting the propensity of British tabloids to harass vicars, this the kind of reporting the ship's adminosphere were trying to avoid:

Daily Mail

Searching 'vicar' on the Daily Mail website actually got me 274 hits - though not all of those will be directly relevant.

The Sun

And for a truely trivial example in The Sun, look at this, (obviously not trivial for the gentleman concerned, but would it be your choice of story for a national newspaper ?).
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm having real difficulty understanding how certain others can't see that it might be a least a bit sucky.
I can see that. But I suspect - and there has been some indication - that there is far more history than this. And, as I said, there has to be trust involved, which there doesn't seem to be any more.

And Simon, like the rest of us, is human, and can make mistakes. This doesn't necessarily mean that he has, or the best answer is to pretend it didn't happen - I suspect the trust relationship between Simon and IngoB has broken irretrievable for now.
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I was getting kind of excited to think I knew some folks who were core evil, even if I only knew them indirectly over the the internet.
Oooh, that is a perfect description of Laura. Sometimes the mask of respectible, professional slips and we see the deep lurking core of pure evil.

I happen to know that Laura is a great fan of bonsai kittens and has many examples of such cruelty at home, and even in the office. She is a woman of unparalled wickedness. I would not be surprised if she did indeed turn out to be the Hoare of Babylon. When she was younger she might have been in with a chance at 'Whore of Bablyon', but she is just too damned frosty now! A heart of ice.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
I was *trying* to point out that online community matters are usually only interesting to...members of that online community. Not sure why that's so controversial...
You possibly missed it, but the story isn't about the Ship of Fools community (or, only peripherally about the community). It's a story about a priest on the CofE who mislead his congregation and others by falsely claim credit for a glowing MW report and writing (or at the very least getting a mate to write) another glowing report. Given that it was only a few years ago that the MW project was given a 2 page spread in the Telegraph (which has a larger circulation than even the Times), there was a fairly high chance that the story would be of interest to the UK media.

In many ways, that the priest was also a Shipmate is incidental. You're right that if all it had been was a Shipmate having a sockpuppet or two it wouldn't be of interest to the media on the slowest of slow news days.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Yeah, let's just all go on our feelings, because they're always a perfect moral compass.
So apparently it's okay to express unqualified admiration for what *everyone* has agreed was a tough call, but not okay to disagree about aspects of how it was done? Glad we've got that straight...
I'll admit, the people who express support based solely on their feelings don't get under my skin the way people do who malign the editors' and admins' motives based solely on their feelings. I'm sure that doesn't surprise you.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
This one has been around since 1998. Not exactly a fly-by-night operation.
Ummm...I wasn't saying it was. I was *trying* to point out that online community matters are usually only interesting to...members of that online community. Not sure why that's so controversial...
It's not true. On "Studio 60" Aaron Sorkin has already taken a pot-shot at people who discuss TV shows on the internet, and he did so on "The West Wing" as well. I think the folks at Television Without Pity must bug the crap out of him.

Online communities are news. They're in the news with some frequency these days. Seems like we get something about MySpace on the TV news a couple of times a week.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So you're unaware of the existence of things like the Church Times in the UK? It's a weekly newspaper that covers the Church of England.
According to the Church Times' own website, their readership is around 80,000. The Times, in November 2005, reported a readership of 692,581. Big difference in the level of publicity there...
80,000 people who care enough about the doings of the CofE to read a paper devoted to it -- i.e., an audience that matters.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What has struck me is how predictable so many of the responses in the Styx have been. People who have previously shown themselves to be anti-management came out in general against the Editors and Admins -- there has not been a single surprising post there, where someone who has generally been supportive of the management in the past looked at the facts laid out and said, "Whoa. This is wrong."
First, I haven't responded in the Styx, so I can't be blamed for that. Second, I'd appreciate your pointing me to posts where I have been unsupportive of the management. If you are going to tar me with the broad brush, I'd appreciate the evidence first.
I was talking about people who did post on the Styx thread. Duh.

quote:
(And BTW, what does "unsupportive of the management" really mean? Do we have to constantly be licking boots and rubber-stamping every decision in order to show our support?)
"Unsupportive of the management" means people who have previously posted broad criticisms of the way the Ship is run. You have no grounds for the boot-licking remark.

About telling Ruth Gledhill: Oh, please. You've been told. The truth was not withheld for weeks. I don't know what AM thought, but it never occurred to me to suggest that giving a heads-up to Ruth Gledhill so that this thing would be handled decently was something the Ship's posters would care about. That people like mr cheesy refuse to digest what journalists are saying about it almost makes me wish they could have somehow concealed the information forever.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Are you among the fewer than 100 shipmates who have done so in the last year? I am.
Bully for you.
Hey, you were the one who raised the issue.

quote:
As for me, I'll have to go back and check my credit card statements---but I have contributed to the fund a number of times in the last five years, so I'm only a partial freeloader, even if it's been a while.

But in the interest of showing that I'm a Friendly and Loyal Critic, I'll go and donate right now...thanks for the reminder.
Glad to hear it.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I shall henceforth think of Laura as Cruella DeVille instead of as Lady Marchmain.
It's "DeVil".
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
I happen to know that Laura is a great fan of bonsai kittens and has many examples of such cruelty at home, and even in the office. She is a woman of unparalled wickedness. I would not be surprised if she did indeed turn out to be the Hoare of Babylon. When she was younger she might have been in with a chance at 'Whore of Bablyon', but she is just too damned frosty now! A heart of ice.
Too much information. Laura was in my top 10 list of Shipmates I haven't met who I'd like to meet (there must be a Heaven thread on this subject). Please don't ruin the image. [Confused]
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I shall henceforth think of Laura as Cruella DeVille instead of as Lady Marchmain.
It's "DeVil".
Love the new coat, DAH-ling. it must have taken just Hundreds of puppies!
 
Posted by fabula rasa (# 11436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I still think it was a totally wrong thing to do.
come come you were critical in the OP and we are waiting for you to find another plan that would have been better all round. If you can't you may as well admit you were wrong.
I have already told you what I think was wrong and right. I am obviously too media-unsavvy to come up with a solution which would have worked.

That does not mean that I am wrong about the underlying issue - namely that this should not have been leaked to the national media.

If you want to read that I am wrong, bully for you.

C
Cheesy, I've kept out of this, since others have done an excellent job of representing the PR/journalism side of things. But it might be worth one more try at explaining why "leaking it to the national media" was absolutely the right thing to do.

For several years, I worked for a FTSE 100 company a number of whose brands were in very serious trouble (so bad that the Office of Fair Trading was threatening to revoke their licence to trade--ie to put them out of business). We were contacted by Watchdog et al on a weekly basis. It was my job to protect the brands, partly by cleaning up the unholy mess they were in, and partly by keeping the media at bay as far as possible. So, from someone who has been involved in very messy, ugly stories: one more view of the situation.

1. Managing coverage of stories is about realpolitik, and about results. To object to managing a story by a controlled leak is like objecting to heart surgery because you start by using a scalpel to draw blood.

2. IF YOU'RE IN THE EYE OF THE MEDIA, YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE COVERAGE OF CONTETNTIOUS STORIES TO LIMIT DAMAGE TO THOSE INVOLVED. It is simply irresponsible to do nothing and let nature take its course. It's like seeing a child running in front of a car and just standing there--the argument in defense of which is something along the lines of "not my child, not my car, not my problem." It's the same in media relations. Saying "we'll just wait and see if they find out" is both lazy and incompetent. Of course they'll find out, and then you'll be screwed.

3. The wisdom of a controlled leak can only be judged, ultimately, by the result. Which, as many others have pointed out, has been a very minor, contained story with a fairly benign spin. I assure you that from Cosmo's point of view, there could have been a number of MUCH uglier takes on this story.

I think AM's media management has been excellent--wise and skilled. And the "do nothing" scenario, which superficially may be more appealing, would have been reckless and stupid (and, I absolutely assure you, would have put Cosmo at greater risk).
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
This one is better, I think.

[eta to cometchaser: Thousands, dahling. Woof!]

[blue background actually goes better with Puppy Fur Coat]

[ 11. October 2006, 19:41: Message edited by: Laura ]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Great, Laura! [Killing me]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Nice one [Killing me]
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I shall henceforth think of Laura as Cruella DeVille instead of as Lady Marchmain.
It's "DeVil".
I knew I wasn't getting enough hits when I googled "DeVille."
 
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on :
 
Alan--your explanation finally cleared the air for me. Thanks.

Callan---oh my God! You write sonnets. I may very well have to propose to you now... [Big Grin]

Laura---If I were you, I would use Hoare of Babylon as my tagline for the rest of my life... [Biased]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
fabula rasa

Very helpful post, thanks. The equation "news management = spin = "Alistair Campbell etc" = sleazy and dishonest" may be the source of some of these reactions. And of course who can forget Jo Moore?

Truth is that the vast majority of news management is not manipulative, it is defensive, both as to timing and to content. In the current political climate, it has that sort of manipulative reputation. So if you've never done it, its easy to use a working assumption that a newsmanager is a manipulater and misrepresenter unless proven otherwise. Its far from the truth in general. I had to manage news from time to time in commercially sensitive situations (press releases, statements, answering media questions etc), and I very much relate to your account, fabula rasa. Didn't much like the task - but I discovered you could do it with integrity.
 
Posted by professor kirke (# 9037) on :
 
Even though I’m a bit late, I still feel the need to address this.

quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
I was willing to give them the full benefit of the doubt.

Until.

Until they admitted---very late in the game---that they deliberately leaked the story to Ruth Gledhill.
Very late in the game? Do you know how many hours it was before Ancient Mariner disclosed that information? If not, I’ll tell you.



quote:
It may have been a brilliant media strategy. It may well have had the least-worst outcome for the situation.

But it feels wrong.
That the whole situation feels uncomfortable is to be expected, and yes it’s understood that people are going to be uneasy about it. But you said it yourself—it may have been a brilliant media strategy. That doesn’t matter to you at all? It doesn’t seem to matter to many people, especially not mr cheesy who admits he has no clue how this should have been handled but he sure as hell doesn’t like how it was, even though it may have been the best possible way to handle a piece-of-shit situation.

quote:
Maybe it's just that I am still having difficulty believing that the story would have had any "legs."
A lot of people are having difficulty believing a lot of things, and I would guess that has a lot to do with why the admins are reacting the way that they are in some places. We all supposedly trust them with running this Ship, but when things get a bit complicated, a third of the active members come running out to point fingers and suggest conspiracy theories.

