Well, I've done it! A minute proportion of my Mac's hard drive has been allocated to Bill Gates and his totally awful system! And I am trying to type this post on it! No mean feat, I can tell you! Having got used to my new Swiss keyboard, when I installed XP it only recognises American keyboards, thus I am now playing a guessing game as to where the letters are (back to qwerty) and especially, the symbols. The @ sign has now gone back to above the 2 as opposed to ALT G, the () are above 9 and 0 and not 8 and 9, etc. etc. So excuse the typos.
It would seem however that one can jolly up the posts on Microsoft - already I see more options are available, like italics, colour, etc. and I suppose I can pick things off the internet to add to a post. At the moment I cannot add photos as I have no photos in my album here. But will I use Microsoft? I think not - the laptop grinds away, makes funny indigestion noises, every two minutes a warning sign of some kind flashes up on the screen about viruses, my trackpad no longer has the speed of a scuttling mouse but that of a large slug and the graphics are just downright ugly. Much of this could be improved if I made the effort, which I might do eventually, but I can see why Apple refuses to recognise the Microsoft system - I feel as though I am working on a computer that is ten years old - I used a PC ten years ago and in that time, nothing has changed. It is fussy, boring and totally lacks imagination.
Sorry all you Microsoft users out there (like 98% of the population) but it pains me so see this sleek machine adulterated!
PS. This bit is written on Mac - with no warning, Microsoft closed down as I had no battery left. Was in rather a panic as I am wary of Microsoft and wouldn't have been surprised if something very nasty had happened. Mac warns me when I am low on
battery and you have enough time to plug into the mains...hey, ho!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
90 comments:
I feel your pain, Louise. I hate running anything Microsoft on my Mac at home. We use PCs at the office and sometimes it's liking driving a car with square wheels. A friend of mine just switched (with great trepidation because she'd been using a PC for years) to her first Mac and now she's into a kind of computer evangelist. She's accepted Steve Jobs as her saviour and wants to tell the world.
I too am a disciple of Steve Jobs!
If only Bill could get into a diaper in the morning instead of dribbling all over the blogs.
What a sad waste of your time and energy. I'm not sure which is worse: that you're a moron or a coward. But for you, the knowledge that you're both can't be very pleasant to live with.
Anonymous - you obviously don't have children. Diapers (or nappies as we call them) are put round the lower half of a baby; when they dribble one usually puts a bib round their neck.
Could be talking about a different kind of dribbling, Louise (one, I should point out, that I'm not yet prone to).
Yes, I thought of that as I was typing - so, okay, Anonymous knows nothing about babies, but perhaps he has prostate problems!
I have no idea what the difference is between a PC and a Mac - except that a Mac is much prettier. Can anyone tell me - in a language that I can understand - why a Mac is better? I never thought I'd say this but all this technology talk is starting to interest me...
I wonder if anonymous is the one who posted the Bible quotes and doggerel over on Colin R's blog? Does anyone care?
Much prettier and much simpler, Gigi; much more intuitive to use - often what takes five steps on a PC will take only one on a Mac -and immune to most computer viruses. Bill Gates was better at marketing than Steve Jobs but most of the so-called advances in PCs were already standard in Macs. Lots of people make the switch from a PC to a Mac; very few go in the other direction.
Only anonymous cares about anonymous.
What's the difference between a Bentley and a Ford Mondeo - that's the difference between Mac and PC! If you change, it will take a little time to get used to, as Mac automatically does things that you have to do manually on a PC. Viruses are virtually unknown (not worth the hackers' time) - most film stuff, graphic design etc. is done with Macs - far more versatile and artistique! Truly this morning when I used PC nothing has changed in ten years apart from a zillion virus warnings, a few more awful desktop photos, a few more horrid beeps, etc. etc.
I can vocally give orders to my Mac if I want, it reads my mail, shuts down, opens up a programme - so much easier to give a vocal command rather than clicking on horrid little out of date symbols as proposed by PC.
