07.31.06
Tricky Dicky creates bad karma
Richard better watch out…Free Stater is onto him and went to the trouble of checking his blog policies to see that Richard felt quite free to disobey them. It all ends in tears when a poor sap gets fired from his job. What I’d like to know is how the woman at Udaras found out so quickly that the employee emailed Waghorne in the first place…Did Richard ring Udaras to enquire (he very carefully says he “took” a call from an Udaras woman – is she following all web links to their website on a daily basis?)
In any event poor old Ultan will be grand and Richard creates an enemy.
Can’t help but notice he calls Ms Manhattan Notes “excellent” on the 16th of July. She lobbies for his appearance on Radio 1 on July 26th. A bit slow in returning the compliment really Ms Manhattan…
Update: A little bird got in touch with me: As per Adam’s comment below Richard did indeed feel aggrieved enough to call Udaras to complain about Ultan’s horrid email (it appears they both acted in anger..we must all learn to count to 10) and Udaras took the severest view of it. Sigh – a lesson for us all. Indulging our emotions backfires in the most severe way…
Upate again: Double sigh. I don’t like this disturbance in the force. Maybe Ultan should REALLY apologise. His email was mean. And then Richard should apologise too for ringing Ultan’s employers. And publishing the email and then publishing the apology. I am sure everyone regrets their actions. At least I hope they do.
OK more updates time to let this one go Sarah: I’ve been re-reading the Sunday Independent Article. There are two points of confusion. One is did Ultan actually lose his job over the incident? The SINDO article kicks off with “A WORK-experience employee in a State agency is to leave his job after being reprimanded for sending an offensive email from a company address to an internet blog website which had criticised the use of the Irish language. ”
Which makes you believe that he got fired. But later in the article Udaras says that he was due to leave anyway…”She stated that Mr O hAoadha is to leave Udaras within the next few weeks, but insisted his departure is “nothing to do with this incident”. Udaras confirmed that the matter was brought to the attention of the body’s CEO, Padraig O hAolain, and he ordered the apology”
However, the article propagates the implication on Richard’s blog that he “took” a call rather than made one “Within hours of the mail being sent, Mr Waghorne received a phone call from a spokeswoman for Udaras, apologising for the incident and saying that he could expect an email from Mr O hAoadha in the coming hours. ”
I think Ultan should chip in somewhere and let us know if he was due to leave his job anyway. Richard should state clearly if he made the call or took the call. And he should have stated that for the paper. If he felt entitled to complain then he shouldn’t have let the SINDO article go forward implying that he hadn’t complained but that Udaras had spontaneously acted.
Final definite update: I talked to Richard. He did complain. He is sure that Ultan wasn’t actually fired for the incident. He acknowledged that he broke his own policy – that this was not conscious but an act of haste. He says that he probably wouldn’t do it again, but it’s done now.  I asked him did he want to make a new post but he doesn’t want to comment further and stands by his “the matter is closed” stance…
Twenty Major said,
July 31, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Obviously they didn’t want to make it look too obvious…
Adam said,
August 1, 2006 at 12:12 am
Someone who got in touch with me on the whole matter has told me that Waghorne complained personally to the Udaras head office on the matter; I’ve no doubt that he did as Udaras are unlikely to have noticed it any other way in such a short space of time.
I would have blogged on these two dirty little tricks by Waghorne but I’ve given him too much time already, and he’s gotten far too much publicity from the whole affair as it is.
Sarah said,
August 1, 2006 at 10:52 am
Another correspondent say he is impressed that Twenty reads my blog. I must admit I was rather flattered too. Generally I am against the word cunt and reserve its use for only my worst enemies. But I like the way he uses it. Odd really.
EWI said,
August 1, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Final definite update: I talked to Richard. He did complain.
Mr. Mulley, please take note.
He is sure that Ultan wasn’t actually fired for the incident.
Hopefully he wasn’t.
He acknowledged that he broke his own policy – that this was not conscious but an act of haste.
