Anyone who regularly reads my blog knows that I generally post one or sometimes two lengthy articles (or “Op Eds”) each week, these average between fifteen and twenty five paragraphs, usually including numerous embedded links to the research I have done whilst compiling the article.
People may not like or agree with what I write, but, when it comes to my opinion pieces I usually provide substantiation for the claims I make and back up what I say.
However, I do not have the time to write lengthy essays on a daily basis so, knowing from the web stats that I have a loyal and growing daily readership, from time to time I post links to interesting or off beat stories I have spotted on other blogs, such as the amazing story of the Ethiopian man with 100 children from John of Gwent’s blog, or various pithy essays from South Africa Sucks.
I don’t pretend that that these are my articles or that I have researched or verified them in any way.
Thus it was with the post I made at the weekend, quoting the first three lines from a Daily Mail article regarding a report which claims that life in modern Britain is more dangerous than the Balkans, I then linked to the Mail website in order that readers could read the rest of the article on Daily mail site.
Given how unlike the majority of my posts that was, you would think that not even my most staunch of critics would suggest that it, in any way represented the general content of my blog. If so, you would have thought wrong. It appears that this blog had come to the attention of a blogger who calls himself Shiraz Socialist, and it seems that he (I assume he's a he) doesn’t think much of it, dismissing me as a “Right wing Nutjob”, and mocking the blog title picture, which he fails to gather is a tad ironic. Which is fine, I am a supporter if free speech and he is entitled to his opinion. However, he then proceeds to use the three line quote from the Daily Mail, and only the three line quote from the Daily Mail as representative of the content of this blog, which anyone who has spent even moments here can see is just not the case.
Shiraz actually states that I use the Daily Mail to “back up” my argument, how can that be given that none of it is my argument?, it is a direct three line quote from the Daily Mail. The only words of mine in the whole post is “read the full news report here”. (oh yes and I changed the word “yesterday” to “Friday” as I posted it on Sunday)
It was a news story, which I linked to as I felt people who read here might find it interesting, I made no suggestion that it was my work or my opinion. In that respect, it is for the mail to substantiate their articles, in the same way as I substantiate mine. Shiraz suggests that the Mail is spinning, however, interestingly, he doesn’t actually say the story is untrue.
Now, I am not one of those bloggers who complains when someone takes the pi$$, that goes with the territory, but frankly if someone is going to criticise my writing, they could at the very least do so by criticising something I had actually written.
The link to the Mail column was right next to a lengthy article of my own about the plight of white boys within our society, and covering various issues from feminism to the Duke Lacrosse travesty however, it seems that might be too challenging for Shiraz who is not ready to take me on regarding my own writing, he prefers to hold me responsible for something written by a Mr. Justin Stares at the Daily Mail.
Shiraz says of me that “She witters and wibbles on ad infinitum,” maybe I did, but not about Justin Stares' article, there were only three lines from that on the blog, which, even to someone of Shiraz's limited horizons is not exactly "ad infinitum".
Shiraz Socialist's 'disingenuousness' is nothing new, but it makes an interesting object lesson in the deceit which comes so naturally the opposition. Isn't this always the way with those on the other side of the debate?, it really appears that they are incapable of arguing their case in an honest way. and seem compelled to resort to lies. Shiraz is no different to all the others, as we see, even in that short piece the poor boy can't resist the usual references to “fascism” they always apply to those of us who don't buy into their fantasy that their multicultural experiment is a success, and of course references to limited “gene pools” and “zog” are straight from the beginner's guide to anti BNP humour, come back when you have learnt to write your own jokes. (I have never been quite sure what, or who, is “zog” anyway!?)
As ever with supporters of multiculturalism, Shiraz's attack is based on a lie, he seeks to mock my writing by holding up as an example something I didn't write. His masters have taught him well, if you can't argue with the truth, tell a lie, and rely on the fact that most people will not notice.
Of course, we are in the state we are today, because Shiraz's masters used the same trick, and have lied through their teeth for the last forty years, it's what they do.
After that I need a drink, but tonight I think I will stick with the Rioja.
PS: The link to Orwell's Picnic which Shiraz finds it odd to see on my list of interesting blogs and sites, is there because it is an interesting site, and also which has made some pleasant comments about my writing in the past. Hence, Shiraz may need to rethink his prejudices ..uh .... preconceptions.