Sorry, I am a 100% Mac user and have been for many years, and we do tend to get a bit emotional when asked the difference! If you know someone who has a Mac, try and use it for a couple of hours - once bitten...
PS I don't work for Steve Jobs, I don't get commission (but should, seeing the amount of Mac stuff that is in our house!), just a fan...!
I'm inclined to agree with you, Gigi, re this "latest" anonymous. It's probably Bill Taylor's reference to "saviour" that has rattled this sad person's cage. It's of a piece with the bible bashing.
See Robert Marchenoir's superb deflating of (probably the same) "anonymous" on Colin Randall's latest hyperbole post.
um - er - the difference between a Bentley and a Ford Mondeo? Um...no, hang on, I do know, really...um...does one have square wheels?
Well, anyway,I am truly considering this change one day...your description is certainly alléchante, Louise. I'll let you know...anon :-)
Damn, you're good with those puns! Might you look for a pinky-red Mac? I keep thinking a new one would be nice but I draw the line at something that talks back to me.
Was Robert Marchenoir's post specific to Anonymous'comment?
Ask him, before you throw his name around.
Anonymous stated Louises' father was a gentleman.
I support that comment.
2 points for the gentleman.
"Was Robert Marchenoir's post specific to Anonymous'comment?"
Since you ask, anonymous, then yes, I believe it was. So you'll have to excuse me if ignore the rest of your comments, and get back to my book.
PS Whilst it's not often that I agree with Richard of Orléans, I believe his policy of refusing to accept anonymous comments is the correct one for an unmoderated blog.
Your Mac doesn't have to talk to you, Bill - only if you want it to! If you get a new Mac, buy one with the shiny screen - a vast improvement and brilliant for photos.
Having to juggle between two blogs (Colin R's and this one) isn't exactly easy.
Robert Marchnoir's comment could have referred to Colin's posting, my comment or anyone else for that matter ... and does it matter?
I know you and I do not see eye to eye, Colin, on the question of people posting as 'anonymous' - what do you call an 'unmoderated blog'? I read the posting on my blog with pleasure, on the whole, and will delete a posting if I personally find it offensive. I don't see the point of filtering comments, only to end up with a chocolate box blog (ha!).
With his track record, it was perhaps wise for Richard to stop any anonymous comments - but as you will have noticed, generally he steers clear of English bashing on his blog and as Gigi remarked on his latest blog, there is a marshmallow in the man, waiting to get out!
Personally, I'd have deleted that first one from "anonymous", Louise. It's not just that it's spiteful, failing to make clear what Bill T has said that offended him/her. It's the fact that it risks yet another of these guessing games as to who sent it, with all the suspicion, finger-pointing, and risk of wrong identification.
It's not about free speech, as Colin R would have us believe. It's about having ground rules that allow debate to continue. Consider - there's a Speaker in the Commons who intervenes when personal attacks are made, and will insist on an offending MP withdrawing a comment. But I've never heard the Speaker referred to as an enemy of free speech. It's recognized by all parties that he/she performs an essential job in creating a climate that in fact protects free speech.
Folk should not be inhibited from expressing an opinion for fear they will be made the target for a personal attack, which is made so much easier here by writing in as "anonymous". Smacks rather of the poison pen letter, does it not ?
PS You've asked this morning on my own blog when I'm coming out of hibernation. Fact is that the creative juices have dried up where mine is concerned, so for hibernation now read "suspended animation". If it's irritating to keep seeing that same pair of slippers when you log on, Louise, then set up a feed if you haven't already done so, that alerts you to the next new post from D&D, which may be some time in coming. Cue for Bill Taylor ....
Yes, I agree it was a stupid remark, and I think Bill dealt with it.
Problem is - taking this example - do I as the blogger edit out his remark, or as receiver of the remark, does Bill defend himself?