In other words a mistake, which is fine.
He says that he probably wouldn’t do it again
…but maybe not! (”probably”? How can anyone trust him with personal emails now?)
but it’s done now. I asked him did he want to make a new post but he doesn’t want to comment further and stands by his “the matter is closed” stance…
So, no contrition for his misdeed, or even an acknowledgement that he has (to use his own catchphrase) been “taken to task”. I see.
Damien Mulley said,
August 1, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Oh dear EWI. All your short is to wear underpants on the outside and a cape. Flying around saving the innocents by stalking Richard, examining everything he does with a microscope and writing into newspapers complaining about Richard. “Who is that anonymous coward that constantly saves us from RW?” they’ll ask.
I did a radio interview yesterday and they were on about how some bloggers get attacked by anonymous people and get terrible things said about them. I spoke how the Irish blogging community was more mature than that but obviously it is not. The relentless attack on Richard when done so with an “attack the person, not the argument” attitude is nothing short of bullying.
I see nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws in someones arguments and even hypocrisy if they are being hypocrites but the personal crap over the past while all lobbed at one person is petty. Why is everyone afraid of Richard so much? What is his potential to disrupt our world that gets you all into such a frenzy?
Ray said,
August 1, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Afraid of him? No, but he sounds like a slimeball.
fatmammycat said,
August 1, 2006 at 4:07 pm
I’d never even heard of him until I read about this current spat.
Badman said,
August 1, 2006 at 6:30 pm
I spoke how the Irish blogging community was more mature than that but obviously it is not. The relentless attack on Richard when done so with an “attack the person, not the argument” attitude is nothing short of bullying.
You pompous idiot. You can’t speak for the “irish blogging community” as it consists of that random section of the population who set up blogs for themselves. A tiny little proportion of them know who you are or care. You also mistake ‘maturity’ for blandness and fake chuminess. Furthermore, pretty much all of the attacks on Waghorne that I have seen have been entirely based upon his content, not himself (nobody knows anything about him beyond what he writes).
Honestly that is just so pompous, not to mention ideologically skewed and cognitively challenged.
The simple fact is that Dick posted a blog post gloating at having pulled rank to get back at a commenter who displeased him. He has not apologised or said anything to back down publicly. He is the one who has offended and until he decides to set the record straight himself, anybody who takes the time to point out his blatant hypocrisy is doing the blogosphere a public service.
Badman said,
August 1, 2006 at 6:34 pm
And another thing:
All your short is to wear underpants on the outside and a cape. Flying around saving the innocents by stalking Richard, examining everything he does with a microscope and writing into newspapers complaining about Richard
…
an “attack the person, not the argument” attitude
Did you see what you did there?
EWI, don’t mind the knockers, you’re a top class blogger, one of the few worth reading. There is a certain class of person who feels that they have a god given right to spout bullshit as they please. They resent any intrusion of reality, don’t let them get you down.
Sarah said,
August 1, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Actually I for one can confirm that the Irish blogosphere is very immature. I get some really awful emails.
Richard obviously does regret the whole episode but he should have acknowledged that he complained. It’s an important event in the story. Perhaps he was quite entitled to complain – Ultan’s email was pretty offensive. But if you are entitled, then stand by it.
Sarah said,
August 1, 2006 at 7:25 pm
and of course acknowledge that he broke his policy…Ultan’s in the shit because of an email he wrote – not a public comment that he posted.
Daniel K. said,
August 1, 2006 at 7:44 pm
“Why is everyone afraid of Richard so much? What is his potential to disrupt our world that gets you all into such a frenzy?”
I doubt it is fear, it is more like people can’t see why he gets so much attention from his postings when so many others are barely heard by their own ears. He’s not alone in this, we’ve got a strange business culture of a media set semi-randomly selecting particular voices for the attenion of the hoi polloi and damn the rest.
Damien Mulley said,
August 1, 2006 at 8:16 pm
“You pompous idiot. etc.”
