To bring everyone up to speed on matters, I've republished the Housekeeping post below this one. We have an urgency to the matter now because one of our admins is going away for a trip on the 10th. Essential issues for resolution are:
1] Admission or rejection of UKN&P, should he feel his application is still live;
2] Expulsion of the BNP on the grounds that they are demonstrably not at one with the Blogpower ethos;
3] Appointing new admins:
Final date for comments or e-mails Sunday, July 8th, at 21:00. I have a free[ish] Monday and so will draft a resolution based on all your comments and it will be posted that day for your approval. Any matters not commmented on - we'll assume they're OK by you.
1] Admission or rejection of UKN&P, should he feel his application is still live;
2] Expulsion of the BNP on the grounds that they are demonstrably not at one with the Blogpower ethos;
3] Appointing new admins:
a. Lord Keeper of the Rolls [currently occupied by Ian Appleby]4] Decision on limiting the membership size or categorizing it.
b. Birthdays Officer [currently occupied by Mutley]
c. Events and Profiles Blogmeister [currently occupied by Tom Paine]
d. General Dogsbody [currently occupied by yours truly]
[Think we need a woman in here somewhere]
Final date for comments or e-mails Sunday, July 8th, at 21:00. I have a free[ish] Monday and so will draft a resolution based on all your comments and it will be posted that day for your approval. Any matters not commmented on - we'll assume they're OK by you.
34 comments:
I don't see how membership of political parties can be at ods with the blogpower ethos.
I'll give my position now on all points.
1. No objections in principle.
2. Official party sites should not be allowed in. Individuals who happen to be members is different. BP members don't have to comment at sites they don't like.
3. Happy with the job that's being done. Another year for all of you.
4. I am firmly against restricting the size. I don't think we should limit our potential this way. We can find other ways to promote eachother as we grow, if daily visits to all BP members is no nolnger viable. Lord N, Colin and myself all know have a link to a nother BP blog every week. If all BP members did that, han the ethic would be retained.
I'm also of the view that the less rules the better, or we'll just turn into some form of elite club that will spend too much time examining its navel.
We just need some sort of charter and anyone can join if they agree to abide by it.
We also need some form of expulsion mechanism for the vexatious, perhaps run on Athenian Democracy principles.
CBI: you, Colin and I should get together so we can make sure we use different BP'ers in our spotlights each week. There are some I will not spotlight :)
If (my opinion) you object to a BNP-site being let in, then that is against the ethos of BP, not the BNP site you object to. (Official blogs exempted of course).
Size: I still think size should be limited, but I'll defer. I do think we should look at size of the blog itself when adding members (we wouldn't want to add LGF or the DailyKos or someone like that or would we?)
As Ian said, your comments are invited NOW and on this thread only [or e-mail].
I have been pressed to put my point of view and reasons on the BNP early and so wil do it this evening.
In response to pressure, I'm going to post my comments now.
I have no intention of dredging up the old material - during the awards I published my case against admitting UKN&P but didn't get stuck into Wayne at that point. I'll do that now.
There's a big difference between not admitting someone and booting them out.
On the former, UKN&P says he's a Conservative, not BNP but might I remind you, so were Sir Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell.
That he hobnobs with the BNP is virtually a given and nothing in my dredging back through the nominations convinces me otherwise.
Whether that's bad or no is another thing - he seems to think so because he denies it with annoyance.
The thing is, this biz is not UKN&P and I or Wayne and I.
The heart of the matter is that we have already lost five people due to BNP participation and we're due to lose five more I know directly if either UKN&P is admitted or Wayne continues, after his "them" comments about BP on his message board.
Some people are also more than miffed about the thugs discussing physical violence on one of our members, whatever his provocation was and even if it was only hot air.
That was beyond the pale in my book as well.
On the other hand, the diehard libertarians would leave if either of these actions took place and I see their point of view. Blogpower has no political views.
I see a possible solution in two Blogrolls - one including and one not. Another possibility is making the BNPers "associate" members.
We've avoided splits on political lines until now and it would be sad if people voted with their feet on these grounds as it seems unproductive to me.
Better to find a solution. On the other hand, I see and share the point of view that the BNP views are beyond the pale for 90% of people.
Against that, as one blogger pointed out, we also have a confirmed satanist on our roll too and he's dedicated to destroying Alex and me, as Christians.
I would like to admit Jailhouse Lawyer as soon as possible too.
So where does that leave us?