As you say, the anonymous in question does not say why he is bitching at Bill - is it just a general 'I don't like this Bill guy', or did Bill make a remark that displeased him? Bill said that this person is a moron and a coward - I agree with him there, but do I give this anonymous person the pleasure of my 'Disgusted in Tunbridge Wells' act and zap him from the blog?
Obviously I don't know Bill and I don't know whether he lost sleep over such a stupid remark, but he saw the remark for what it was - rubbish from a sad person ...
Suite...
If I do not allow anonymous comment, there are people that for some reason are 'frightened' of using their/a name ... by allowing anonymous comment these people do come forward. Every now and then the odd ball appears, attacks and then disappears.
Thus saying, it's not as if my blog is particularly 'osé'!
Comments like these do smack of poison pen letters, I agree - yet again, I have no time for people who can't and won't stand up and be counted.
A PS for the anonymous sad anorak person who posted on this blog - don't think that the comments I am making along with Colin have made you into a 'star' - this discussion is not new, but rears it's ugly head every now and then.
Right on !
Louise. You state that Robert Marchenoir's comment could have referred to anyone. I agree with you. You said does it matter. Yes it matters.
His name (RM) was taken to be used as collateral to insult Anonymous against GG. This is disrespectful to Robert Marchenoir,Anonymous and GG.
Yes it matters.
And may I add?
I do not write poison pen letters.
I stand up for myself and will not allow abuse.
Colin Berry is your poison here.
Bill Taylor is your "star" on insults.
Is this satisfactory with you?
If not, please delete.
I'm sorry, but I am starting to lose the thread here.
On Colin R's latest blog, RM says 'What a load of bollocks' - is he referring to Colin's post, or to one or all of the comments? Until he tells us, all is speculation, and therefore until that time (if RM fills us in), I repeat that it cannot matter. Personally, if he was referring to my comment about my father, then I would be pretty upset - but we don't know, do we and until we do, then why get screwed up about it?
I suppose, Anonymous, that you are the same person that writes at the beginning and the end of this blog - as you refuse to come out I have to make this supposition. You say on your last posting that you do not write poison pen letters - the remark addressed to Bill at the beginning of the blog was not what I would call exactly 'nice'...
You stand up for yourself and will not allow abuse - you stand up for yourself anonymously, do not allow others to abuse, but use abuse youself ...
You are convinced that Colin B and Bill are the niggers in the woodpile (ooooh! what a naughty thing to say) and yet you have no idea to whom RM's remark was addressed.
I do not delete on my blog, unless I think the remarks are totally out of control, so I will not give you that pleasure at the present time.
My blog may be chocolate boxy, but don't push me too far Anonymous - there's fight in the old girl yet.
Louise,the thread is lost as you say.
I'm confident I made my point clearly on thr Robert Marchenoir issue.
If you think the Bill Taylor post was "not nice",you may be correct.
But let's wait 'til his leg drys up then see what can be done here.
If I'm abusing myself, best to write as Anonymous, wouldn't you say?
Keep well and enjoy those chocolates.
Best wishes to you.
Briefly, Louise, no I don't lose sleep over what anyone says about me on these blogs. I find anonymous comments and the people who make them quite contemptible but I can fight my own corner and I would never argue for any kind of censorship other than to agree that you should remove anything that you find personally offensive. And I've just picked up on a bit of a thread re the "dribbling" crack. A little while ago I told Gigi that her pun-filled poem had left me wondering if my leg would ever dry.
Meanwhile, I see over on Salut! that Anne Gilbert appears to be retiring. I wonder if that will also mean an end to many if not all of the anonymous posts.
Be that as it may, I'm much more interested in your "shiny screen" Mac. I had no idea there was a choice of screens. And it would seem to me that a shiny screen would reflect ambient light and be bad for photos. But obviously it isn't. How come?
If would be great is some of the anonymous remarks disappeared - we'll see how things go.
Although a Mac fan, I can't really help you with the shiny screen! These kind of questions are out of my territory!