EWI isn’t a person though is he? Just like you, it’s someone dressing up in a costume attacking others while wearing a mask made from the side of a cornflakes box.
EWI said,
August 1, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Oh dear EWI. All your short is to wear underpants on the outside and a cape. Flying around saving the innocents by stalking Richard, examining everything he does with a microscope and writing into newspapers complaining about Richard.
(i) I do not ’stalk’ Richard. He publishes on his online blog, you may notice, and people respond, myself included.
(ii) You may also recall that this started with Dickie shopping an emailer (however abusive) to that person’s workplace and
(iii) publishing that person’s name also on the Internet. You of all people don’t have an excuse to not understand why people are pissed with Dickie here.
“Who is that anonymous coward that constantly saves us from RW?” they’ll ask.
Pseudonymous…
EWI isn’t a person though is he? Just like you, it’s someone dressing up in a costume
Yes, like – oh, how many more of the bloggersphere? Remember, outing people on the Net is what brought us here….
p.s. You also seem to have something else to say: “Have you written to his employer again to complain him?”. What do you mean by this, exactly?
p.p.s. been here before, haven’t we?
http://www.mulley.net/2006/04/24/would-you-out-a-blogger-for-a-grand/
strauss said,
August 1, 2006 at 9:16 pm
EWI, Sarah, Badman,etc..
Richard was perfectly entitled to call that idiot’s place of work to complain. What exactly is your problem, other than the fact that it’s the sinister Richard Waghorne who won? If the use of a taxpayer-funded body to send personal, insulting e-mails to somebody isn’t a big deal, the head office would have done nothing about it when Richard complained.
Ray said,
August 1, 2006 at 9:31 pm
The problem is
He said that his policy was that all e-mails to him were confidential, and wouldn’t be published without the permission of the poster.
But when he got an insulting e-mail, he ditched that policy, and tried to get the sender fired.
And when he posted about the incident, he didn’t mention his policy, or why it didn’t apply in this case, or even that he’d broken it by phoning the mailers employers – the ‘I took a phone call’ line strongly implies that Udaras initiated contact, not him.
(Oh, and seriously, that banner of busts and photos? What a cunt)
EWI said,
August 1, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Richard was perfectly entitled to call that idiot’s place of work to complain.
“Perfectly entitled” isn’t “should have”. Dickie’s a big boy now, and not afraid of throwing some rhetorical shapes himself.
If the use of a taxpayer-funded body
Say, isn’t UCD tax-funded as well…? Well then, ‘as a taxpayer’ (as Dickie might himself say) I object to the FI’s policy director using my tax-euros to promote his views.
strauss said,
August 1, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Ray, he admitted that he was wrong to publish that guy’s name. There, happy? Second, I got the impression from reading the post that he called Udaras to complain – i.e. it was strongly implied. And he’s a “cunt” for, ah, having pictures on his banner? If you want to be taken seriously, lay off the petty insults.
EWI said,
August 1, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Second, I got the impression from reading the post that he called Udaras to complain – i.e. it was strongly implied.
Right, sure. Whatever.
Sarah said,
August 1, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Strauss, I think Ray summed it up perfectly there. For the record I don’t think Richard is sinister. Everyone uses their work email for personal purposes and if we were all hung for it there would be a lot of unemployed bloggers and commenters out there. By all means respond to horrible emails if you want (tho I am trying to develop practice of deleting instead of replying) but phoning his employers crossed a line. And the “taxpayer’s money” defence is bogus…
)
I think Ultan sent a very intemperate email which we’ve all done at some point and he has suffered pretty badly for it. I think Richard took revenge but didn’t realise the full consequences of his action. Ultan’s act will effect his career for a while and Richard was very naughty to gloat and is paying in spades now with all this furore. As with all scandals (and I put my old PR hat on me now) a humble apology from both would end this (I’m not counting Ultan’s first apology – which he probably didn’t even write).