I think we're buying trouble admitting UKN&P. He's been personally more than courteous and even friendly towards me so this must seem a slap in the face to him but it's not personal. It's his bloody party which is the problem.
As for Wayne, I resent his references to "they" and "them" which he can't deny because they were posted for all to see. If he sees BP as "them", then he should get the hell out of the group and go his own way.
How he's outwardly behaved whilst a BPer has nothing to do with it. As I say. If I was speaking mockingly of BP as "them", I'd think it was high time to move on.
Booting him out is another matter though because of the libertarian walkout.
So those are my thoughts but they're still not recommendations because I don't want to do that until I've read all your comments.
On Monday I'll talk with the admins and we'll put a recommendation.
That he hobnobs with the BNP is virtually a given
Really? I have repeatedly asked for proof and you seem unwilling to give it. Infact I have proven otherwise. To make an informed decision I think that the group should see all the evidence. Could you provide it?
Even if he is who cares?
The heart of the matter is that we have already lost five people due to BNP participation and we're due to lose five more I know directly if either UKN&P is admitted or Wayne continues, after his "them" comments about BP on his message board
If they are unwilling to support freedom for all who cares? Let them leave. You guys are already saying the blogroll is too big. Would it be smaller if we lose 5? Even if you don’t want it smaller there are more that want to join as proof from before the contest ended. We lose 5 but we also gain 5. Infact I think they are lying about wanting to leave because they are the only ones that will lose out.
Some people are also more than miffed about the thugs discussing physical violence on one of our members, whatever his provocation was and even if it was only hot air.
That was beyond the pale in my book as well.
I agree. Can you show us the website where they are discussing violence?
Better to find a solution. On the other hand, I see and share the point of view that the BNP views are beyond the pale for 90% of people.
James, you have said something like this a number of times but I have yet to hear reasons. Would you provide policies of the BNP that are beyond the pale to most people (even if you don’t think they are beyond the pale). You can tell me on my blog or I can give you my email and you can email me them. We shouldn’t go into it here.
I think we're buying trouble admitting UKN&P. He's been personally more than courteous and even friendly towards me so this must seem a slap in the face to him but it's not personal. It's his bloody party which is the problem.
But we have other conservatives on the blogroll, some of which I quite enjoy reading. If UKN&Ps party is so bad shouldn’t you be looking at other conservatives?
Please note that I have my admin hat off; what follows is strictly my personal view.
Wayne, disregarding for now the rights and wrongs of the rest of your argument, although I daresay you can guess where I personally stand, please do not try and turn this into a freedom of speech issue.
Blogpower was not set up to defend absolute freedom of speech, but as a way in which smaller bloggers could help promote one another. There seem to be many of us who would like more choice in whom we help promote, and whom we are seen to be associating with.
To reiterate, this is not about the absolute right to free speech - and even if it were, then that would also encompass the right of a given blogger or group of bloggers to say I choose not to be associated with "x" - and no-one is suggesting that you give up blogging. So please do not try and derail the discussion with talk of "freedom for all" and the like.
There seem to be many of us who would like more choice in whom we help promote, and whom we are seen to be associating with.
Last time this situation happened there was an agreement that members could remove a specified number from their blogroll. You don't have to promote my blog if you remove it from your own. Why isn't that enough?
Firstly can I join Ian in saying this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Nothing that Blogpower would do or even could do could restrict someone's freedom of speech- this is about freedom of association- my freedom to associate with those that I wish to associate with.
Now I admit Wayne that your point about the blogrolls is true- and personally I know you visit my blog and think that in that way you are a true upholder of the ehtos of the group.
We can rehash a debate about the BNP's policies forever- but suffice it to say as someone whose mother is an immigrant- from New zealand of all places- I find your insistance on the repatriation of first and second generation immigrants offensive. If it only aplies to non-white immigrants then I think it is racist because your only distinction is on race.
The main issue though seems to me to be dual- one is about the behaviour of members of the BNP and the other is about the BNP's membership of Blogpower. Personally I don't know abotu the behaviour of the BNP- if there has been a threat to a member of blogpower then I think that is a very serious issue- having said that unless we know that Wayne is involved I think its unfair to throw him out on that basis.