The screen can reflect ambient light but that is just a question of organising your desktop lamp. I get a reflection from the afternoon sun from the wall behind me, but that is only because I don't pull the blind down. For some reason (and you will have to go onto the Apple site for technical info), the screen seems to be a lot 'deeper' and the lines and colours are far sharper. Perhaps they have increased the number of pixels on the screen, I really don't know. All I can say is the MacBook Pro is night and day compared with the PowerBook, which I thought was great. And the speed for downloading photos is phenominal - a couple of seconds and thirty odd photos are on iPhoto!
I would take a comparison photo for you, but I gave my 'old' laptop to my brother. The favourite son has also converted to the new MacBookPro (the black one of course!) - I found him a reconditioned one from Apple which worked out £300 cheaper than new and with a year guarantee as the new ones - so far it is working perfectly despite all the rubbish he downloads onto it and not being delivered in a super cool Apple box - but who cares for £300!
My experience of Macs is restricted to 10 mins on a tutee's computer: it certainly seemed to have been programmed by someone closer to Earth than Planet Zog.
That's not much to go on, granted, but one wonders if an apt analogy for Microsoft versus Apple is not the "Owl and the Pussy Cat". The first is a carnivorous fly-by-night character, sharp beak, claws and fierce stare. As for the second, well, it's still a killing machine of sorts when it wants to be, but is basically more user-friendly towards us people, who after all keep it provided with square meals, come rain or shine.
In modern parlance, the Apple business model would appear to be the more sustainable of the two ......
I was tempted to add another comment re "anonymous". But why bother when there's Louise and Bill Taylor, who between them have said everything that I wanted to, or dared not say, for fear of being misunderstood ?
Now, come on Colin! What's all this about fear of being misunderstood? We all know that blogs aren't going to change our real lives, don't we? We know that it's just a bit of fun, don't we? We can take a bit of stick, can't we? I run my blog along the line that whatever I write I am not frightened or embarrassed to say in real life.
My family motto is 'esse quam videri' (or perhaps it is 'esse quam videre - oops! I can't remember and Latin was sooo long ago!) and hopefully I try and apply it.
Get your googling hat on, and throw youself back into the lions' den!
GCSE question (Summer 2007):
"Blogs aren't going to change our real lives".
Discuss.
"Videri" is right. Wow -- "to be, rather than to seem" is a great family motto. It's also the state motto of North Carolina.
I must get myself into the Apple store downtown and have a look around. Always a risk because you never come out of these places empty-handed and I'm really not financially in the market for a new computer at the moment. I'm waiting until spring when Canon is bringing out a new, professional-quality printer that is apparently phemonenal for black-and-white shots. I don't understand all the ins and outs but the store actually advised me against buying the current high-end Canon, which has 8 colours, and to wait for the new one, which has 10 (including grey -- rather than a mix of colours to produce grey -- and TWO blacks, which apparently makes all the difference). They weren't able to quote me a price but it won't be cheap. It's almost time to do my tax return so I'm hoping for some kind of refund.
Of course blogs will change our (the general public) lives, just as Internet has - yet more information flowing through the ether. There are perhaps people who will become 'famous' via their blog (like 'Petite Anglaise' who has won herself a book contract) but how many actually do become 'famous'? Not many, methinks - like pop stars, actors, or models - a few success stories for thousands of failures.
Maybe there are people who blog hoping to become recognised - personally it is not my leitmotiv. And I imagine, perhaps wrongly, that it is not yours, Colin. I personally started blogging when my job got too stressful and writing/typing stopped me taking it out on my friends and family and becoming totally boring and tiresome. Once I got together the courage to resign, I had been bitten by the bug!
Apart from the cost of buying your Canon, Bill, I hate to think how much the cartridges will cost to replace! Ten of them! I bought 4 new Canon cartridges yesterday for my horrid IP3000 and it cost me 80CHF! What a rip-off! Unfortunately we don't have Viking here.
