Posts by Che Tibby
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
i'm fence sitting on this one. i agree with i/s for swtiching off comments. the lunatics were out in force when he made the decision. a more puerile bunch of wankers i've never seen.
but, maybe he should swtich them back on with kind of membership/registration proviso.
i very carefully vet anyone who attempts to comment on object dart. dad4justice for example? no effing way.
-
Identity is self-defined; but language doesn't exist in a vacuum.
another way to put that is; i choose my own identity, but my identity is worthless unless it has a group to support it.
so, che can claim to be whatever identity he wants. but, that claim is false unless che has people to recognise it.
the only person who thought idi amin was scottish was, you know, idi amin.
-
No, I'm pretty sure [coconut's] just a pejorative for islanders in general.
like stephen says, use that label at your peril.
-
You really think [readers can have a relationship with a blogger]? Is it a result of them trying to be everything to everyone? Do you mean that the trust relationship is gone, too?
imho, absolutely. relationships are the basis of good blogging.
you don't need to be everything to everyone, or else we'd see PA bloggers launching into anti-helengrad diatribes every now and then.
people read you because they're familiar with your voice and metre, and have come to trust your content.
one of the things i've come to terms with is people realising that i'm not as cool or onto it as the impression they somehow gained from club politique. (and, if you never gained that impression, my point still stands). who people thought i was seemed to be more important than who i actually was outside of the confines of the blog, i.e. brand.
-
if you're sharing the love russell, i have some mates in a sporting blog that might be able to send you some content...
some of it is even believeable.
-
aren't you guys playing along the line between reporting only being authentic if it's included in a major daily, and reporting being authentic based on content?
it seems that in russell's case what you have is a slippage away from the medium being the reputable item (i.e. "anything in the NYT is reliable", to the person speaking being the reputable thing.
i'd guess that you can do factual reporting outside of the traditional format. look at keith's reporting from south asia, not show to me by the major newspapers, but reputable, no?
perhaps more journalists need to move online to get their stuff read, and build themselves as a brand separate from the straight-jacket of the paper-medium.
and save some goddamn trees.
-
Wishart, judging by his silly letter in the new Metro, seems to want to fight me, and I'm not terribly interested.
you sure? because i reckon you could take him.
anyone give me odds on a bare-knuckle, brown vs. wishart?
anyone?
no?
ah well.
-
um, you have a reading problem rodger?
i explained that statement way back on page 4. go on, off you go.
-
craig,
indeed. my own sense of inspired self-importance has waned dramatically since september. perhaps there are those within politics yet to have the experience, realising they're falling from a height no greater than the distance of their own ego from terra firma?
but, then who am i to argue with a dozen decades of political history? perhaps it's the knives that keep all those ego-balloons in the air?
-
i think i find it hard to believe that craig finds it hard to believe that someone senior in the nats might have leaked a bunch of information about brash.
"party" seems to be a misnomer.
"protracted knife-fight" seems more appropriate to most parliamentary "parties".