This is ultimately a social club of blogs- we visit each other and we really are a network of mates. I have definitely made friends with a number of Blogpower bloggers some of whom like Lord Nazh have diametrically opposed views to me- and the question to me seems to be waht do you do when a club of which you are a member admits a racist. You have two options- to walk out or to stay in. I decided to stay in months ago- that was because I felt loyal to the group and to several of its principles. But ever since that decision I have wondered how my decision looks to my friends who the BNP deny to be genuinely British- how I explain to them my membership of this club which also includes a BNP member. How would I like it if a member of Hizb ut Tahrir joined Blogpower- I would want them expelled because they want Jews killed and support the bombings in London- well my own logic comes round to me- what ultimately is the difference between Hizb and the BNP I'm not sure!
I know that others will not join Blogpower because of this- many leftwing bloggers just won't join because of it- look down your blogrolls are there any socialists, many liberals- I don't see them. Furthermore there are good rightwing blogs out there that won't join us either from a UK perspective- allowing a BNP member looks like saying that you are happy with racism, throwing one out has nothing to do with free speech but it does define one as an organisation that isn't happy with racism- and if we are happy with racism well then that is a decision that the group has to take.
Having said that on one last point I do worry about Wayne as a person- again I repeat his personal behaviour to me has been just as many other blogpowerers. I don't want this organisation to repeatedly have to face this issue so my last suggestion is I suppose my most bold- that is this that whatever happens here- the issue is not raised again with regard to Wayne's membership for another length of time. I think despite the fact I feel Wayne should go that we should after this have a morotorium on this discussion- otherwise it is just bullying to bring it up again and again.
I also want to say that as someone who may very well consider their position in Blogpower should Wayne stay- I don't want that to influence any one else's decision- I think the fairest way of doing this is to debate the issue in the abstract and to leave personalities out of this. If I have ethical difficulties and the group disagrees that's fine and is my problem.
Anyway that's my two penny's worth- I hope that it helps other people come to their decision.
...I have repeatedly asked for proof and you seem unwilling to give it...
Explicit proof was given both by me and by Notsaussure. No need to rehash it all again jsut because you refuse to acknowledge it because you know it will be fatal to his chances.
...As for Wayne, I resent his references to "they" and "them" which he can't deny because they were posted for all to see...
If we're talking about not addressing an issue - this is it. You have never explained yourself on this. Because you can't.
As Gracchi says, this has zilch to do with freedom of speech. It's to do with loyalty to the ethos and
I'm convinced that both you and your BNP mate UKN&P are a blot on the ethos, not because of you personally but because of the stupidity of referring to "us" as "them" on your messageboard. This is unforgivable for me whose two criteria for any friend are:
1] attitude to others
2] personal loyalty to the friendship.
As I say, that's just my point of view and I'm only one person in BP.
from New zealand of all places- I find your insistance on the repatriation of first and second generation immigrants offensive
My nanna is also an immigrant from Norway and I would not want to see her go. If the BNP wanted forced repatriation I would never support it but they don’t because it’s purely voluntary. No one is forcing anyone to leave especially if they are citizens.
what ultimately is the difference between Hizb and the BNP I'm not sure
For one thing we don’t want anyone dead and we don’t want anyone killed for not supporting us… oh and we also want citizens initiatives.
I'm convinced that both you and your BNP mate UKN&P are a blot on the ethos, not because of you personally but because of the stupidity of referring to "us" as "them" on your messageboard
What message board? UKN&P and I are not friends. I don’t even talk to him. His blog is just someone who I liked. Same with blogs like Norfolk Blogger and UK Daily Pundit.
Personally I don’t see that I have done anything wrong except be a member of the BNP which I would have never joined if I thought that they were racist or fascist. I think you all support a political party and you can’t see you support 100% of the policies. It’s the same with me. I support 60% (maximum) of the BNP’s policies and if and when I go to a BNP conference I will be trying to change those policies by making lots of motions for people to vote on lol.
see=say
This was where Wayne's comments were originally:
http://www.freedom74.proboards83.com/index.cgi? board=general&action=display&thread=1181242234&page=1
Naturally they've now been taken down and the link now leads nowhere. However the text of one of the four was:
VOTED AGAIN TODAY AND THIS IS THE LATEST LISTS CENTRAL NEWS REALLY NEEDS YOUR HELP AS THEY WANT TO CLOSE THE POLLS EARLY AS THEY FEAR THE BNP WINNING A POLL
That is specifically what I ws referring to and the main reason I am incensed by Wayne, where once I voted for him.
Yes I did go there but that is a nationalist forum and not an official BNP forum. If you read the thread you would have seen that I said something along the lines of "Vote for me if you think I deserve it".