True enough. Regular printers are very cheap but the manufacturers make their money on the ink cartridges. So buying 10 will certainly be an expense. Some of it, though, should be tax-deductible. And it's the price I have to pay if I want to do my own printing rather than farm it out and lose a little bit of creative control.
When I bought my Subaru last year, the dealer was honest enough to admit that their real profit doesn't come from selling cars but from servicing them afterwards.
Back in 80s, a printer took a huge bite out of one's budget when buying a computer. Now, you can get it for peanuts, or even for free if you shop around. But, as Bill says, the business model is based on making profits, and (arguably) quickly recouping the cost of heavily subsidised hardware from the repeated cost of replacing those expensive cartridges.
There was a letter to the Times some time ago in which someone worked out the cost of printer ink per millilitre. It was not far short of Chanel perfume as I recall !
I'm still thinking about how to reply to your "celebrity-seeking" comment Louise. It's not the defence that's the problem: it's how to put it into a quick few words, not being blessed with your gift for succinct expression. All I would say for now is that what interests me is the world of ideas. Celebrity can go hang.
Words have never failed you Colin, only your ethics.
But you can learn.
As in "ideas, friends and Greek".
Quick bit of arithmetic here:
Having bought 65ml of ink yesterday, it works out at approximately £508 for a litre.
My perfume (which isn't Chanel but costs roughly the same price) costs about £25 for 50ml.
Look a bit silly though spraying myself with ink! But if I used perfume in my printer, wouldn't my invisible letters smell nice!
Ohmigawd: anonymous is back.
Haven't a clue what you're on about. In fact, it's all Greek to me.
PS I reckon I've taught some few thousand pupils in my time at the chalkface. Are you one of them, anonymous ?
Perhaps a mixture might do for both, Louise. Heavy on the ink for printing and much much lighter for dabbing behind your ears. Comparative pricing can be an eye-opener, though. Litre for litre, in North America anyway, bottled water is significantly more expensive than gasoline (or petrol, if you'd rather).
Isn't Ethics a county near Thuthics?
Now then, Colin - naughty! You know the anonymous person is talking about the 'poem' on CR's last post.
I'm not saying you are the author, just that by pretending you don't know what he is talking about, you set yourself up. Just don't reply!
Your invisible letters would then become anonymous.
Your friends observing your cat walk,would perhaps wish that you were anonymous.
I have a litre bottle of Femme, bought in Martinique years ago.
Colour of tea now.
Would you like it for your printer?
Thanks, but no thanks.
Perhaps Bill would like it for his printer, if he is into sepia photos, that is.
You are wrong anonymous - my letters would perhaps be invisible, but not anonymous, as they would smell of my perfume...
Didn't you say you were going, Anne? Or did you mean you've only stopped haunting Colin Randall's blog? Anyway, why don't you pop off and drink that litre of Femme? A few hours of blessed alcoholic oblivion and it'll sweeten your breath, too. Everybody wins.
Colin, no I am not one of your former pupils.
I can honestly say wish I had been.
My fate was Battle Abbey.
Oh well!
My iPhoto program lets me print in sepia, Louise, but it's an effect that only works on a few subjects and I don't find it very appealing. I'd far rather go with black and white.
Actually, who buys litre bottles of perfume? Rather blingy.
Shall I hop off, Louise?
Unless it's for internal use, Louise. Femme contains peach, plum, lemon and clove oil so it might be quite tasty. Like a really, really raw slivovitz, perhaps.
Externally, it's probably very effective for cleaning all those blingy gold chains and bracelets.
Yes, the sepia button isn't very interesting. On the new Mac is a very amusing programme called Photo Booth - you photograph yourself (as in a photo booth), the difference being that there are funny effects such as tranforming the photo into Xray, Thermal, cartoon and various other bits! There is also another effect which photographs you looking all distorted, like in those Hall of Mirrors one used to find in fair grounds.
The kids of course take hundreds of those photos and on days I am feeling particularly ugly, I take a distorted photo of myself and then look in the mirror and instantly feel better!