Damien, I am curious..since you are mr Irish blogosphere..don’t you think Richard has fair questions to answer? By massive coincidence I’ve been asked to deliver a paper at the Cleraun media conference on “blog etiquette”. I think Richard broke it…he is the blogger..Ultan was the mad commenter (of which there appear to be a few
badman said,
August 1, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Richard was perfectly entitled to call that idiot’s place of work to complain. What exactly is your problem, other than the fact that it’s the sinister Richard Waghorne who won? If the use of a taxpayer-funded body to send personal, insulting e-mails to somebody isn’t a big deal, the head office would have done nothing about it when Richard complained.
A few things.
1. Richard did not ‘win’. He made himself look even more unprincipled than he regularly does through his dishonest and self-aggrandising content.
2. His post was what is known as ‘flame-bait’, ie an obviously provocative, ill thought out post intended to enrage his audience. Since he doesn’t allow comments (as people such as myself and EWI were using them to point out how foolish many of the things he said were – without abuse I should hasten to add), he must have anticipated
3. Richard regularly posts during working hours from his taxpayer funded place of work. A fairly large proportion of blogging gets done from workplaces, taxpayer funded or not. Simply because Richard’s job is in a privileged sector he can get away with it.
4. The action taken by the employer (if there was any action – it is unclear whether the placement simply ended) does not prove that it was a “big deal”. Most companies turn a blind eye to a certain amount of officially forbidden internet activity _unless_ there is a complaint, at which time they must be seen to act.
5. The email was not particularly insulting. as these things go, “stick it up your hole” if I recall correctly. Richard himself has used much more insulting language while blogging from his taxpayer funded workplace – for example: “the scum that are the Irish Anti-War movement and the Ireland Palestine Solidary Campaign” here: http://siciliannotes.blogspot.com/2006/07/anti-bush-protests.html
Damien wrote
EWI isn’t a person though is he? Just like you, it’s someone dressing up in a costume attacking others while wearing a mask made from the side of a cornflakes box.
There are plenty of good reasons why some people choose to remain anonymous on the internet. One good reason is that there are nasty blowhards out there who will try to get you fired if they don’t like what you write.
In my case it’s because I am a secret al qaeda agent on a disinformation mission to try to undermine our opponents in the great satanic west.
But, seriously, anonymity can be a blessing. It is the stength of the argument by which you are known rather than who you are. For many people who are normally ignored – geeks, women, ugly people, etc, it is a liberation (I plead guilty to all three charges btw). Another example is EWI. Despite the fact that I don’t have a clue who he is, from reading his blog I know that he is a good writer and a cogent thinker with principles. It could turn out that I actually know him and thought he was a prick and would have ignored his comments if I had known his real identity.
Of course anonymity has it’s downsides too. It removes the physical from communication and hence allows a timid soul like me to tell people what I think of them warts and all without me getting beaten up all the time
Matthew said,
August 1, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Pompous idiot? Pompous realist more like. I’m an outsider, I have no blog site even and all the name throwing I see comes from the sort of people Damien accused. I suggest you think all this through before you make a further show of yourself, Badman.
Ray said,
August 1, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Strauss, his original post on the matter doesn’t mention his policy, or that he shouldn’t have posted the guy’s name. That only appears in the update, which he made after a lot of criticism.
Neither the original post, or the update, or the Sindo article, says that he phoned Udaras trying to get the guy fired.
The original post says “I took a phone call…”. The Sindo article says he posted the article on his website and got a call a couple of hours later (and remember, the article was based on the timeline he supplied). Today’s postscript says nothing about phoning Udaras, the closest he comes is in saying “I would have considered myself remiss in not reporting the email”, and in context he could be talking about reporting it on his blog.
And no, it’s not having pictures on his banner that makes him a cunt, it’s the laughably pompous selection. I guess this means I’m going to have to live with the pain of knowing that somewhere out there is a blog commenter who doesn’t take me seriously.
strauss said,
August 1, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Yes EWI, I was able to figure out from his original post that he had called Udaras.