Yes, they chose to keep back some information. Like Melon has said, they are still holding back a lot more—should we be angry about that too? The problem with all of this messy business is SPECULATION, because that’s what causes the muttermutter of confusion and frustration. As administrators, I expect them to do what they can to minimize speculation where they could.

That means they released the information to Gledhill—to minimize the hurtful speculation. They chose to keep that leak confidential because they didn’t think it would be speculated on, but it was. Once the question was asked, it was answered within 12 hours.

I think that’s damn good, considering.
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
Laura---If I were you, I would use Hoare of Babylon as my tagline for the rest of my life... [Biased]
A friend of my husband ran a website called babylon.org, and I desperately wanted to have the email 'hoare@babylon.org'. I especially wanted to use it for church related matters. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Eliab?
Went on and on at me about how surprised she was at me being bitchy in Hell of all places, so I wasn't surprised at her reaction in the Styx. She's going on feelings.
RuthW, yes I did have a go at you a while ago because I thought you (as a shipmate) were overly harsh to someone I like. I hope I made clear at the time that I thought your hosting was impeccably fair - the contrast between the two styles was pretty much my main point, though I don’t think, with hindsight, that I put my case then particularly fairly or well.

If you were under the impression that I have anything but the highest respect for you as a host, then I apologise.

quote:
I'll admit, the people who express support based solely on their feelings don't get under my skin the way people do who malign the editors' and admins' motives based solely on their feelings.
If you’re including me in that, then you haven’t read my posts. I said, on the Styx thread, that I thought the admins had been “responsible”, “honourable”, “fair-minded”, and “extremely fair and open”.

I disagree with the decision, and I said so. I did not impugn anyone’s motives.

And my reaction wasn’t based on feelings. It was based on my observation that people post extremely personal things here under their pseudonyms – their marriage difficulties, mental health problems, sexual experiences, crises of faith, expressions of anger – and many of them are involved in off-line Christian communities where people may well look at the Ship forum. It has always seemed to be part of the ethos here that discussion of such things is helped by a “no outing” rule – that no one’s real life identity will be revealed unless they choose to do it themselves.

The admins came to the conclusion that Cosmo in effect outed himself. I can see why they did. I can see that it was reasonable to reach that conclusion. But I wish they hadn’t because some people, including me, will disagree, and think Cosmo didn’t intend to out himself, and in consequence they will feel a little less secure on these boards. I appreciate that the risk of (N random shipmate) being outed by the management in future is practically zero, but it is still the case that an unfortunate precedent has been established that it just might be done.

quote:
"Unsupportive of the management" means people who have previously posted broad criticisms of the way the Ship is run.
Again, I hope that doesn’t include me. I don’t think I have. I’ve argued with a few shipmates in Hell who happen to be hosts, and I may well have disagreed (I hope, civilly) with specific decisions, though I can’t remember any examples off-hand. I’m pretty sure I haven’t criticised the way the Ship is run. I like the way the Ship is run.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Err RuthW. Isn't Eliab male? Looks like it from the profile.
Yes, but not so much so that I’m worried by anyone’s choice of pronoun to refer to me.

(And Callan, thank you for excluding me from the predictable dissenters. Your point:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
they were painful and difficult decisions and I can see how some people would have preferred that other decisions were made, even if I disagree with them.
summarises exactly how I feel from the other side of the line. I can see why the decision was made, and why a lot of people quite fairly and reasonably think it was right.)
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Paige,
You're also entitled to your opinions about nuclear physics. Just be warned that random guesswork will make you look equally stupid in either field.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Eliab, I owe you an apology, not the other way around. I will post in more detail later tonight (when I'm hoping the Ship's pages will be loading faster for me and I can thus re-read things), but the gist is this: you are right about what you said in the Styx and I am wrong.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
Thank you, Ruth, that is much appreciated.

No further detail is necessary as far as I am concerned.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
Second, I'd appreciate your pointing me to posts where I have been unsupportive of the management. If you are going to tar me with the broad brush, I'd appreciate the evidence first.

(And BTW, what does "unsupportive of the management" really mean? Do we have to constantly be licking boots and rubber-stamping every decision in order to show our support?)
Speaking of broad brushes, who exactly was your intended target with that last remark?

Was it:
a) Ruth
b) the Admins and Editors (including Ruth)
c) everyone not currently feuding with b)

'Cause if it was anything but c), your aim sucked big time. If it was c), that's pretty funny, but in a laughing-at-you way.

Charlotte
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cometchaser:
Therefore, if a small regional or trade pub (in a sense a church paper is a trade publication) ran with a two inch "isn't this cute?" buried story, it doesn't guarentee the story getting buried. but a bit fat zinger like a national paper (I'm assuming the Times is that)
Oh, it most certainly is, and internationally prestigious as well.

Americans who have not lived in the UK may not appreciate the extent to which the British press is, by and large, a national press. When I lived there in the early eighties, there was only one privately owned TV network (IIRC) and the London papers (and the Guardian) were in good selection at every newstand/mom and pop shop, sent piping hot off the presses every morning through the railroad system (slow trains? heh). I was quite impressed because at the time it would have been some trouble for me to find the San Francisco paper in Sacramento, or vice versa, and that distance is approximately equal to London-Birmingham.

Another thing that's struck me since I've been on the Ship (I wasn't paying much attention to it back then) is the extent to which C of E stuff is "newsworthy" in the British press. ("Naughty vicar" stories being a stock in trade of some papers [Biased] .)

quote:
making those choices does influence whether any other publication picks it up.
Yep. Although publication on the Ship alone would have definitely been picked up and run with, because it's being followed pretty closely by quite a number of UK journos. And a fair number of Important People in the C of E, no doubt.

Charlotte
 
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And it wouldn't have been more direct or honest to have made it clear from the outset that the story had been fed to Gledhill?

Why, when speculation was rife about whether RG had found the story on her own, was no clarification issued that she was fed it? Especially since the balance of opinion on the Styx thread seemed to be that she probably had found it herself and that it was a bit unfair to accuse the Ship of having fed it to her.

Now that wasn't too "savvy", was it?
There are a series of management choices that have to be made in a situation like this. Most assuredly the story would have been picked up, run & spun without the kind of delicate attention AM gave it. However, it's possible that the discussion in Styx might never have started speculating about conspiracies and who knew what when issues, in which case, why distress people up front by showing them how sausage is made?

I don't know if AM & other Admins discussed upfront whether the tip-off should be revealed from the beginning; they might have. It might not have even occurred to them, being a sufficiently behind-the-scenes decision, that it could become a point of speculation and discussion. I have no clue. If somebody had asked me, I'd have suggested including that information (seeing the kinds of questions and speculations this crowd raises and observing how seriously they take things), although I have been surprised by the attributions of hostility and bad-faith (on the part of mgt) put out by some. So yeah, I think it's slightly less savvy - but it's not a media savvy issue; it's a Ship's bulletin board second-guessing issue, and that's much harder to do.

So let me get this straight: if AM hadn't tipped Ms.G to the story, The Times might have never found it (just how many people do you think read it anyway, buried on page 32?) - but AM et.al. should have known that the discussion thread in Styx would speculate on the origin of the story and been upfront there. Hmmmm. Interesting reverse contortions required; that's what I'm getting from Mr Cheesy & Chesterbelloc.

quote:
It did, I'm afraid, look as if you were hoping the whole thing would drop without the question being asked, and I think that is part of the reason why people are pissed about it.
I realize we all have different boiling points and react to the same stimuli differently, but I think it's typically human to hope a certain aspect of a difficult situation isn't going to come up and do a mental "oh, darn!" when it does. I don't read anything nefarious into it. As I said on the Styx thread, when we first started discussing the Gledhill connection, I considered posting something to the effect of "anybody on the Ship could have alerted her" and then thought, wait a minute, management could have alerted her - shoot, I would have (alerted some press person, known to me, of sufficient profile, hoping to control the release) - and there wouldn't be anything wrong with doing that. Now I'm kind of sorry that I didn't extend that post and walk through the possibilities, because it might have helped to defuse-in-advance. But my posts run long, so I try to keep 'em short. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
mr cheesy said:But to me the accusation that if nothing had been leaked then the situation would have been worse is a non-argument.
That is how I feel about machine language and computers. I can see how computer programming works, on a certain level - but when it comes down to machine language, it all goes out the window for me. But the fact that I don't understand it has no bearing on the reality of how it works. Look at it this way: now there are a few hundred people, scattered throughout the UK, reading a brief, somewhat dry article on page 32 about a parish priest. The scenario you prefer results in splashy-flashy Daily Mail-type coverage with lurid headlines and then, when The Times does cover it, it will be very extensive "legitimate" journalism looking into all the details, much closer to the front of the paper, read by far more people and having much more destructive impact, for everyone - Fr.P, his parish, his diocese, the Ship, the boards. And folks would be yelling, "why wasn't this handled better?" The Ship did not facilitate wider media publication but minimized it; really, truly. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I do sympathize with those who don't like the way this "feels" - but it's such a Star Wars "use the Force, Luke!" response. Do you want your pilot landing the jet in pea-soup fog to use his "feelings" or the instruments in front of him? Thank God those pilots have learned to trust the instruments and not turn 'em off and fly "by instinct"... *shudder*

Do I think Simon's response to IngoB was strong? Yeah, it was, and I was taken aback by it. But I also have a clue that Simon's been under massive stress regarding this situation for quite awhile now and IngoB was filling in every blank with almost the worst possible explanation and attribution; Simon was provoked. IngoB has apologized for a chunk of stuff (a well-considered post, imo) and SotS stays, IngoB is not banned, I fully expect further healing will occur.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I do not accept that it was right for the ship to facilitate wider media publication of the situation. That might not have stopped it happening, but it would not have been the ship which did the tipping off.
No, but it would be the ship's actions that ensured there was a story in the first place.