Some two, maybe three years ago, I put in an idea for Ken Livingstone's "£100,000 prize" for cooling the London Underground during the summer months. It involved special trains that trundled round, evaporating liquefied air, creating coolness and fresh air.
Our Ken has since said there was no winner (surprise, surprise) but by the way I'd mention that a Google search revealed that one can buy a bit of compact equipment that plugs into any old mains socket, turning out liquefied air at 50 pence per litre, cheaper than the few token bottles of mineral water that London Transport hands out when its tube passengers are dropping like flies from heat exhaustion.
If you are feeling particularly amphibian, then do hop if you wish, Anonymous.
Talking of slivovitz - one of my brothers was in Bosnia working on the reconstruction programme after the war - he used to call slivovitz 'slip in the ditch' as that was normally the effect it had on him!
You've got to put some of those photos up on the blog, Louise -- X-rays and cartoons? I love it.
I have something on my PC at work that turns a photographer into a "watercolour." Sometimes they look quite nice. I never have but you could do that, print it on very high-quality paper or even canvas (something else this new Canon printer can handle), frame it and you have an instant work of art!
One has to be creative here, as one drives off.
A few drops of Femme in the gas tank as engine cleanser, the fragrance from the tailpipe as the signature.
Best wishes to Louise.
Bill
&
Colin
I thought you were hopping off to your Femme filled pond, Anon, not driving.
I meant, of course, turns a PHOTOGRAPH not the photographer into a watercolour.
Given Anonymous Anne's penchant for dribbling, it might be appropriate to tell her/him/it to p*** off.
Thought you were looking a littled washed-out today, Bill! Sorry that was truly pathetic...
Put it down to the snow which is chucking it down at the moment (about time too).
Actually, no, that was quite a good one.
We have snow on the ground here and more forecast but for now the sun is shining (which means it'll be bloody cold) and I'm off to the supermarket, having just put a load of laundry into the washing machine. It's my day to do the domestic bit.
Golly. I can't leave you lot alone for a minute, can I? 55 comments??!!
I don't even understand most of them. Very intriguing, though. Especially the bit about turning the photographer into a watercolour.
...and a few more comments there while I was writing mine!
That was a good pun, Louise. Wish I'd thought of it :-)
As you may have noticed, I don't have a clicker on my blog (impossible to download thru' Mac) and it's all very by the way as one shouldn't count one's own postings I think.
A very good point. Others take note.
I wonder what colinb has been saying here and then having 2nd thoughts about.
Nothing mysterious there, Lucien. I was just spring-cleaning some boring and largely redundant comments of mine re Blogger's comment counter.
BTW: is there anything you could say to disabuse Richard of Orléans of the idea that you are me, and vice versa ? I'd ask the same of "SH" and "anonyhamster" but I don't think they have posted to Louise's blog.
PS Louise: why did you allow yesterday's "anonymous" to make a personal attack on me ? Neither the comment about poison nor ethics was supported with a shred of evidence. So why weren't those comments deleted ? Is this your idea of free speech - to allow one poster, a cowardly anonymous one to boot, to pillory another, especially one who appears under his real name ?
PPS Sorry, Lacombe, I didn't mean to address you by your surname, sans title.
Didn't we have this debate yesterday? I, too, was the subject of an anonymous personal attack and accused, without a shred of evidence, of being incontinent -- at least verbally. I defended myself; end of story.
Much as I despise anonymous comments and those who make them, freedom of speech absolutely includes whatever the anonymice choose to say (within the bounds of legality). Perhaps it's not they who should stay away from blogging but those with paper-thin skins.
It's curious that Colin Berry has waited until now to voice his outrage and question Louise's motivation. His response yesterday after the comments about poison and ethics had been passed was simply to express his incomprehension at what anonymous was talking about and to ask whether he or she was a former student of his.
Odd, too, that he seems happy to accept Lacombe Lucien at face value when LL is almost certainly a pseudonym. Lacombe Lucien was, of course, a 1974 movie in which said one reviewer, director Louis Malle "dramatically explored the idea that human primal instinct and moral ignorance are the only conditions necessary for evil to do its work."