Sarah, I stand by what I said. If he had a chance to get back at that abusive e-mailer, more power to him.
Badman, there is clearly a huge difference between blogging coherently and reasonably (as Richard does) and e-mailing someone telling them to “stick it up their hole”. If you can’t see that difference I can’t help you. Call UCD to complain if his blog annoys you so much. And btw, how do you know for sure that he blogs from work?
Matthew said,
August 1, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Ahh, it seems you did count to ten while I wrote up my post. I’m glad you did without a kid having to tell you. I don’t comment on posts without good reason.
Ray said,
August 1, 2006 at 10:54 pm
strauss, what, precisely, in the original post, indicates that he called Udaras? There are only four or five of his sentences there, so it should be very easy to pick out the one that says “so I phoned Udaras to complain”.
badman said,
August 1, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Pompous idiot? Pompous realist more like. I’m an outsider, I have no blog site even and all the name throwing I see comes from the sort of people Damien accused. I suggest you think all this through before you make a further show of yourself, Badman.
I’ve thought it through thanks and concluded that I’m infinitely unbothered by the thiought that you might think I’m making a show of myself. I’m also infinitely unimpressed by your claim to be an “outsider”. You do realise that anybody, even Dickie or one of his crazy chums, can figure out that you can put any old name that you want into a comment box “matthew”. It’s particularly easy to claim to be some non-anonymous person who has no online identity. Funny that. As an outsider you will probably want to check the wikipedia entry for “sock puppetry”.
Straus:
Badman, there is clearly a huge difference between blogging coherently and reasonably (as Richard does) and e-mailing someone telling them to “stick it up their hole”. If you can’t see that difference I can’t help you. Call UCD to complain if his blog annoys you so much. And btw, how do you know for sure that he blogs from work?
Erm, you’ve gotta be joking. Coherently and reasonably. I’ve never come across such a dishonest and pompous commenter in my life. It’s like reading Kevin Myers on coke (with a partial lobotomy). As for the difference, yes I can see it. Telling somebody to “stick it up your hole” in a fit of pique is an intemperate and foolish thing to do, but it’s not serious. Labeling the entire membership of two organisations with which you disagree with politically as ’scum’ on account of the opinions of a member of one of them and posting this on the internet in full control of your senses is, on the other hand, far nastier imho of course.
Damien Mulley said,
August 1, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Sarah: Is there such as thing as blog etiquette and should there be? Community etiquette surely is enough. If people don’t respect it, boot them or shun them but don’t devote time to talk about them again and again and again. In this weird web world, the more time you spend discussing someone the more attention they get. It’s the new economy. I can’t help wonder would Richard be half as famous if it wasn’t for the inverse fanboys he has following him around.
Publishing the full email details was wrong, I’m not sure about ringing the employer though and the “morality” of it. I wouldn’t do it but I don’t know was it wrong to do it. I think that’s at the discretion of the blogger. I had a Civil Servant tell me before that hell would freeze over before I met with officials from his office. If he said it by email I’d have sent it to his bosses, as it was I made a complaint to a Minister.
As for Ultan, tough shit and he deserved what he got. Has he not got a Gmail account or Yahoo account like everyone else in the world seems to? It’s like this, if you are going to hurl abuse at someone via email, you really should not be surprised if it gets published somewhere. You may be disappointed or embarassed but you’re not entitled to be surprised. Maybe if he did a bit more research on who Richard was he may have changed his email a bit.
BTW, I’m sure the boy is in hiding, but why doesn’t someone try to make contact and offer to set up a blog for Ultan? The boy can’t be silenced on his own blog can he? Anyways, some people have done very well from making very public fuck ups. Maybe Ultan can?
Ray said,
August 1, 2006 at 11:08 pm
“It’s like this, if you are going to hurl abuse at someone via email, you really should not be surprised if it gets published somewhere”
Unless perhaps you read a policy that says “Unless you ask otherwise, emails will be regarded are quotable. However, unless you state permission, it will be assumed that identity is not to be published.” and make the mistake of believing it.