Your argument seems to be like suggesting that, if I throw someone in the Thames, it's not my fault if he drowns, but the river's. The ship - quite rightly in my view, and your view as well apparently - put Fr Peters in a certain position, which had certain predictable consequences, and then did its best to mitigate those consequences as much as possible for him.

Your argument sounds like "If I didn't do anything, my hands are clean". But we ask forgiveness for sins of omission as well as action. A press release may not have been ideal, but I shall accept from the experts that, here, it was the least bad solution.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
And yes, I did somehow overlook the entire page and a half of posts that came between Cheesy's post and my response... Sorry.

[ 12. October 2006, 08:35: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
You know, Ricardus, I did that too! [Hot and Hormonal]

quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
I'm trying on "Laura, the community would like you to know that you are not as bad as the author of the worst genocide of the last century" as a basis for mutually respectful exchange, and finding that it doesn't fit either.
Stalin? [Biased]

quote:
The Times sells nearly 665,000 copies a day.
That's a lot of birdcages...

quote:
Love the new coat, DAH-ling. it must have taken just Hundreds of puppies!
Do you have any idea how scary Cruella was to my granddaughter, when she was little? Major scary lady. Nice puppies. *whimper*
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
I think this brief comment is quite good.

NL
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Nightlamp - that is an excellent review of the situation. Thank you.
 
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
With respect to the derision expressed to somebody saying that 'this feels wrong': Which is more likely to be self-justifying hogwash?

1) After long discussion we decided to go ahead and tip off The Times.

2) The advice we got was that it was important to control the release of this information according to our own timetable.

3) We are the media, dammit, and media should talk to media! We share the same interests.

4) This was a management decision. Ma-na-ge-ment! The bitchers and bellyachers on the ship *would* take the sort of contrary view now, wouldn't they! Find me one of the objectors who hasn't, at some time in the last two years, objected to something else the management of the ship has decided.

or

5) "It feels wrong".


I'd have said that 'fair play' can well and truly be intuited and that there are plenty of decisions which leave themselves open to questioning even by those with a different Myers Briggs score. Emperor's new clothes and all that.

RR

[ 12. October 2006, 14:50: Message edited by: Raspberry Rabbit ]
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
RR et al.
I would love a response to my earlier comment if you all are still fondling your own feelings
quote:

You're also entitled to your opinions about nuclear physics. Just be warned that random guesswork will make you look equally stupid in either field.[where the two fields were public relations and physics]

 
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
Probably because there is a long and venerable belief in the existence of a 'moral law within' and very little belief in the innate-ness of math and higher physics. Infidel twat!

RR
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Ah so the "moral law within" tells you all about the ins and outs of public relations practice? Moron.
 
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
No it doesn't. But the comment which provoked the derision wasn't something along the lines of 'Gee this doesn't feel like 'best practise' according to the latest guidance from men with flipcharts who know shit'. The comment was that 'this feels wrong'.

And whether the actions taken were 'right' or not is very much to the point.

RR
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
But whether it was "right" or not requires knowledge of media relations.
 
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
Mousethief wrote

quote:
But whether it was "right" or not requires knowledge of media relations.
I want to bless you! I want to hold you close to my breast, Mousethief. I have never seen anyone hand over a stonking great sig line with such economy of word and thought. How New Labour! Can it be done? It is 'virtuous' in the old pagan sense of its 'effectiveness' rather than in the sense of it being a good or an evil act.

Now you know why we occasionally need people to pipe in from the cheap seats that something 'feels wrong'.

Bless you

RR
 
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
RR et al.
I would love a response to my earlier comment if you all are still fondling your own feelings
quote:

You're also entitled to your opinions about nuclear physics. Just be warned that random guesswork will make you look equally stupid in either field.[where the two fields were public relations and physics]
Sorry---real life intervened...

Gwai---So having reservations about the ethical nature of a choice means that I'm "fondling my feelings"? Guilty as charged, then.

Do you *really* want to take the position that only "experts" in a field can raise ethical questions about something? I suggest that is known as "putting the fox in charge of the hen house."

Mousethief---I didn't know that I needed to check with my local media relations guru to determine whether something is wrong or not. Silly me---I thought Scripture, tradition, and reason had some things to say about that. Thanks for the heads-up on that change in praxis on ethical decision-making!

The bottom line is this---the Ship broke longstanding policy and outed a Shipmate and called in the big journalistic guns to help do it.

After reading the helpful posts by cometchaser, fabula rasa, Callan, and Alan, I now have a better understanding of the UK media context and why the Admins believed they were doing the right thing.

I still don't have to like it, however. And I don't. I'm not sure why Gwai feels the need to browbeat everyone into agreeing that the decision was a good one. It still stinks to me, because it sets two precedents---outing of Shipmates based on private communications (rather than something they said on the boards) and doing so in collusion with the national media.

(And that in no way lets Cosmo off the hook. I am fully aware that, had he not been a lying asshole, none of this would have come up.)

Simon and Company knew this would cause a ruckus---as it has. They knew not everyone would agree with what they had done---I don't. End of story.


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] )
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
(bloody x-posting! this is to Raspberry Rabbit)

Shove your blessing up your ass.

I think the point is that minimizing harm is good, and knowing what minimizes harm requires some savvy.

[ 12. October 2006, 15:44: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
RR - I understand what you are saying ( being an N too ). Yes it does feel wrong. The whole mess feels wrong. Having said that, Cosmo falt wrong to me from the first time I met him on the ship.

These feelings are important and valid, but the explanations and explorations as to why a) it feels wrong and b) this was done anyway have helped me to see that it was wrong, but the lesser of many wrongs. Nothing in this situation would have felt right. This was, from the start, a lose-lose situation. The only question is how everyone could lose as little as possible.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
The bottom line is this---the Ship broke longstanding policy and outed a Shipmate and called in the big journalistic guns to help do it.
The bottom line is that you are, as usual, full of shit. If you think one lonely Times blogger is "big journalistic guns" you're an idiot.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
Right, let's try this analogy.

You find an unexploded bomb in your cellar. You could call in a trained bomb disposal team to carefully, safely and professionally carry out a controlled explosion, so that no one gets hurt. Or you could decide that deliberately causing an explosion "just feels wrong", and instead just throw it out into the street. People are more likely to get hurt that way, but at least you won't have deliberately caused the explosion.

Which is the better course of action?
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about RR. I think I'm following now.

I disagree with MT that knowledge of right or wrong in this instance is determined by a knowledge of the industry. Well, I'm not so sure we disagree I just think that his wording is very misleading.

I have had plenty of "bad feelings" about things based on my own moral compass. sometimes, I learn more from people who know more about it, and I'm able to redefine my feelings, based on more information. I could quote a ton of issues from the Church alone where this has applied.

So, no, of course knowledge of media relations is not required to know the difference between right or wrong in this case. but clarification of the motives and potential outcome based on industry knowledge could change one's view.

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.

Do you think that something just "feeling wrong" justifies ignoring any evidence that it may have been the right choice afterall?

Comet

(no doubt I've cross posted, I'm multitasking seriously)
 
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
Savvy just doesn't fill the bill entirely here, Mousethief. Savvy you can learn from a book. Righteousness, fair play, moderation, not crushing the bruised reed - that comes from somewhere else. Cosmo set himself up in a tricky situation for a whole series of completely unnecessary reasons. If he had a couple of dragon women or dragon men in his congregation who were gunning for him and if they were relatively intelligent people they could have figured this out for themselves and outed him to the Archdeacon. They didn't actually require a series of heroic actions on our part for his duplicity to come out. Action could have been taken which was appropriate for a virtual community to take viz. exclusion from our forum. We went one better - two or three better actually - and the decision to out somebody to the national press was a step too far. Face it, we went postal on him. The decision to get in touch with the national press and, in so doing - intentionally or otherwise - perhaps to force some bishop's or archdeacon's or PCC's hand was just the icing on the cake. It was not necessary.

When you realize that you have power over somebody because of information that you have on them it behooves you to ask not only whether an action is defensible or not but whether it is the right thing to do. One might ask what it would feel like if somebody held that sort of information about us - and there are few of us who make it through life without doing something stupid somewhere along the line. That is - unavoidably - going to require the agency of whatever feelings we still have.

RR
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
See comet, I do think you need some knowledge of what's going on. How can you say whether AM is doing the moral thing if you don't know what he's doing! I didn't know that giving a story to one journalist minimizes a story if done right but now that I have been told, it makes sense. Yet, my "feelings" would never have guessed that.
I think RR and co are denying that AM could be minimizing the story because his course just doesn't feel right to them.

[ 12. October 2006, 16:07: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
Apropos of nothing in particular, but I haven't thought of Pirandello in years until this mess blew up, but he could certainly make a play of it – so many shifting layers of reality/unreality to play with. The character I’m most interested in, oddly enough, is the disgruntled parishioner who started the whole ball rolling. He or she is the shadowy figure in the background doubtlessly rubbing his or her hands in glee at the comeuppance of the hated (one assumes) vicar.

There’s something there that’s not quite right. Can’t quite put my finger on it though. A whole ‘nother layer of deceit I suspect.
 
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
The bottom line is that you are, as usual, full of shit.
I accept that this is entirely possible... [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
If you think one lonely Times blogger is "big journalistic guns" you're an idiot.
This wasn't "one lonely Times blogger," Mousethief. This was the religion correspondent for one of the largest newspapers in the UK. But don't let the facts get in your way...
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Does Ruth Gedhill's column even make it into the print version? I know that in our paper the bloggers don't.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Maybe I'm the only one who noticed on the Styx thread that the *usual* method of press release for the SOF is to send things to tons o' journalists?
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Does Ruth Gedhill's column even make it into the print version? I know that in our paper the bloggers don't.
Her blog doesn't but her articles and columns do.
 
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
The solution - in which an individual's employment and public standing is made vulnerable - described as being a wee tiny thing (it was just some lonely blogger we contacted - not any journalistic big guns)

The problem - wherein a fellow reviews his own performance in the pulpit and a parishioner complains - described as being something along the lines of a public attack (it was a ticking time bomb waiting to go off).

To paraphrase Paige - 'something doesn't feel right here'.

