I don't know how long this thread will last before it too is locked by Shocklines' owner, but it could be interesting while it's still there. What a farce!
Showing posts with label Internet Rage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet Rage. Show all posts
Saturday, 31 July 2010
Friday, 30 July 2010
Shocklines
More weasel words: shocklines
Ramsey Campbell asked a perfectly reasonable question as to why his message was deleted on another thread, and of course Matt comes back with a load of flannel.
Why, oh why does he persist in protecting the likes of Pacione and Dagstine, especially when anyone who isn't blind can see that Dagstine has been lying, as well as acting in an unprofessional, if not fraudulent manner over double, even treble selling stories as originals?
What credibility that site has is going to the dogs rapidly. It will take the nitwits not saying anything there for quite some time for things to settle again.
Ramsey Campbell asked a perfectly reasonable question as to why his message was deleted on another thread, and of course Matt comes back with a load of flannel.
Why, oh why does he persist in protecting the likes of Pacione and Dagstine, especially when anyone who isn't blind can see that Dagstine has been lying, as well as acting in an unprofessional, if not fraudulent manner over double, even treble selling stories as originals?
What credibility that site has is going to the dogs rapidly. It will take the nitwits not saying anything there for quite some time for things to settle again.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Internet Rage
Further from what I have already noted about this phenomena, is the question why someone should use their own blog almost solely to have a go at other people. Most blogs I have looked at are used to raise issues, discuss books or films or anything else that comes to mind, and to tell people about the ups and downs of whatever particular interest the blogger has they would like other people to know about. With writers, who are the main bloggers I look at, this is almost always about their own stories and novels, etc.
To use a blog as a weapon to attack someone sounds dangerously close to misuse of the facility. After all, you can completely control replies made to whatever you've written on your own blog. It can easily become a one sided argument if you want it to. One blog in particular is very much like this. It is used to snipe at other people the blogger sees as his enemies. Fair targets for his bile. It is a shame, especially as he seems unable and unwilling to allow fair comment in reply to his criticisms and attacks. A one sided argument indeed.
I can pledge now that whatever anyone says on this blog in answer to something I write will be published in full. The only time I would delete any words at all would be if I thought letting them stay in full would leave me open to being involved with a libel action. And, of course, if writers make personal attacks on other people. Attack me if you like, but leave others out of it. They may not be in a position to reply. Other than that free speech rules.
To use a blog as a weapon to attack someone sounds dangerously close to misuse of the facility. After all, you can completely control replies made to whatever you've written on your own blog. It can easily become a one sided argument if you want it to. One blog in particular is very much like this. It is used to snipe at other people the blogger sees as his enemies. Fair targets for his bile. It is a shame, especially as he seems unable and unwilling to allow fair comment in reply to his criticisms and attacks. A one sided argument indeed.
I can pledge now that whatever anyone says on this blog in answer to something I write will be published in full. The only time I would delete any words at all would be if I thought letting them stay in full would leave me open to being involved with a libel action. And, of course, if writers make personal attacks on other people. Attack me if you like, but leave others out of it. They may not be in a position to reply. Other than that free speech rules.
Thursday, 1 April 2010
Internet Rage
While I was at the World Horror Convention talking with Des Lewis our conversation turned to a certain person who had threatened to attend but, apparently, didn't. This person regularly gets himself barred from internet forums and discussion groups and now runs a blog of his own, where he rambles on about what he perceives as cliques and cronyism within our genre. Des came up with the pertinent phrase "internet rage" to describe this person's behaviour online and we agreed that, almost certainly, on a personal level he was probably totally different, even likeable, but changed online - just as some people change behind the wheel of a car.
All of us to some extent probably change too, though few to the same degree.
It is easy, though, to forget that people we are dealing with online are real, have feelings too, and can be easily hurt by what we write. I've seen this several times - and I know, too, how easy it is to get drawn into going further and saying far worse things to and about people online, things we would never even dream of saying face to face.
Perhaps that's something we should think about before saying things here.
And perhaps it would have been better if the individual I mentioned at the start of this had actually turned up at the WHC. Perhaps he might have begun to reconsider some of the things he says about far too many people if he actually took the opportunity to meet them.
Perhaps.
Or am I being unrealistically charitable?
All of us to some extent probably change too, though few to the same degree.
It is easy, though, to forget that people we are dealing with online are real, have feelings too, and can be easily hurt by what we write. I've seen this several times - and I know, too, how easy it is to get drawn into going further and saying far worse things to and about people online, things we would never even dream of saying face to face.
Perhaps that's something we should think about before saying things here.
And perhaps it would have been better if the individual I mentioned at the start of this had actually turned up at the WHC. Perhaps he might have begun to reconsider some of the things he says about far too many people if he actually took the opportunity to meet them.
Perhaps.
Or am I being unrealistically charitable?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)