Terry Kelly has got around to reading my post about his blog, and has used the SBR as his vehicle to get into a slanging match. I'll re-direct him here. The Councillor writes:
"I’ve just found this site, I read with interest that the author thought that it was a no no to refuse to print readers comments even abusive ones, he accused me of this. I then got to the bit where the author says he doesn’t much care for me or what I write and that consequently I am to be excluded from his site. I’m going back to read it again just in case I got it wrong, no I got it right, wow, beam me up ! janus faced C - - - but at least it’s Scottish c - - - is it worth arguing with people like this?"
Well, Terry, you'll notice that my blogroll points to people with a wide range of political opinions. Given the range, it's impossible that I could agree with all of them: I link to blogs that pique my interest and get me thinking. I post reciprocal links (a link to me leads to a link to you, as soon as I notice that you've linked here). I post links that contribute to the debate. My reasons for not linking to you (other than your failure on all three criteria, though I do read you occasionally) are detailed at the end, as an inducement for you to read the whole post this time.
Now, yes, death threats and spam are fair game for deletion (I've never had the former but until I turned on Word Verification I got a lot of the latter), but it seems to me that when you publish a comment, you feel that it's one you can answer by regurgitating the same old script. Suggesting that 'it's not worth arguing with people like this' smacks not just of sticking your head in the sand, but something worse: 'People like this', you write. What happened to being 'against discrimination'? You've lumped people into a vague category yourself, and promised to ignore anyone in it, so we can add snobbery and hypocrisy to the list of charges that frustrated bloggers are making.
Further, you stopped reading (and re-reading) midway through my post. You must have done because otherwise you would have seen this:
Of course, if the good Councillor wishes to rebut my post on the Comments section, he's more than welcome to. I don't mind having my opinions disputed in public.
But once again, you have chosen not to let reality stand in the way of a rant. And you still haven't answered any of the substantive points I've made.
Finally, on my refusal to link to you: I pointed out that I find your attempt to hijack my community and drag us into your diatribes utterly offensive. While I do post a wide variety of links, I stop short of anything that horrifies me. The fact that you are willing to turn the LGBT community (and the English, incidentally) into one giant political plaything is crass in the extreme. The fact that you are willing to lie in order to do so (see my original post on the matter, or did you miss that as well?) only compounds my deep feeling of disgust. That is why I do not link to you.
(UPDATE: The Councillor has dared to publish a comment of mine, suggesting that he display a selection of the Comments he has suppressed to let blog readers make up their own minds as to whether it's his position or everyone else's that's justified. Unfortunately he claims not to have received any abusive posts in the last three and a half weeks. Now he didn't publish the comment that I sent him on the 22 December, which was less than three and a half weeks ago, so either he didn't receive it - how convenient! - or he deleted it not because it was abusive, but for other reasons which he has never mentioned in his Comment Moderation Policy.)