The whole site was closed down because not many people read it which means I probably would have only receiuved 4 or 5 votes from there.
What exactly did I do wrong?
Let's not lose sight of the fact that there are two things here, the second being a concrete instance of the first, which is more of a general principle:
1] do we want some mechanism by which we can exclude a given blogpower prospect or full member?
2] Should Wayne become the first blogger to be thus excluded?
Can I urge us all to try and keep consideration of point 1 separate from that of point 2?
1. I think that anyone should be allowed to join as long as they don't promote murder of innocent people.
OK, so as to the general principle of whether we should, as Delicolor asked way up at the top of this thread, be able to exclude people, how about the following mechanism:
At regular intervals - say, once a month - the blogroller invites comment on those in the prospective members list, allowing, say, a week for responses. If no objections are received, then the prospects become full members on the nod.
If a fixed proportion of full members object - say 5% of the whole, to avoid personal disputes affecting a given prospect's chances - then the prospect is rejected.
Unless there are clear grounds to suspect foul play, no discussion of the result should be entertained for a minimum of, say, six months after a member is either admitted or refused. This would help avoid the danger that some controversial decisions would be constantly returned to. Also, rejected prospects could, if they so wish, re-apply after this six month period expires.
Although this may seem a negative approach, it seems to me that 95% of our prospects and members are unobjectionable, and it would seem an unnecessary burden on existing members to actively approve their joining.
A similar system could be used for the expulsion of existing members (bearing in mind the six-month rule, or whatever timescale we settle upon), but I suppose that a higher threshold of nay-sayers would be necessary: 30%, 50% 66%?
Just an idea; I hope we might use it as the basis for discussion.
I like the idea but I think it should be given a few changes.
Once those 5% object the whole membership should have a vote to see if we all don't want that blog admitted.
Just on a point of information- I don't think hizb themselves have ever actually advocated terrorism. Ex-members have been convicted of terrorist offences- but then ex-members of the BNP have been convicted of terrorist offences as well- David Copeland would be a great example as would the guys who were arrested for manufacturing chemical weapons in Lancashire.
I like Ian's suggestion myself as well and have to say I back it as a thought about the procedure of doing this. I still think that a vote on what we do about having a BNP member is neccessary- to define the approach of the group once and for all- so maybe the administrators would like to add the option to whatever vote comes to the membership on Monday of whether we object to members of extremist parties- teh far right, HIzb- joining or remianing members.
To make it clear this is about Wayne personally I'd make that the vote rather than a vote on YDKM remaining a member- the vote I would like is should extremist parties in whom the BNP and hizb would be included be included as members
What exactly did I do wrong?
I have explained it over and over and over and over and others have too. I puut it yet again in the comment above. Listen, old son, I don't forgive disloyalty from anyone.
lol. I can't believe you think the BNP are as extreme as that islamic group.
The most extreme we get is by paying immigrants to leave if they want. That's not extreme at all. France has announced they are doing just that.
Everyone here says that they support freedom of association but when bloggers choose to associate with certain groups a lot of you get all concerned and hypocritical. You say you support freedom of association and speech but in reality you are paying lip service to it.
I have explained it over and over and over and over and others have too
All you have shown is that I went to forums and asked people to vote for me if they thought that I deserved it. How is that being disloyal? There were no rules saying that people can't tell none bloggers about the contest. There were no rules against asking people to ote for you either. Infact I don't think I broke any of the rules. If you didn't want certain things to happen you should have banned them.
5% seems a bit low, Ian. On that, with 40 members even on the roll right now, that means two objections to UKN&P and we already have 7 on record.
We also have four on Wayne going. I think it needs more than that.
Wayne I do support freedom of association that means freedom not to associate with people as well as freedom to associate with them. I neither would ban the BNP nor you, nor would I ban you having a blog and putting text up on it- but blogpower's attitude to your membership has nothing to do with either your freedom to associate or your freedom to speak.
As to the BNP- I am sorry to say this but all of your leaders have a racist past. Your party's web designer committed a terrorist act in South Africa in the early 1990s and was arrested in South Africa for attempting to blow up Black School Kids. Your current leader Nick Griffin said in 1996 that all black people should be repatriated even if they were born here. In the 2001 manifesto the BNP said that native Britons who they claimed were white only would be given priority for jobs over anyone else. In the 1990s the BNP glorified murdering blakcs- in 1991 when BNP supporters stabbed an African man the party newspaper glorified the fact that the victim had had his kidney removed. BNP councillers have attempted to ban halal food from schools and Islamic dress from public buildings. A BNP counciller refused to back moves commending Burnley football club for expelling racist supporters from their ground. In 2004 Nick Griffin said that the party might have to consider alternatives to the ballot box. In 2007 BNP councillers walked out of a meeting in Sandwell when a Sikh counciller was made mayor. A BNP counciller in Birmingham recently said that immigration and crime were the same things- those last two accusations were on Unity's blog over at the ministry of truth.