RR
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
This wasn't "one lonely Times blogger," Mousethief. This was the religion correspondent for one of the largest newspapers in the UK. But don't let the facts get in your way...
After more than 120 posts I'm still waiting for someone to tell me of a more effective, seasoned way to deal with the mainstream media. I chose to inform Ruth Gledhill of The Times because, as I said many posts ago, she understands the theological world we inhabit. While she is hardly tame, she is certainly informed.

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).

Call me a tart by all means but please respect that, through some painful experiences, I now choose carefully on which car windows to tap.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:
The bottom line is that you are, as usual, full of shit. If you think one lonely Times blogger is "big journalistic guns" you're an idiot.
As Paige said, the religion correspondent of the Times is a pretty large piece of ordnance.

Actually, the whole point of the press release was that it needed a big journalistic gun. The Times gets the exclusive, so no-one else bothers. That is the rationale that has been set forth on this thread. (Which I more or less accept.) Clearly that strategy would not have been so effective had it turned up in a local paper in Reading. Getting the story onto Ruth Gledhill's blog and page 32 of the dead tree edition is the Faustian bargain that prevents Bates, Thompson, Carey et. al. from competing to get their own version of events into print.

Oddly, I think that this is a consequentialist argument. It produces the greatest good for the greatest number, as it were. I think its critics have subconsiously taken on a kind of Catholic moral theology in which talking to the press is an intrinsic moral evil and cannot, therefore, be justified by reference to the good results thereof. Whilst I am not wild about the press, I must say that I think this is excessive.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
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] )
Cool. If only everyone I argued with on the boards would be motivated to do the same -- Simon could retire.

As for what "supportive of management" is -- I suggest you buy a dictionary if it's really all that hard to understand.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
...So having reservations about the ethical nature of a choice means that I'm "fondling my feelings"? Guilty as charged, then.

...
Perhaps, then, you and your feelings could get a room - fondling in public is not a pretty sight.
 
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I think its critics have subconsiously taken on a kind of Catholic moral theology in which talking to the press is an intrinsic moral evil and cannot, therefore, be justified by reference to the good results thereof. Whilst I am not wild about the press, I must say that I think this is excessive.
Upon reflection, I think you may have hit the nail on the head, Callan. 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. I shall now have to add "journalists" to the list of those towards whom I pray for a change of heart. [Biased]

Ancient Mariner---I do NOT think you are a "tart" (though your comment about tapping on windows made me laugh). I just wish you had made a different decision, that's all. Raspberry Rabbit summed up my reasons for feeling that way quite well.
 
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
Can someone tell me what would have happened if nothing had been done? If Cosmo had been berated on the ship as Cosmo and not Fr Whoosits and then summarily banned with the Riot Act being read to anyone else on board who might try the same thing? It would have then been up to Mrs Dragon and Mr Goulish from the parish of Shady Acres - if they so desired -to go to the local rag in Reading and complain about their vicar.

The idea that we routinely send out press releases certainly doesn't include press releases which give the names of those who have committed some sort of malfeasance on and off line. We can dispense with saying that this is usual practise because this is a quite novel departure for us.

So what about the ticking bomb bit? What could the possibile repercussions for the Ship have been (realistic ones, please!) that would require Maximum Bob, Extreme Sue and Fairly Exigent Ralph to pull out Emergency Media Plan A and start the damage control?

RR
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
AM - I think you should use Media Tart as a new description [Snigger]

Should this ever happen again ( lets hope not ), if you let me know, I will identify the sleaziest paper in Reading, and let them know, with lots of suggestions of a cover-up. I will also look at selling the story to a Sunday Paper - all money recieved would, of course, be donated to the ship.

Maybe then people would realise just how bad this could be.

My dislike of Cosmo means that this is the route I would suggest for dealing with it, of course. I mean, if you're going to fuck the sleazeball, do it properly.
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
Can someone tell me what would have happened if nothing had been done?
quote:
Originally posted by CS Lewis:
"You mean," said Lucy rather faintly, "that it would have turned out all right - somehow? But how? Please, Aslan! Am I not to know?"

"To know what would have happened, child?" said Aslan. "No. Nobody is ever told that."

"O dear," said Lucy.
- Chris.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Raspberry Rabbit

I think that what others are suggesting is something like this. You are judging the actions of people who manage news for a living on the basis of what feels right to you. What you intuit.

BTW in Myers Briggs terms I'm "N" almost off the scale. It may help if we apply a bit of Myers Briggs to what is going on. In this sort of situation there is also the question of how the N interrelates with the T/F factor. Whether news management behaviour is ethical or unethical is not determined by the perceived effect and effectiveness of the actions, but by the values which underly those actions. (That's an F factor as I'm sure you recognise). The Admins in general and Ancient Mariner in particular are telling you that their actions were based on defensive and damage-limiting intentions. They appear to have been effective as well. What your intuition seems to be doing is causing you to continue to doubt their motives and their truthfulness. Now that is also an issue of morality. It is perfectly OK to question motives and intentions on the basis of intuition - but once you have an explanation, the situation changes.

Do you have any reason to continue to distrust their explanation? Sustaining disbelief in someone else's integrity after explanations have been given is not just a matter of intuition. It calls to mind another question. Are you being fair? To the E and A in general and to Ancient Mariner in particular. You appear to be impugning their integrity on the basis of your intuition alone. That is another F factor - but now it is a question of your values. I dont know whether you prefer T or F, but this is a case where a bit more T - ing might be fruitful.

(BTW in Myers Briggs terms I always score a slight preference for F but I can T when I need to).
 
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
Barnabas62 wrote

quote:
Do you have any reason to continue to distrust their explanation? Sustaining disbelief in someone else's integrity after explanations have been given is not just a matter of intuition.
I think there are any number of reasons to distrust the explanations given here and on the ongoing Styx thread. Not all of them reasons having to do with my particular intuition. I was in fact reaction to the derision shown to a particular poster who mentioned that she 'felt' something was the wrong course of action. All this business of claiming that the detractors were 'fondling' their 'feelings' and that those who took action in the way they did were simply following ship's policy on putting out regular press releases (notwithstanding the novelty of the present action) or following some sort of best practice.

There was nothing necessary in this action. It didn't have to be. People did what they wanted to do - and did so in a cavalier manner with little regard for the consequences. They did this to somebody unpleasant and troublesome at a point where they found the goods on him. People who ought to have known better. We make fun of anybody who says 'I thought this was a Christian website' - even moreso when he makes the statement on a Hell thread. I'm frequently cross with people on the Ship. I'm rarely ashamed of them though.

The explanations for 'going to press' are all complete two-flushers. Flies are leaving Scotland as we speak in great stinking clouds to fly south and feast on these explanations. So yes - since you ask - I question the motives of all sorts of folks even after the explanations given.

RR
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Rasberry Rabbit:

quote:
So what about the ticking bomb bit? What could the possibile repercussions for the Ship have been (realistic ones, please!) that would require Maximum Bob, Extreme Sue and Fairly Exigent Ralph to pull out Emergency Media Plan A and start the damage control?
What actually happened was a reasonably sympathetic piece of coverage in Ruth Gledhill's blog and in the Times. If you object so strongly to seeing Cosmo's RL identity splashed across the papers you might pause to recollect that what could have happened was rather more coverage of a rather less sympathetic nature. Spawn of this parish has already mentioned that he would have followed the story up, and probably in a less sympathetic manner had he not been scooped by La Gledhill and thinks that his colleagues would have probably done so as well, in more or less sympathetic ways. As I imagine Spawn probably does unsympathetic quite well I think the services of Messrs Maximum and Exigent and Ms Extreme seem to be justified.
 
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
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.

What I was saying is that Cosmo could have been banned, the two MW reviews deleted and the community warned off further malfeasance. It could have ended there. Nobody is going to react curiously to the deletion of two MW reports and an online bollocking of an anonymous avatar.

Am I incorrect?

RR

[ 12. October 2006, 17:43: Message edited by: Raspberry Rabbit ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
What I was saying is that Cosmo could have been banned, the two MW reviews deleted and the community warned off further malfeasance. It could have ended there. Nobody is going to react curiously to the deletion of two MW reports and an online bollocking of an anonymous avatar.
Nobody? Read the article again. Cosmo reacted within hours of the reports having been pulled, following on, he says, an email from a friend telling him the reports had been pulled.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Rasberry Rabbit:

quote:
What I was saying is that Cosmo could have been banned, the two MW reviews deleted and the community warned off further malfeasance. It could have ended there. Nobody is going to react curiously to the deletion of two MW reports and an online bollocking of an anonymous avatar.

Am I incorrect?
Probably. If one were to ban Cosmo, delete the two mystery worshipper reports and read the riot act over MWing oneself it would hardly be difficult to deduce that Cosmo was Fr. David Peters, particularly as a number of us had already worked it out for ourselves. Of course, Spawn may have calculated that he preferred being a Shipmate in good standing to the pleasure of getting a story in the C of E Newspaper or the Mail but there are plenty of journalists who lurk on the Ship who aren't Shipmates.

The trouble with 'cover it up and hope no-one notices' is that when it is good it is very, very good and when it is bad it is horrid. People who deal with news media have two choices. Either you give journalists the story you want them to tell or you keep your head down. If they don't notice you or deign to notice you favourably you are in clover. If they decide to take against you you are in the ess-aitch-one-tee. So keeping your head down is not, as they say, an option. This is the kind of thing they tell trainee government press officers on day one of their induction course. My views on this matter are formed from working for a government department which went from 'heads down' to 'pro-active news management' and comparing the sort of headlines we got under the different approaches.

If AM and co. were going to treat the press as the enemy the only sensible response was to do nothing or to ban Cosmo on spurious grounds (with the attendant sixteen page thread in the Styx) and quietly pull the MW reports at a later date. I think this would almost certainly have worked but it would have been much less ethical than what they actually did.
 
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
So? He'd presumably have been told why. But I doubt that Reuters would have started putting 'MW-Reports-Pulled-From-Ship' on ticker tape anywhere. I'm talking about the alleged press curiosity about a pulled MW report, not Cosmo's pique over the matter.

RR
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
warning: this post has nothing to do with Cosmo, AM, or evenreally the Ship. Deal.