Given that Lacombe Lucien here is not registered on these blogs, doesn't that effectively make him/her anonymous?
Yesterday it was distasteful references to poison and ethics. Today it's milder - "paper thin skins". But why the constant put-downs ? Why reduce everything to this personal level ?
This is not about one over-sensitive individual. It's a matter of principle: Colin R, and now Louise, are allowing people, in the name of "free speeech" to abuse the anonymous facility to make these character attacks, then to walk away, lie low, and come back again and again.
I really do not understand why Louise has not deleted the offensive comments from yesterday's "anonymous". That was no shrinking violet who according to Louise justifies keeping the anonymous option.
Blogging should be a rewarding past-time, but these "anonymice" have ruined it for me, at any rate, turning it into a thoroughly disagreeable experience.
I only saw your last post after writing and posting mine, Bill.
Very briefly: I am in no doubt that LL is a pseudonym. But we have an LL archive so to speak, which allows us to assess and judge the man, who seems a wholesome, if somewhat uptight individual. But when anonymous appears on a thread, is it their first appearance, and is second anonymous the same or different from the first ? We can only speculate. There's a world of difference between going under a pseudonym that one sticks to, particular to that person, and one of these malevolent "anonymice".
I'm sorry, Colin - my computer worked this morning when I posted my new blog - it has been completely out of action until now - I haven't been able to read any mail or go on the Internet - although the day has been AWFUL, taking a visiting chum of my son down the valley through a snowstorm to get him on a train back to Montpellier and on my return discovering that Pierre didn't shut the door of the house properly and my four-legged friend had done a runner. Gus may be black, but everything becomes invisible in a snowstorm. Some very kind person rang an hour ago to say he was at their house and they where using a hammer to get the snowballs out of his fur!
However - we discussed yesterday the problems of personal attacks and you know my feelings - is it up to me to 'defend' you or should you 'defend yourself? I think that you should basically defend yourself. I have never deleted a post so far; perhaps I am less sensitive than you, but until now there has been nothing posted on my blogs that offends me personally.
I'm sorry that you are upset - to save time, tell me which remark upset you so much.
It's not a matter of principle; it's a matter of YOUR principle, which you are seeking to impose on other people's blogs. I find it ironic that you describe Lacombe Lucien as uptight. Perhaps if you were to loosen up and take these anonymous comments for what they're worth then blogging would be less disagreeable for you. You're far too quick to regard something as a character attack. "Paper-thin skin" is not a putdown. It's an accurate description of what we're seeing on display here.
Is Gus okay, Louise, other than being, I'm sure, cold, wet and miserable? There's nothing worse than a lost pet. I hope he's learned his lesson and will regard open doors more circumspectly.
I'm not seeking to impose my principles on anyone else's blog Bill. If I don't like the way a blog is run, I'll say so, hear what the blogger has to say, and then, if I don't like the answer, I'll vote with my feet. That's essentially what I've done re Colin R's blog: he's allowed people, like Richard of Orléans, and assorted "anonymice" to make serious character attacks. Like R of O's refusal to accept my repeated denials of being SH, anonyhamster and LL. I am none of those individuals, and resent being branded a liar.
I'm sorry to hear about your day, Louise, so rather than add to your problems, I shall now close up the laptop, and go read a book. I may get back tomorrow, or may not, depending on whether, after a night's sleep, it seems worthwhile pursuing this debate, having already been told your position.
I hope Angus is by now fully de-frosted.
Colin - I just like to add that when I first started blogging (jumping into the deep end on Colin R's blog), I rapidly fell foul of Richard, which is none too pleasant! Someone remarked that if I wanted to play in the league I would have to develop the hide of a Rhino (it was probably Richard...). Actually I already had one (not physically, you understand) but was being too polite and weedy to show it.