Just to quote from the BNP manifest at the 2005 general election
'when we speak of British democracy we do so in an ethnic as well as in a civic sense. We do not accept the absurd suggestion... of human equalit' including 'the still dominant Politically Correct denial of the existance of differences on average between members of different races' They argue that democracy in that is 'genetically pre-determined' and immigration threatens our democracy because 'members of people from very different ethnic groups' would not be capable of being democrats. They mention an aspiration for only poepole of 'European descent' to live in teh British ilses. The manifesto calls for the abolition of the race relations act, restrictions against racial discrimination in employment, a prohibition of racial integration in schools and the media.
The full text is here.
Is that enough for you Wayne or do you need more evidence- personally I think its easy to establish that the BNP are a nasty racist party. You may not be- I have no idea- but I have no wish to be a member of a club in which apologists for that party are also admitted. That is my freedom not to associate- and the group can argue about whether to agree with me or not. If it decides against me that's fine- and as I say again if I withdraw afterwards I do not wish that to be a matter which influences anyone- but my view is that the BNP is a racist organisation, is an extremist party, has been involved with the perpetrators of violence in the past and therefore membership of it is inconsistant with membership of blogpower.
I apologise for a number of spelling mistakes in the above. The paragraph from the BNP manifesto reads
'when we speak of British democracy we do so in an ethnic as well as in a civic sense. We do not accept the absurd suggestion... of human equality' including 'the still dominant Politically Correct denial of the existance of differences on average between members of different races' They argue that democracy is 'genetically pre-determined' and immigration threatens our democracy because 'members of people from very different ethnic groups' would not be capable of being democrats. They mention an aspiration for only people of 'European descent' to live in the British isles. The manifesto calls for the abolition of the race relations act, restrictions against racial discrimination in employment, a prohibition of racial integration in schools and the media.
Gracchi, Wayne, this thread could easily get derailed into discussions of whether or not the BNP actually is racist; the point at issue here is more that many people, myself included, rightly or wrongly have that impression, and would prefer not to associate with the BNP or its members as a result.
Comments on this thread are still open; I would encourage anyone interested in the specific question of whether the BNP is racist to read the post and comments, which benefit from Wayne's input among others, and to judge for themselves. Do feel free to comment there.
James, the numbers are just there to launch the debate; you may well be right that we need higher thresholds.
I have never denied the party has a racist past. I fully admit that. Some of the members have a racist past. So what? Nick Griffin is merely one member and can be replaced at any time and we will replace him once he has outlived his usefulness. There is an election for leader soon but Griffin will win.
It doesn’t matter what Griffin believes or wants. The membership are the people that decide policy. We vote on policy. Griffin does not decide it.
. In the 2001 manifesto the BNP said that native Britons who they claimed were white only would be given priority for jobs over anyone else
And what about now? What does our manifesto say now? I was never a member of the BNP then. I only became a member in November of that year but I have been involved for about 3 years.
In the 1990s the BNP glorified murdering blakcs- in 1991 when BNP supporters stabbed an African man the party newspaper glorified the fact that the victim had had his kidney removed.
I find this hard to believe eventhough they were a very racist party during that time.
BNP councillers have attempted to ban halal food from schools and Islamic dress from public buildings
I should hope so. Halal meet should be banned across the country or at the very least in schools with populations that are majority none Muslim. Halal meet is made by slitting the throat of an animal causing unnecessary suffering. Atleast we stun our and kill them straightaway so there is no suffering.
A BNP counciller refused to back moves commending Burnley football club for expelling racist supporters from their ground
Why should he? Are racists somehow inferior because they have a different opinion? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to enjoy a football match? Where they being violent in anyway?
In 2004 Nick Griffin said that the party might have to consider alternatives to the ballot box.
Amazing, lol. Who cares what he said? Like I said he can’t do anything without the consent of the membership.
