A Tory Storm in an Eggcup – Addendum

I know I wasn’t going to give my detractor any extra publicity but a couple of extra points came to me as I was checking to see if my last comment had been published on their blog (it hadn’t, typical hypocrisy from a Tory).  So here goes…

·         The tagline to the blog is “Unmissable political commentary from Thurrock and talk of the Civic Offices” to which I make three observations:

1.    The word “unmissable” is a subjective judgement from the author, something (s)he tried to have a go for making.  Hypocrisy, my dear detractor, blatant hypocrisy.

2.    “Unmissable” doesn’t really apply as before my detractor publically attacked me on their blog, I hadn’t even heard of their blog.

3.    The assertion of the author of the blog that it is “talk of the Civic Offices” doesn’t really make much sense as lots of things are the talk of the Civic Offices – EastEnders, who’s bonking whom and chlamydia to name just three.  Your Thurrock strikes fear into the hearts of the council and is regularly “the talk of the Civic Offices”.  Get some proper perspective, my dear detractor.

·         My detractor says that the column that (s)he had an issue with had an extreme Left nature.  Attacking my column when their blog has a Right-wing Tory bias is hypocrisy again, my dear detractor, clear hypocrisy.

Another reply I got from my detractor read (in full but with the name of the blog redacted to prevent undue publicity)

“Well to ______________ your piece comes across as extremely leftwing and therefore in our eyes, a dark philosophy.

We could play semantics all day, but we have more pressing things to do then soothe damaged egos.

You put your comments out in the public domain, expect the criticism.  We do.”

To which I replied

“3 points: 1) Philosophy, like knowledge, in neither light or dark but a reflection of one’s own beliefs.  Your beliefs are the dark ones. 2) The only damaged ego here is YOURS.  I couldn’t care what you think.  3) In this whole affair, the only person who has acted honourably is ME as I have not personally attacked you merely set you straight on a few things.  You have branded me an extreme Left blogger with a dark philosophy; perhaps you should read some of my other blogs before you make judgements.”

This exchange throws up the following points:

1.    My detractor’s opening line is a subjective judgement.  Even more hypocrisy.

2.    I wonder what “more pressing matters” the author could have.  All (s)he seems to be good at is openly and publically attacking someone with alternative views from them and then running away and hiding when the person (s)he attacks both outclasses and outguns them.  Hiding in anonymity with a blank profile page with no personal information or contact details.  The height of cowardice, my dear detractor.

3.    “You put your comments out in the public domain, expect the criticism.  We do.”  Yes, I expect criticism.  I applaud criticism as it the opening of a dialogue between opposing views.  My detractor, however, attacked me, personally.  And does (s)he expect criticism?  Does (s)he really?  I think not.  (S)he moderates in-coming comments when (s)he is clearly losing the argument.  My last comment has still to be shown and it is a criticism.

I believe that I am a better person than my detractor for my openness to criticism and unwillingness to personally attack him/her.  I hold the moral high ground here.

Until next time…