I'm going to indulge in a petulant moment based on a statement of Paige's. Paige - this is not an attack on you, you have just voiced what I see on these boards fairly regularly. This is a broader rant.
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
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. I shall now have to add "journalists" to the list of those towards whom I pray for a change of heart. [Biased]
Tell you what, don't pray for me to have a change of heart. pray for yourself and your neighbors and all the Shipmates and everyone else who gives two shits about the news.

Now, I am the very first to say that most corporate media is failing at it's job. it is being too driven by ad dollars.

the ad dollars are driven by YOU.

You don't like the way the press does business? quit buying the paper. quit visiting the website. turn off your radio and for heaven's sake shut off the light box.

The media's tactics are immoral? quit condoning it. Quit paying for it.

I'm sick and tired of the world saying the media is so freaking evil while they have the TV droning in the background and subscriptions to 5 newspapers and the radio set to stun.

Thing is people - you all do this to yourself.

I think most news organizations are failing in their mission, assuming their mission really is to inform the people objectively. But they're failing because the people are asking them to. they're asking them for sensationalist news. they're asking for "naughty vicar" stories and ignoring "war crimes" stories.

the nasty reality of "if it bleeds it leads" is merely because people want to hear about blood more than charities making a difference.

don't believe me? when you're listening to the radio or TV drone in the background, what story makes you stop the conversation and turn the volume up?

pay attention to it. you might be amazed. and probably a little embarrassed. I know I am.

I am in the hard-earned role of being a news director. (would be a "managing editor" in the print world) This means I get to have a lot of control over what does constitute the news on my radio station. So I have made policies based on my own moral values.

for instance, "innocent until proven guilty" means I don't air the names of suspects in crimes, unless they are being sought by police.

Do you know how much shit I take for this policy? and not from the journalistic world (they're just amazed I can pull it off) but from the listeners. the consumers, just like you.

It's all fine and dandy to take the high moral ground and curse the press, but it's the public who demands to know the name of the guy who may or may not be a rapist or a burglar or a vicar who writes his own MW reports.

Simon and the gang could have kept Cosmo's real name out of this. that's their decision. but within 12 hours tops, we all would have known. and we would have speculated. and stories would have been told. and not just us, who really count for nothing in this story, but the people of Reading.

What if their guesses had the wrong vicar? what then? what if speculation had him as, say, not being a real vicar at all, but some wierdo impersonator? because once the rumor mill starts, it gets ugly.

this scenario may make you laugh but I've seen crazier.

I support their decision on this because they know their audience, and in my limited experience I would say the editors themselves are very moral human beings.

You think they didn't take into account the effects of their story? that's just naive. And offensive to them, really. do you really have such low opinions of the moral compass of people who create and run these boards? if so, go away. why are you here?

Ancient Mariner mentioned the young gun reporter aspect of this issue. I ask that you all not disregard the harm he is concerned with here. The harm one glory hound reporter with little oversight can do is immeasurable. the stories I could tell.

The harm done, though, is again because in fact the audience rewards sensationalism. it rewards "vicar gone bad" stories as much as it rewards celebrity hijinx stories.

ask ten people in your immediate vicinity who Paris Hilton is. then ask them to name the nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize. Both are in the news, but guess what people tune in to?

So pray for me, fine. but in those prayers, how about asking God to support me as I try and balance my moral values every day with the public who wants blood and sex and famous people and mighty-fallen. Pray that i can keep my "dead guy on the highway" story short enough to slip in my "how the government is spending your tax money" story. Pray that people like you will listen to the story that really matters for a change.

And turn off your fucking TV.

Comet
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:


What I was saying is that Cosmo could have been banned, the two MW reviews deleted and the community warned off further malfeasance. It could have ended there. Nobody is going to react curiously to the deletion of two MW reports and an online bollocking of an anonymous avatar.

Am I incorrect?

RR
Yes, you are incorrect. All this was discussed and has been explained on The Styx so I'm not going to cover the ground again - I would ask you respectfully to read the thread thoroughly.

Let me move things on a little. I fear that, unless the central character in all of this makes a full and credible statement, whatever limited damage-controlled media coverage there has been to date might well be supersceded - beyond any control. Put simply, we are being watched. And next time we may not be able to bend a sympathetic ear.
 
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
Right - I'd hate to let anyone think my loyalty was an issue or that I was a fellow traveller with the enemy. These are dangerous times, after all! After Hussein there's Kim Il Jong. After Gledhill there's Spawn!

I read the arguments for sending shopping Cosmo to the press. You don't need to go into them again. They were bollocks then and regurgitated bollocks aren't any better.

RR
 
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on :
 
cometchaser---that would have been a most impressive rant...*if* I had said I was praying for you to have a change of heart. Read carefully and note that I was praying for myself to have the change in my attitude towards journalists (as I have to pray about my attitude toward Republicans and schismatic bishops.... [Devil] ).

Just needed to note that...

And, FTR, I don't watch television OR listen to the radio. Why? Because I got tired of the inane chatter on radio and sick of TV reporters shoving a microphone in the face of some grieving person and saying "How do you feel about losing your entire family in a fire?" [Mad]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:


There was nothing necessary in this action. It didn't have to be. People did what they wanted to do - and did so in a cavalier manner with little regard for the consequences. They did this to somebody unpleasant and troublesome at a point where they found the goods on him. People who ought to have known better.

The explanations for 'going to press' are all complete two-flushers. Flies are leaving Scotland as we speak in great stinking clouds to fly south and feast on these explanations. So yes - since you ask - I question the motives of all sorts of folks even after the explanations given.

RR
These are not reasons, Raspberry Rabbit, they are assertions of judgement. You have judged their actions to be wrong. What reasons do you have for these assertions?

I'm going to link in a key post from the Styx thread. Read what IngoB has to say here. IngoB sees these things differently to me. But he has, correctly in my view, withdrawn his assertions about the integrity of the E and A. Should you believe that he has done so in order to retain his position as Host on the private board, I can assure you that such a view would both impugn his integrity and it would be wrong.

What IngoB withdrew were assertions about the character and actions of the E and A which are quite similar to those from you I've just quoted above. He thought about the fairness of it overnight and then posted as he did. His post does him great credit IMO. All I'm asking you do is reflect.
 
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
RR,
You have just been told that yes if AM had not tipped off Ruth Gedhill the story would have been splashed around. Believe that or call Spawn a liar.
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
(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
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
I have been considering starting another one called the Watergate Gospel but then I remembered what is to be a Hellhost.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
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]

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.
 
Posted by professor kirke (# 9037) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
first off, I apologize to everyone for that horribly long winded rant on page three. [Hot and Hormonal] 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
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Was worth reading. Very well written rant, comet.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
May I point out that Ancient Marnier is a raspberry tart.
Not a blueberry one like Kiwigoldfish
That scoundrel! <--see AM there [Mad]

[edited cuz of: technical problems trying to showcase tarts. hopefully resolved. [Hot and Hormonal] ]

[ 12. October 2006, 22:05: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on :
 
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]

Barnabas, thanks for the clarification. I hope it's clear which camp I fall in.
 
Posted by fabula rasa (# 11436) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Paige (# 2261) on :
 
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]

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
 
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
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]

Ross // it's been a long day down at the word factory...
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
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] )
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
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
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 [Mad]
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
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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>
 
Posted by Genie (# 3282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
I might also add that Andrew is member no. [removed].
[Eek!]

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 ]
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Stoo (# 254) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Genie (# 3282) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
  1. The [Eek!] 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Good apology [Smile]
Sarkycow, hellhost
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
little too much coffee this morning MG.

*breathe in.... breathe out...*
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
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. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
[Overused] Way to go, MadGeo! Now if you'd only firm up your position on the environment as well ...
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
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 [Mad]
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
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
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.

 
Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Ruth Gledhill (# 10885) on :
 
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,
 
Posted by basso (# 4228) on :
 
All becomes clear!

Welcome, Ruth.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
Reality seems to be becoming an ever more distant prospect.

(But could someone tell me which of the two photos on the site linked to is actually Ruth Gledhill?)
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
Hi Ruth!

[Killing me] GREAT letter!
 
Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 
Welcome Ruth!

Loved the letter. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Welcome Ruth. Good to see you and I hope you stick around.
 
Posted by Ruth Gledhill (# 10885) on :
 
Yes I will stay on board, now that at long last I've finally worked out how to do it. I tried for a long time to post and then gave up. I never realised that the 'add reply' button was actually the 'post' button. I also cannot work out how to add one of those nice pictures to my displayed name. Oh well. Very much an apprentice I fear. Thank you for the welcome.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ruth Gledhill:
... I also cannot work out how to add one of those nice pictures to my displayed name. ...
From the FAQs:
quote:
How do I set up my avatar?

Go to your profile page (if you don't know how to get there, see "how do I change my profile?" above) and click on the "select a different avatar image" link near the bottom of the page. A pop-up window will show you the first page of avatars, but be sure to click the "next" link at the bottom of the page to see our full range of avatars – there are plenty of them to choose from! Click the one you want, then click the "select this avatar" button, which will close the pop-up window. Now scroll to the end of your profile page and hit the "update profile" button. If you don't do that last bit, then your avatar will not be changed.

Can I have a custom avatar?

The board software allows all registered members to have a custom avatar, but we've turned off this feature for general use for two good reasons. First, we regularly have people registering with us who are only here to cause mischief, and we don't want to give them license to post offensive images. Second, we need to safeguard against people who link to gigantic images, which would severely slow the loading of pages. Despite this, we do have a special custom avatar scheme which is open to anyone who has made shipmate status.
Oh, and Welcome Aboard!

[ 13. October 2006, 17:50: Message edited by: sharkshooter ]
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
There's still time to back out, Ruth. Meanwhile...
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Does the appearance of Ruth the locking of the thread in the Styx are these all the signs of the of Cosmogate? or do we have to wait for Mr cheesy to get a clue and Deon not to contradict himself within 20 minutes and me to return to lurkdom before it is all over. Tune in for the next exciting episode of Cosmogate....
 
Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 
Ruth, welcome to active life aboard the Ship!
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
or do we have to wait for Mr cheesy to get a clue and Deon not to contradict himself within 20 minutes and me to return to lurkdom before it is all over.
ands for me to get control of my temper and Ancient Mariner to quit tapping on our car windows... [Biased]
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
Oh, for goodness sake, stop being so friggin' polite, y'all.