We also talked yesterday about the importance of blogs - are they life-changing? You and I agreed that they were not. So if they are not going to change your life, then don't take them seriously.
Over on Colin R's blog I mentioned that 'people' like Richard Marchenoir and Lucien Lacombe suddenly appear like rabbits out of a hat and because they have a 'name' they are taken seriously - why? I find them no more credible than the anonymice that post on blogs.
ALL blogs suffer from mice - if you go to the link on my site for grumpy old bookman, he has the same problem and also talks about whether blogs can change one's life (in the last couple of postings).
Sorry, mst off and see what is happening about holidays!
Just seen your post, Colin! I wanted to say 'as usual' but you will get upset. Don't get so upset - this bit of written rubbish is already out of date - like comments on the Times blog - after 10, they drop over the cliff into nothingness - therefore the world is flat!
:o(
I guess it's nice to admit that I use Linux in that case. ;-)
Colin Berry still has not explained why he waited until today to become outraged. His response yesterday, asking anonymous if he/she was a former student of his, was a quite appropriate way to deal with a meaningless insult. What happened overnight to suddenly blow it out of proportion?
Does he ever wonder why he's the only person on these blogs to become so regularly hot under the collar? Why does he take it all so seriously? Doesn't he realize it only makes him appear didactic and ridiculous? It's no longer any fun winding up such an easy target but the anonymice obviously enjoy getting a rise from him.
To see evidence of Taylor's double-standards and hypocrisy, I invite readers to see what he said about Lacombe Lucien on one of Colin Randall's Telegraph blogs.
This is his uncouth and insulting comment, submitted under his alias "James Hamilton"
Reading too much but too little reading
Lacombe Lucien's post is gratuitously offensive, to a xenophobic degree. "Frenchified individuals... Gallic whimpering..."
It is he who is being self-important and anachronistic and avoiding discussion of "the issues raised by a simple newspaper blog." Speaking as an Australian resident in Italy, I suggest that Lacombe Lucien should remain on his own side of the English Channel. Preferably in a locked and shuttered room, in keeping with his locked and shuttered mind.
James Hamilton at 25 Aug 2006 19:34
Yet I when write a balanced description of the same gent as "wholesome if somewhat uptight", I'm immediately jumped upon by the resident bullyboy, and psychoanalysed for daring to use the term "uptight".
Your blogging behaviour nauseates me Taylor. You're an ill-mannered, know-all loudmouth who's in love with the sound of his own voice. You are incapable of sticking to issues: you launch into tirades of abuse against anyone who puts forward views contrary to your own, or who you see as stealing your limelight. Frankly Taylor, as others have said before me, you're a crushing bore.
Wow, Louise. This is a guy with problems.
Here's another comment from the resident Loudmouth on the same thread:
"Lacombe Lucien
really should seek help to overcome his delusions of adequacy "
James Hamilton at 27 Aug 2006 17:32
History repeats itself .....
And he seems to have every blog he's ever read systematically filed.
Again, note the attempt to denigrate any opposition by hinting at psychiatric disorder. That was the technique the Soviets used to silence dissidents. Taylor, for all his professed liberalism, is not just a bully: he's a skilled character assassin to boot
For his information, I simply googled lacombe lucien telegraph blog, but why waste any more time with this control freak ? You're welcome to him, Louise. Goodbye. Have a good life.
This discussion seems to have become very non-PC - if you see what I mean...
I'm off to bed. I'll catch up with the next installment tomorrow.
Bonne nuit :-)
Dorme bien, Gigi. Beau rêve. (What's "pun" in French? Or doesn't it translate?)
As you say, Gigi, very non-PC (good one, that!). I am now definitely leaving this blog and shall move to my holiday one.
I've heard of Linux, Braunstonian, but I'm afraid that is as far as it goes! Technical jargon just floats over the top of my head! My Mac problem was nothing to do with my computer, but came from my server - does Linux sort out that sort of problem? If you reply, please do so in easy computese, otherwise I won't understand a thing!
Post a Comment