Do you want to comment on the Macclesfield Express?

Comment on a story, the paper or the way it is serving our community here

Twitter Joke Trial - I am Spartacus

The ludicrous decision handed down by Judge Jacqueline Davies on the 11th has, rightly, caused a storm. Thousands of people (me included) have re-tweeted the original tweet along with the hashtag #IamSpartacus.

None of us have yet been visited by  the Police, which just makes more of a mockery of the judgement and makes the CPS' and South Yorkshire Police's actions look even more stupid than they did at first.

As for the judge: I cannot improve on the comment made by Philip Hensher in this article in the Independent:

"This week, his appeal was dismissed by a judge, Jacqueline Davies, who has shown all the wisdom, intelligence and discernment of a warthog in a porcelain gallery."

One of the best responses has come from Matt Flaherty on his blog, "Adventures in Flay-land".  See it here

A summary of Junor's positive contributions to the Express' website

Appears in brackets:


(                                                                                                                                                                                                 )

Update, the hypocrite is back!

He has nothing to say except to post abuse. It is amazing that he can't see the irony (or hypocrisy) of his approach.

So, here is a reply, in case the Express censors it:

"Nothing to contribute, "Junior"? No surprise there then. Shame that you don't support the Police in what they have achieved and just want to indulge in your usual Mr Misery type,  hypocrisy and abuse.

I would have thought that, in your plodding way, you might have supported or praised the Police. How wrong I was.

Tell you what, stop acting as if this is a beefy forum and try commenting on the article. You know, practice what you preach"

Trolls, sockpuppets and disciples

Regular viewers of the V Barlow's section on  the Macclesfield Express website will have noticed that, whenever there is criticism of Mr Barlow's views, various names pop up to atack the commenter.

So, now we have "Junior". This looks like just another version of one of the tedious sockpuppets that infest that place.

Same approach (personal attacks and no discussion of the article or opinions)  and even the same phrasing etc.


Sat 6th

Well they're still there.

There is "Four Twenty Wherever" accusing others of trolling and "Junior" with the usual bile. He can't even change the record; we now have the familiar attempt to impose his own rules on what can and can't be said.

I'm not sure about 4-20 yet, although  jumping in with accusations of trollery does seem rather suspect.
I imagine Mr Barlow must be rather embarrassed by the actions of his disciples.

Update. On reflection I reckon that 4-20 is one of the regulars. Same old bleats, same old language, same old approach.  Pathetic.

4 Feb 2011

Well, here we are in another year and the same old, silly old trolls and sockpuppets are there.
Today we had "Quinlan" and he / she didn't even have the originality (or is it intelligence?) to change the script. It was almost word for word what we have seen before.

What is it about free and open discussion that scares these people so?

Interestingly his nasty little comment was removed by the Express after a while. Maybe they are finally waking up to the damage these nasty little bullies are doing to the paper's brand and image.

Then we have "David Davies" who looks remarkably like a few previous users (names) and has pretty much the same MO. Typically snide response to someone commenting on a V Barlow  article. One tell-tale is how quick they are to jump on anyone disagreeing with Mr Barlow.  Mr "Davies" also seems to have some agenda concerning the local Police; now, who does that remind you of?

Puppets and disciples

They're back.
The small group of  disciples whose role in life seems to be to  support Mr Barlow and suppress any discussion of what he has written have been active recently.
Now we have "Chady" claiming not to be one (yes, really!) and yet trotting out the tired old ad homs that they have used so many times before.
In particular he exhibits the classic fear of questions, preferring, it seems, the  "because I said so" form of argument.

Here is the post I have submitted to the Express in answer to this puppet:

[quote name= Chady, Macclesfield].  Also you like to respond by labelling anyone who agrees as a disciple. [/quote]

If the cap fits....

The disciples are those who appear here, using  a variety of names, and do so only ever to agree with Mr Barlow and attack those who want to submit alternative viewpoints.

Quite fun to see your name revived though; I thought that it was one of the more inventive ones.

[quote name= Chady, Macclesfield]The fact that you do not like him, does not give you a cart blanch right to slag off anything he writes. [/quote]

It is what he writes that I  dislike, not him; I’ve never met the man and gather that he can be rather good company. I’ve commented on what he has written and am happy to do so with you as well. I think that, in this case, he is not making a very good point. And the argument from authority fallacy you used does not support his points.

[quote name= Chady, Macclesfield]Then of course it is rather obvious that, you never answer questions, but only ask them, a very boring and insecure tactics[/quote]

Poor old Aristotle, he must be turning in his grave! And, of course, you are wrong in your claim and have no evidence.

You could, of course, enter the discussion and avoid the now familiar ad homs. In normal discussion people ask and answer questions. What is it that you fear about questions and what questions do you have of your own? We have had this ad hom from you many times before and, perhaps, this apparent fear of questions may say more about insecurity than asking them :)

[quote name= Chady, Macclesfield]The views in the article are those of Mr. Barlow, and not necessarily those of the Express.  They are however the views of many Macclesfiedl, Wilmslow, and Knutsford residents.[/quote]

They may well be ( I am sure that they are), but that does not necessarily make them right. You don't test validity by  the number of people who agree  but by evidence. There are plenty of  examples of things believed by many that have been proved to be wrong.

13 October:  There's a new one!  Calling him / her / itelf  "Four Twenty, Whereever".  Same approach though: no discussion or evidence, just abuse.  

The disciple speaks

Poor old Comogio (or whatever name he chooses to use next), he really doesn't get  discussion or humour, does he?
His sole mission in life seems to be to  protect and adore Vic, and woe betide anyone who may  have any alternative views.
He huffs and puffs with blustery (and probably synthetic) moral outrage at any person who strays from the Saint Vic line.
Poor chap, life with him must be one long  round of misery.

Excellent

Excellent