Someone please ask this scarlet lady, this 'totally gutless reporter who extracts meaningless reports from intellectual and internet backwaters and blows them out of all proportion into something approaching newscopy in The Times' (mr cheesy OP) what the frig she thinks she is doing on MY thread...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Ancient Mariner

Apprentices are cut some slack aren't they? But its only a matter of time, I guess. Anyway I think you should be jumping all over somebody at the Church Times, rather than giving the blessed Ruth G (PBUH) the classic wind-up welcome. I thought you guys were supposed to be sweetness and light this week? [Disappointed]
 
Posted by fabula rasa (# 11436) on :
 
OK, AM.

Welcome, "Ruth", and many thanks for sharing the letter and the link with us. You will no doubt have noticed that there's been a lot of speculation about the professional view of various issues of concern to us here. I will therefore take the liberty, since you've been brave enough to out yourself, of asking you a few pretty direct questions.

1. Obviously, the media has a job to do, and it is not always a nice one. Do you think you were treated fairly over the Babyshambles recording session incident?

2. Obviously most of your contracts have been with high-end organisations. Are you what we might call "sola natura", or do you believe that there is everjustification for the use of polyester in high street clothing, or even liturgical vestments?

3. Are there any tricks for making one's bum NOT look big in an alb? (Or are you in favour of the just-hide-it-all-under-a-voluminous-chazzie approach?)

4. I know that this might not seem directly related to Christian Unrest, but a lot of us really want to know: are Eve Lom, La Prairie, etc worth the price?

5. Also, can you get free stuff from Dior etc on demand? (I mean not just in a standard-models'-size 8, but, say, a 14?) I'm just curious.

6. And, since I think this will make the Powers Wot Be happy: do you have anything to add to the account given by the Ship of what happened in l'affaire Cosmo? Or any views on its ethical dimensions?

(And a final note to AM: this must be the first time EVER in the history of the boards that someone has asked us to be less polite. Especially in Hell.)

[can't spell or punctuate, even with preview post. Sigh.]

[ 13. October 2006, 19:45: Message edited by: fabula rasa ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thought so
 
Posted by wesleyswig (# 5436) on :
 
The only decision due to be brought to hell is leaking to the times.... I never trust that rag and would much have prefered it to the guardian.

That said, if you send it to the times it amuses the establishment type folks, eg the CofE and so it keeps it out of the rest of the press therefore the story dies a death very quickly.


Warm Regards
John
 
Posted by fabula rasa (# 11436) on :
 
Wesleyswig, on what grounds would you have preferred the Grauniad? Do you rate Stephen Bates more highly than Kate/Ruth? Or were you seeking a different result in tems of exposure?
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Oh, for goodness sake, stop being so friggin' polite, y'all.

Someone please ask this scarlet lady, this 'totally gutless reporter who extracts meaningless reports from intellectual and internet backwaters and blows them out of all proportion into something approaching newscopy in The Times' (mr cheesy OP) what the frig she thinks she is doing on MY thread...
I truly think seriously that Ruth should consider becoming a 3 AM girl. There is surely a slot open for blonde backwater scarlet reporters. And maybe mr. cheesy could afterward get a quick mention - get some cheesy celebrity action. Just a thought.
 
Posted by fabula rasa (# 11436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Oh, for goodness sake, stop being so friggin' polite, y'all.

Someone please ask this scarlet lady, this 'totally gutless reporter who extracts meaningless reports from intellectual and internet backwaters and blows them out of all proportion into something approaching newscopy in The Times' (mr cheesy OP) what the frig she thinks she is doing on MY thread...
Oh, for fuck's sake. She's more coherent than most people here, which is surely justification enough.

(What I'd really like to know is how she justifies working for Rupert Murdoch. But that's a whole other issue....)

So, back on track, Ruth, what do you think are the limits of responsible journalism wrt apparently errant clerics? And do you think Simon and AM behaved responsibly, both in deciding to run the story on the Ship webzine as they did, and by leaking it to you?

(I presume that RG is doing something sensible, like having dinner with Pete Doherty, unlike those of us who have to work tomorrow [Mad] , so we'll presumably have to wait for a reply.)

[ 13. October 2006, 20:01: Message edited by: fabula rasa ]
 
Posted by wesleyswig (# 5436) on :
 
quote:
Wesleyswig, on what grounds would you have preferred the Grauniad? Do you rate Stephen Bates more highly than Kate/Ruth? Or were you seeking a different result in tems of exposure?
The Guardian would be more flippant and I would view it as less of a "real" story and easy to pass off from a website of Christian satire - whereas the Times is an establishment newspaper...

Therefore the idea of killing off a story that hasn't appeared (not a complete oxymoron though a consideration of self importance is always needed) needs to be considered by whom and whilst I can apreciate the trust AM must have in The Times I see the Guardian as more light hearted so a more honest removal of the story without any possible follow up.

Warm Regards

john
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wesleyswig:
quote:
Wesleyswig, on what grounds would you have preferred the Grauniad? Do you rate Stephen Bates more highly than Kate/Ruth? Or were you seeking a different result in tems of exposure?
The Guardian would be more flippant and I would view it as less of a "real"
I have seen the guardian get it's 'teeth' into vicar stories.
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
... what the frig she thinks she is doing on MY thread...
one media tart per Hell thread?

c'mon, AM - scoot over and share a little! [Biased]
 
Posted by Simon (# 1) on :
 
The trouble with Ancient Mariner, my friends, is that he thinks he's the only tart in the village.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Maybe some knave stole his heart away?
 
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Does the appearance of Ruth the locking of the thread in the Styx are these all the signs of the of Cosmogate?
I'm pretty sure these are signs of the End Times. I can go back and re-read Ezekiel and Daniel and Wotthehiel, but I remember warnings about the Hoare of Babylondon, right? I'm sure... yeah...

(welcome, Ruth - we don't bite, really [Snigger] ).
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Does the appearance of Ruth the locking of the thread in the Styx are these all the signs of the of Cosmogate?
I'm pretty sure these are signs of the End Times. I can go back and re-read Ezekiel and Daniel and Wotthehiel, but I remember warnings about the Hoare of Babylondon, right? I'm sure... yeah...

It was meant to be 'the end' of cosmogate.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
cheesy, why don't you go do something useful with your life, like give blood. About nine pints should do it.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
The trouble with Ancient Mariner, my friends, is that he thinks he's the only tart in the village.
I heard that advancing age had forced him to retire from the world's oldest profession and the poor devil has been reduced to playing ragtime for room and board in a cheap London bordello.
 
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
THAT's who was tapping on my window--!
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
Gort, your link isn't working for me. *pout*
 
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Oh, for goodness sake, stop being so friggin' polite, y'all.

Someone please ask this scarlet lady, this 'totally gutless reporter who extracts meaningless reports from intellectual and internet backwaters and blows them out of all proportion into something approaching newscopy in The Times' (mr cheesy OP) what the frig she thinks she is doing on MY thread...
AM is taking the rôle too too to heart.

I will send the ship Oz$100 if you add 'Media Tart' to your Ship title and convince Ms Gledhill to add 'Media Strumpet' to hers.
 
Posted by fight-club for the soul (# 11098) on :
 
Seconded. I'll send Au$50.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cometchaser:
Gort, your link isn't working for me. *pout*
It must be the snow on your satellite dish or possibly electrostatic aurora borealis interference. Of course, it could be the sinister work of certain media manipulators bent on reducing their public exposure.

Try right click, copy link location, paste in new window.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
excellent idea, Coot & Fight. Avatar? [Devil]

[ 14. October 2006, 07:02: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
How about this? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
classicgayphotographs.com? Lyda*Rose, I've met you and somehow this just doesn't fit my image of your casual Friday evening interweb browsing. What gives? Are you feeling particularly spunky tonight?
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
got the link to work! (the first one) is that you, AM? what a great photo!

I'm on a tight budget, but I'll kick in $25 US for the title of media tart. no requirement for Ruth. (give her a chance to get truly corrupted, you guys! she shouldn't have to be a strumpet until at least her 10th post!)

Ancient Mariner - in honor of all the shit you're wading through, I told my favorite flack today what a great job he does, and cc'ed his boss.

Everyone needs to be told when they do it RIGHT occasionally.

Comet
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Everybody sing!

"She's got a brown ring around her nose!
and everyday, it grows and grows!"
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
classicgayphotographs.com? Lyda*Rose, I've met you and somehow this just doesn't fit my image of your casual Friday evening interweb browsing. What gives? Are you feeling particularly spunky tonight?
Amazing what can show up when you punch "sailor suit" into Google Image. [Biased]

I considered one of an old guy in a rubber fetish suit with a sailor hat- but naaah, I liked this cutie.
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
Dear all, I will respond properly later to your suggestions, it's just that today Simon and I are doing Ship of Fools Live in Warwickshire - a one and a half hour tour of the ship complete with music and movies - and I really have to get there.

Ship of Fools Live can come to a data projector near you. We are bookable - as tarts always are.
 
Posted by fabula rasa (# 11436) on :
 
So, AM, in response to Simon's post above, you're not the only tart in the village?

Good luck with SoF live!
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Everybody sing!

"She's got a brown ring around her nose!
and everyday, it grows and grows!"
kiss my ass, tin can.

being positive is not being a flunky.

when's the last time someone told you that you do a good job?
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Dear all, I will respond properly later to your suggestions, it's just that today Simon and I are doing Ship of Fools Live in Warwickshire - a one and a half hour tour of the ship complete with music and movies - and I really have to get there.

Ship of Fools Live can come to a data projector near you. We are bookable - as tarts always are.
And where can we see these bookings on the webpage, for the pop-tarts? And book our own? And see how much you cost?
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cometchaser:
kiss my ass, tin can.

being positive is not being a flunky.

when's the last time someone told you that you do a good job?
The honor would be mine, I'm sure. However, the last time I checked, this was a Hell call and <gasp> this is Hell. IMO, there is nothing more cringe-worthy, here, than saccharine displays of admiration and cloying, happy-clappy compliments. Call me a curmudeon but I thought the mission of this Holy Hell board was for isolating conflict and flame wars.