'members of people from very different ethnic groups' would not be capable of being democrats
Yeah and the Middle East is a shining example of democracy isn’t it? What do you think will happen when white people are no longer the majority in this country? Muslims are outbreeding us. That is an undeniable fact. When they are the majority do you think that they will vote for sharia law? Do you want to live under that system because I don’t?
They mention an aspiration for only poepole of 'European descent' to live in teh British isles
This is basically acknowledging that multiculturalism can never work. Anyway even if we do get into power there will never be an all white Britain because the only way to get it would be to use force and we totally against it.
The manifesto calls for the abolition of the race relations act, restrictions against racial discrimination in employment
I should hope so. Why should you be banned from saying certain things which certain people might be offended by? You do not have a right not to be offended. Adults know how to handle themselves when they are being called names.
As for employment employers should be able to hire anyone on whatever criteria they see fit afterall they are the ones that own the business so have every right to decide who works there.
a prohibition of racial integration in schools and the media
In reality we never believed that. It’s happening without help.
Back to human equality. Overall we do believe in it however we do believe that different races have superior and inferior qualities but because each racist is ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’ in different areas they are equal overall.
I'll put my 2 cents in here:
On admitting UK news; we vote, doesn't matter WHY you vote yes or no, you just vote
On ejecting members (wayne in particular); you'll have to come up with a reason to evict him that goes against the ethos or (to me) this will be against the BP 'code'
If you are going to evict him because he used they or he supports BNP, then I'd think you'd evict the satan worshiper (not really, but you know who I'm talking about)on sensibility grounds.
I realize you will lose members if wayne stays and you will lose members if he goes, count me in the lost if he goes category and then simply weigh which you want more the losses if he stays or the losses if he goes.
Note: I don't agree with hardly any of wayne's opinions on hardly anything and if asked BEFORE he was admitted I would have voted not to admit him, but this isn't about that, he has been admitted, he is now a BP'er and should enjoy the same privileges that the rest of the people I disagree with do.
Good Evening to All
I am out of town on business at the moment thus have not posted in the last few days or checked Blogpower however I see my membership is causing a bit of a stir. I would like to join Blogpower however not if that means several of your longstanding members leave due to it. Just to clarify I do not support the BNP or any type of discrimination/ hatred etc and was horrified to read above that apparently someone has been threatened. Blogging should be all in good fun and a way to express ones personal opinions on any given matter. With that said I will obviously abide by whatever decision the Blogpower members come to but I hope that should you decide not to include me it will not be due to the fact that you believe I am am member of a political party (the BNP) that in reality I am not. As I have said before I proudly support the conservatives as you will see if you read the archives in my blog. (No offense meant to Wayne by this as although I do NOT agree with the BNP's politics I certainly respect the fact that each and every person is entitled to their views) Best of Luck in your deliberations on the issues raised :)
UK News and Politics
Lord Nazh, would you still go if you came to believe Wayne has acted against the blogpower ethos?
Wayne, you have a habit of being, let's be charitable, disingenuous:
- In this thread, you have described the forum James referred to as "not an official BNP forum". Maybe not official, but what do other readers think about it having clearly been a BNP forum?
- In the previous thread, you said "I don't think any BNP bloggers have been offensive to Blogpower either." What, like Bournemouth Nationalist, you mean? And I am certain James would not make allegations of violence threatened by BNP members against a blogpower member without being very sure of his grounds. Let me make my own position very clear: physical threats to one of our number go way beyond any freedom of speech issues. They are unacceptable, and I find it hard to see how Blogpower could tolerate any organisation whose members make them.
- You kicked off this comment thread by saying "I don't see how membership of political parties can be at odds with the blogpower ethos." One of the things you are eliding here is that no-one else is using their membership of Blogpower to boost their party's online presence or its apparent respectability.
- Also, no-one else was using their party affiliation to canvas for votes in the awards. What was that you were saying about "vote for me if you think I deserve it"?
- Your own attitude to Blogpower. As James asks, are we "us" or "them"? The apparent contradictions I have highlighted above imply that you don't actually have that much respect for the rest of us - again, I am being careful with my words, here - and I take a dim view of your saying "We lose 5 but we also gain 5": this isn't just a numbers game we're talking about, it's our colleagues in Blogpower; I hardly think it reflects well on you that you are so blase about it.
I think you've had sufficient rope...
As I said at the start, if he violated it then boot him :)
Some of the things you are accusing him of (which he did) are not what I would consider against the BP ethos, but some are. So if the vote goes against him, then I will stay.
Comments now transferred to "Issues to be decided this weekend"
Post a Comment