Why not try dumping on mr. cheesy for his shitty OP or go open a "We Lurve da Editors" thread in Heaven? Bah! Hell is being overrun with smiling faces. [Disappointed]
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Oh, for goodness sake, stop being so friggin' polite, y'all...
Yes, sir! May I have another, sir?!
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
fair nuff.

I think I already made it pretty clear how wrong Cheesy is, don't need to keep kicking.

call me crazy but I like to occasionally balance the "fuck you"s with the "Atta boy"s.

gack. this whole drama is just so hyperinflated and over extended.

Will somebody please be an asshole in Purgatory so we have something else to bitch and whine about?
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
(welcome, Ruth - we don't bite, really [Snigger] ).
I think it is unfair to post such malicious lies here. We do bite. We do tell people what we think of them, irrespective of their position or status.

Ruth - I hope you know what you have got into here.
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
a one and a half hour tour of the ship complete with music and movies
and, in the latest edition, real blood?
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
a one and a half hour tour of the ship complete with music and movies
and, in the latest edition, real blood?
When during the 90 minutes do you feed the 'gator?

And do you use live victims to do so?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Hmm.....is there any connection to the disappearance of several Shipmates recently......?

Ian J.
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Hmm.....is there any connection to the disappearance of several Shipmates recently......?

Ian J.
... and the appearance of several donations to the Organ Fund - for which our bank manager is very grateful.


[Cool]

Of course we know there are more punters slowly cruising these boards even now - with money to burn.

So, Ms Gledhill and I are happy to do what The Coot suggested earlier, and add Media Strumpet and Media Tart (respectively) to our descriptions in return for donations to the Organ Fund.

But we know you have more in your wallets...

So far approx £74 (sterling) has been promised, from three sources - The Coot, fight-club for the soul and cometchaser. This is the equivalent of $137 (US) or $183 (Oz).

If other posters on this thread can match that amount, Ruth and I will do the business.

If not, sorry love...

[ 16. October 2006, 07:47: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Sheesh, you really are a tart. I've seen less brazen soliciting in Darlinghurst Road from women in crotchless leather hotpants.

I'll put up $20 (family to support).
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
I hope my partner doesn't know where I am cruising but here's £10.
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Sheesh, you really are a tart. I've seen less brazen soliciting in Darlinghurst Road from women in crotchless leather hotpants.
Those are so pre-Divine Brown, darling, but thanks anyway.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
In gratitude and respeck for Simon's gracious climbdown over IngoBgate, I'm donating another £20. Because I can. And becuase I probably should.

I would donate a heap more in celebration of a return to the boards of Pxy_e though - even if that does seem a bit of remote chance at the moment. All very unHellish, I know, but he massively added to the gaity of the boards for me (no sniggering at the back) and I'm gutted to see him go. Huffy little fucker though he is.

I'm missing being bladdered.
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
I hope my partner doesn't know where I am cruising but here's £10.
Just tell her the Sat Nav was moved by the Holy Spirit.
 
Posted by neandergirl (# 8916) on :
 
I've just promised money to replace Twilight's avatar so can't add to the pot here at the mo'. Now if AM would swing to a 'Media Tart' tattoo I'd go look behind the couch cushions ....

Really I owe Mr Cheesy scads for how much I love the thread title.
 
Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :
 
Here comes another £10 from someone who does not always agree with decisions made or the degree of publicity hunting that goes on sometimes, but who has a lot of respect for those who give up their time for the Ship generally and who has got far more pleasure and spiritual growth out of the Ship than disgruntlement. And what better excuse for giving than to see Ancient Mariner get his true title at last. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
Fair play to RG for agreeing to be (hopefully!) Media Strumpet.

What chance have we got of getting Stephen Bates on board as well - "Media Pimp", perchance?
 
Posted by LJB (# 1057) on :
 
Added £20 - now how's it looking [Devil]
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
Another tenner should see us safely off the street for another evening...
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
Come on everyone, surely the more religious journalists off the streets makes the world a better and safer place for all?

[ 16. October 2006, 13:19: Message edited by: Mr Clingford ]
 
Posted by Posy (# 10858) on :
 
OK. I'm reaching for my credit card now. £15 - just in case exchange rates have moved against us on the currency donations since the sale opened.
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
Saved from the streets by an unprecedented fund-raising campaign... instructions have been sent to the Cap'n!

[Overused]
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Shameless hussy. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
I have officially ponied up the promised amount plus a bonus 'cause you're just so cute baby... or maybe just cause I have a ship addiction and all addictions cost!

Comet
 
Posted by Ann (# 94) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Saved from the streets by an unprecedented fund-raising campaign... instructions have been sent to the Cap'n!

[Overused]
The Cap'n doesn't trust you with all of those very interesting buttons in the Admin panel?
 
Posted by Simon (# 1) on :
 
No way, Ann. AM is now officially recognised as a media tart, while Ms Gledhill can be called a strumpet and no questions asked.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
But a red flashy light going off would look most dashing, better than a sinking boat. [Frown]

ETA: Okay, re-reading this, I realise now Simon and Ann were not talking about a new avatar for AM, saying Media Tart under it. My bad. Crap.

[ 16. October 2006, 20:12: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
'...and maiden virtue rud'ly strumpeted'
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
separated by a common language moment: I used to think strumpet and crumpet were interchangable, and both were pastry. I have attempted to order a strumpet in a bakery.

go ahead, heap scorn on my head. I can take it.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cometchaser:
I have attempted to order a strumpet in a bakery.
Must be how you end up with a bun in the oven.

Anyone remember Muir and Norden on 'My Word'? Frank Muir managed a story which ended up: 'And so he passed Dover: and all the strumpets undid for him on the other side'.

(Prizes if you can reconstruct the story).
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
What is it with Calls to Hell of senior SoF members turning into fundraisers? Can't they just have a simple argument any more?

To find out the answer, send £$50 [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
Little wonder no-one has ever called Simon to Hell - it would cost them too much.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
Ms Gledhill can be called a strumpet and no questions asked.
Without meeting the usual requirement of 51 posts, as well, in an outrageous breach of the rules. [Biased]

I'd leave the Ship over this in an instant if I could remember which way was out.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I keep reading that "I would take over the ship in a minute....
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
From hate to fundraising to puns and jokes.

Sometimes I love hell particularly.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Little wonder no-one has ever called Simon to Hell - it would cost them too much.
Actually he's fairly cheap.
 
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
And an excellent choice of avatar for Ruth - she looks such a cheery strumpet on the telephone! [Snigger]
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Sometimes I love hell particularly.
Well, sure. Where else can you get called an
infidel twat? (It really has potential as your new sig., no?)
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Good idea!
 
Posted by Ruth Gledhill (# 10885) on :
 
Thanks for all the welcomes. To answer these questions (sorry don't know how to make text look 'bold'):

Q:1. Obviously, the media has a job to do, and it is not always a nice one. Do you think you were treated fairly over the Babyshambles recording session incident?

A: Hey sister, my God is your God, I've no issue with the shambles incident except goes without saying that I for one am clean and sober these days.

Q: 2. Obviously most of your contracts have been with high-end organisations. Are you what we might call "sola natura", or do you believe that there is everjustification for the use of polyester in high street clothing, or even liturgical vestments?

A: Have you seen The Devil Wears Prada yet? If not, let me tell you, even polyester is a 'high fashion statement' these days. Go see 'Nuclear Winter''s soliloquy in the film about the colour blue to understand my meaning.

Q: 3. Are there any tricks for making one's bum NOT look big in an alb? (Or are you in favour of the just-hide-it-all-under-a-voluminous-chazzie approach?)

A: As a woman who's always suffered from being a bit on the skinny side in the bottom department, I welcome anything that makes my bum look bigger.

Q: 4. I know that this might not seem directly related to Christian Unrest, but a lot of us really want to know: are Eve Lom, La Prairie, etc worth the price?

A: You don't need me to tell you that they are worth whatever you're prepared to pay for them.

Q: 5. Also, can you get free stuff from Dior etc on demand? (I mean not just in a standard-models'-size 8, but, say, a 14?) I'm just curious.

A: Congratulations. From The Devil Wears Prada again: 'Six is the new 14'. Wonderful to be so thin. Don't know how you do it.

Q: 6. And, since I think this will make the Powers Wot Be happy: do you have anything to add to the account given by the Ship of what happened in l'affaire Cosmo? Or any views on its ethical dimensions?

A: Re 'l'affaire cosmo', I'm grateful to Cosmo for making me laugh and to the Ship for flagging up the story for me. Re the ethical dimensions, well, I think they're all pretty ship-shape at present.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
And an excellent choice of avatar for Ruth - she looks such a cheery strumpet on the telephone! [Snigger]
Just like Glenda Slagg! "She can ring me on the blower any time!!! Geddit?!"
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ruth Gledhill:
I welcome anything that makes my bum look bigger.
Do we have your permission to quote this exquisite sentence at any and every opportunity??
[Devil]
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Ship of Fools Live can come to a data projector near you. We are bookable - as tarts always are.
And where can we see these bookings on the webpage, for the pop-tarts? And book our own? And see how much you cost?
Duchess, we have toured SoF Live on the east coast of the US. We'd like to do the west coast some time. Cost depends on the number of other gigs we can get.

Over here in the UK, we do a full two-hour show for approx £500 - plus travel expenses. Diocesan conferences are a speciality.
 
Posted by Auntie Doris (# 9433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Duchess, we have toured SoF Live on the east coast of the US.
SoF live? Is that like Little Britain live and do you have guest appearances?

Auntie Doris x
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Auntie Doris:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Duchess, we have toured SoF Live on the east coast of the US.
SoF live? Is that like Little Britain live and do you have guest appearances?

Auntie Doris x
Imagine, you could run a West Coast Hell board live. How about:
Sub: Rook. Hard hats optional, but advisable.
 
Posted by Stevie Boy Wonder (# 11869) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Auntie Doris:
SoF live? Is that like Little Britain live and do you have guest appearances?
Didn't you know? AM comes on stage in his media tart gear and announces, "I'm a laydee!"
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ruth Gledhill:

A: Re 'l'affaire cosmo', I'm grateful to Cosmo for making me laugh and to the Ship for flagging up the story for me.
I don't want to do French I want to do American and call it Cosmogate.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Duchess, we have toured SoF Live on the east coast of the US. We'd like to do the west coast some time. Cost depends on the number of other gigs we can get.

Over here in the UK, we do a full two-hour show for approx £500 - plus travel expenses. Diocesan conferences are a speciality.
And what do you do in your show? If I wanted to push your act to churches and force them to pony-up some money to see a bunch of crazy-ass limeys, Kelly Alves and I need help selling our poptarts in da LORD.

HELP US TO HELP YOU.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I don't want to do French I want to do American and call it Cosmogate.
Damn straight.
[Thanks brotha lamp. [Votive] ]

[ 17. October 2006, 14:57: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Duchess, we have toured SoF Live on the east coast of the US. We'd like to do the west coast some time. Cost depends on the number of other gigs we can get.

Over here in the UK, we do a full two-hour show for approx £500 - plus travel expenses. Diocesan conferences are a speciality.
And what do you do in your show? If I wanted to push your act to churches and force them to pony-up some money to see a bunch of crazy-ass limeys, Kelly Alves and I need help selling our poptarts in da LORD.

HELP US TO HELP YOU.
OK, Duchess, rather than go on a magnificent tangent I've gone some way to answering your question by opening another thread here in All Saints.

[Cool]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
If I wanted to push your act to churches and force them to pony-up some money to see a bunch of crazy-ass limeys, Kelly Alves and I need help selling our poptarts in da LORD.

HELP US TO HELP YOU.
And my poptarts don't come cheap, honey...
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Limey poptarts don't either. [Biased]
[eta: emoticon as to enhance the visual experience and guard against confusion. thx.]

[ 17. October 2006, 19:32: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
Duchess, we have toured SoF Live on the east coast of the US. We'd like to do the west coast some time. Cost depends on the number of other gigs we can get. ...
Get a West Coast gig and an East Coast gig, and praps we could find you something here in Flyover Country. You probably have to change planes anyway.

Ross // one of the Parasites of the Press
 
Posted by James. (# 220) on :
 
Ooer. Money sent as promised. I was going to retract my suggestion for Ms Gledhill seeing as wot she is new and not affiliated with SoF an' all, but the avatar-title combo looks very comely indeed. Thanks for being a good sport.

Re: AM. Have had a dawning suspicion we are paying money to enable him to have an excuse to do something he was dying to do anyway...
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
If Ship of Fools: The Act came to the Bay Area, I'd pony up to see the act and attend the shipmeet. [Yipee]

(I apologize for drooling all over your nice Hell thread.)
 
Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And my poptarts don't come cheap, honey...
But are they pert?
 
Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
Per my above post: See for explanation.
 
Posted by fight-club for the soul (# 11098) on :
 
50 bucks, as promised. Nice title AM!
 
Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
quote:
Ruth Gledhill wrote:
Q: 3. Are there any tricks for making one's bum NOT look big in an alb? (Or are you in favour of the just-hide-it-all-under-a-voluminous-chazzie approach?)

A: As a woman who's always suffered from being a bit on the skinny side in the bottom department, I welcome anything that makes my bum look bigger.
Well, Ruth, in that case you must not stand next to me. I have the gift of making nearly everyone's bum look smaller, due to the *ahem* generosity of my own proportions. [Big Grin]

Definitely want the SOF PopTarts to come western stateside... [Yipee]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(pictures AM slumped over keybord, muttering to self, Poptarts. Great, now we're poptarts. These jokes have a way of not going away...)
 
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I don't want to do French I want to do American and call it Cosmogate.
Doing it French would involve making Cosmo the Community Editor.
 
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
I know declare this party thread...

open!

[Votive] [Votive] [Votive]

(I need some leave, Hosts. I'm trying to finish an M.Th)

[Trimmed to be easier to scroll past, like the rest of Gordo's posts.]

[ 18. October 2006, 18:24: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Remove the lampshade from your head, close the browser and go back to work.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Gordon go and be a dipshit somewhere else.
 
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Actually I was rather hoping for a suspension, rather than abuse. I've got a lot of work to do and any help would be greatly appreciated.

G
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Most normal people just press the 'off' button. But then perhaps that is asking rather a lot.
 
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
At > 15000 posts, I'm wondering how you know that.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
How dare you suggest, Gordon, that Chorister is normal, she's magnificently C of E.

Display some discipline and get to work. Ah, discipline is of the devil, though. (Actually I'd better do some work myself).
 
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
How dare you suggest, Gordon, that Chorister is normal
I suggested nothing of the sort!

Anyway, help me out here RooK or someone. I need a three week suspension and about a paragraph of abuse, that should see me through.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Gordon, darling. Go back to work. You have three daughters to support. Think how they will feel as they are thrown out of their home, due to the indolence and addiction of their father, to a website.

The shame. The shame.
 
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Ooh that hurts, LATA. Actually I'm at my dad's at the mo, helping him out after a cataract operation. He's in a pretty bad way, I actually had to guide him into the kitchen so that he could find the cooking stuff, and TBH it smells pretty bad out there. I think he's burnt something. I may have to get myself some takeaway.

Luckily I brought a few books relevant to my study (AF Scott Pearson, W Torrance Kirby, Cartwright's Confutation of the Rhemist Testament, and of course I have good internet access to the Moore College library catalogue. But whenever I go to log on to the relevant index I end up here.

So I can only see one way out, hence this thread derailment.

Thanks all for being understanding, and where's Pyx_e when you need him. Oh, sorry, sore point.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Go away Gordon and do us and yourself a favour.

[ 18. October 2006, 09:15: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Ooh that hurts, LATA. Actually I'm at my dad's at the mo, helping him out after a cataract operation. He's in a pretty bad way, I actually had to guide him into the kitchen so that he could find the cooking stuff, and TBH it smells pretty bad out there. I think he's burnt something. I may have to get myself some takeaway.

Right. So dad, who can't see at the moment, is burning his dinner, because you are here, wasting time?

Or has he gone up in flames? Gordon, I am deeply ashamed of you.

Get thee to the kitchen, and make him some dinner, now.
 
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
[QUOTE]
Or has he gone up in flames? Gordon, I am deeply ashamed of you.

That's a thought now...oh dear.

Alright, I better see if I can help him out, so to speak. This could look really bad on a CV otherwise.

Bye all.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Gordon - loser-boy - if you are trying to get suspended, you are making a real mess of it. If you are wanting to illustrate just how pointless and annoying you are, you are doing a good job.

Now piss off, and get a life.
 
Posted by fight-club for the soul (# 11098) on :
 
Wot 'e said. Although I was also going to say that you should do the boards a favour and short out your computer power supply with your teeth.

Go on, it'll be fun.

only gordo could make me ashamed to be an australian...
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fight-club for the soul:
<snip>
only gordo could make me ashamed to be an australian...
And let's face it, there's plenty of competition. [Biased]
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Now if Gordo really wants to be suspended, he could come up to Purgatory and say those things...I'd be only too happy to make a recommendation to the Admins.

On the other hand, he could do it the easy way and just stop reading (if you read, you post, IME).

John
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:
Luckily I brought a few books relevant to my study (AF Scott Pearson, W Torrance Kirby, Cartwright's Confutation of the Rhemist Testament, and of course I have good internet access to the Moore College library catalogue. But whenever I go to log on to the relevant index I end up here.
If you were reading Henri de Lubac, Herbert McCabe and John Milbank and were accessing the collection at Mirfield you wouldn't have this problem.

[Darth Vader voice] Join the Dark Side! You know you want to![/Darth Vader voice]
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Glad to see you embracing your dark, sinister, sinful side, Gordon. That wanting forgiveness through penance...well..is so...CATHOLIC. [Devil]
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Now if Gordo really wants to be suspended, he could come up to Purgatory and say those things...I'd be only too happy to make a recommendation to the Admins.

On the other hand, he could do it the easy way and just stop reading (if you read, you post, IME).

John
Ah, but it's not so easy. Just five minutes here or there on the Ship turns into hours. And before you know it you've failed to do any work for a whole morning .... well you may as well consider the afternoon to be a write off and despite all your best intentions you end up on the Ship anyway. Instead of watching that film this evening you'd better catch up on some work. But when you're on the computer typing and trying to do the decent thing, it's irresistible to see who has responded to your oh, so clever post on that Purgatory thread and that's it.... a whole day gone.....

.... aaargh

Now this is by no means the way I use the Ship - always moderate, I disappear for weeks at a time. But I am an addict and I read almost daily (I only post when I know I've got the time to respond). However I can read into the mind of a degenerate addict like Gordon. He feels he needs to be banned in order to get off the drug - but he'll only start reading a pale imitation and gradually he'll graduate onto stronger and stronger forums until even SOF won't be enough for him. Have mercy on him and just ban him for a few days.

[ 18. October 2006, 19:21: Message edited by: Spawn ]
 
Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
what the heck happened to Ancient Mariner, media pop tart? and that saucy strumpet? what curious discussion drift...
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Ooh that hurts, LATA. Actually I'm at my dad's at the mo, helping him out after a cataract operation. He's in a pretty bad way, I actually had to guide him into the kitchen so that he could find the cooking stuff, and TBH it smells pretty bad out there. I think he's burnt something. I may have to get myself some takeaway.
So long as you get him a takeaway too. Feeding the hungry is, after all, one of the corporal works of mercy.

Deborah
 
Posted by Luke (# 306) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
...
Thanks all for being understanding, and where's Pyx_e when you need him. Oh, sorry, sore point.
I haven't checked the ship very religiously lately and missed the whole Cosmo debacle and now this about Pyx_e. What happened to Pyx_e?
 
Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
if you're really interested, you can read the whole thread, up in the Styx, and see Pyx_e take umbrage and cast off... *sigh*
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Does anyone else find itinteresting that AM can take a perfectly good hell call, and turn it around into a money making opportunity, whereas Gordon can take a thoroughly enjoyable thread and turn it into another "Gordon is a wanker" thread?

It says something about them both, IMO.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
One is a money making tart and the other is a brain dead git?
 
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
One is a money making tart and the other is a brain dead git?
Paypal donations welcome.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
I think we're done here.

Marvin
Hellhost
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0