You’d think if Waghorne was confident about the morality of phoning someone’s boss to try to get him fired he’d have been less coy about coming out and saying that’s what he did.
strauss said,
August 1, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Ray, the whole Richard-didn’t-really-say-he-called-Udaras bit is wearing fairly thin. I think it was obvious, and that it’s irrelevant, but I think we’ll have to just agree to disagree.
Badman, yawn. “It’s like reading Kevin Myers on coke (with a partial lobotomy)”. Another unfunny attempt at trolling. Like I said, there is clearly a huge difference between blogging coherently and reasonably (as Richard does) and e-mailing someone telling them to “stick it up their hole”. The first is fine, the second isn’t.
EWI said,
August 1, 2006 at 11:31 pm
And btw, how do you know for sure that he blogs from work?
How can I refuse such a request?
It’s the same story out at UCD [about helicopter noise - EWI]. More often than not, when stepping outside there’ll be one in the sky. The faint whir is audible as I type at the moment. Happily the noise inside this concrete bunker we all work in is reduced to insignificance, but the sheer number is striking. Given that helicopter traffic to UCD itself is unlikely on academic salaries, the supposition is that much of it is for the Radisson, which apparently is a favourite hideout of the helicopter set.
Ray said,
August 1, 2006 at 11:32 pm
No seriously strauss, you say it’s obvious, but I see nothing in that original post to indicate it. So either I’m blind (and so’s Sarah) or you’re hallucinating – and if the latter, how can I possibly take you seriously?
EWI said,
August 1, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Ray, the whole Richard-didn’t-really-say-he-called-Udaras bit is wearing fairly thin. I think it was obvious, and that it’s irrelevant, but I think we’ll have to just agree to disagree.
Yes, where “we” refers to you versus everyone else who’s read the passage in question.
EWI said,
August 1, 2006 at 11:34 pm
between blogging coherently and reasonably (as Richard does)
Richard who? Delevan? O’Brien? Because it sure as hell isn’t “Waghorne”.
Ray said,
August 1, 2006 at 11:38 pm
Just to make it easier, here are the lines Waghorne wrote in that post
“Udaras, the Gaeltacht development board, has been in touch. I believe, though I’m open to correction, that this is taxpayer funded body:” (quotes Ultan’s mail) “Your taxes at work.”
“Update 1: Impressive. I took a phone call from an extremely apologetic Udaras lady an hour or so ago and this followed in the email shortly thereafter:” (quotes second mail)
“Ultan, it should be noted, was there on work experience and isn’t Udaras staff, something I’m happy to pass on. I fear his career prospects have not been enhanced, but that’s his problem. The Udaras staff I spoke with were exemplary.”
Nope, still not seeing it.
strauss said,
August 1, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Fine EWI, you’ve proved it. If you want UCD’s number to complain, I’d be happy to oblige you. For the last time, though, blogging and sending abusive e-mails are worlds apart
And yes, I was referring to Waghorne, although the other two do a decent job at blogging as well.
EWI said,
August 2, 2006 at 12:08 am
Fine EWI, you’ve proved it. If you want UCD’s number to complain, I’d be happy to oblige you.
Gee, if I wanted to phone UCD I could’ve done it by now, I imagine. But my grip is with the oblivious Mr. Waghorne, and I’m not so anal as to have contacted his employers to get at him.
For the last time, though, blogging and sending abusive e-mails are worlds apart
Clearly, you don’t think that St. Dickie’s blogging could possibly be queried by the tax-paying public.
And yes, I was referring to Waghorne, although the other two do a decent job at blogging as well.
Audacious little bugger, aren’t you?
strauss said,
August 2, 2006 at 12:16 am
“I’m not so anal as to have contacted his employers to get at him.”
No, but you are anal enough to spend hours each day analysing every single post of his because you disagree with him politically. As Damien said, you’re just an inverse fanboy. I’d hate to see what would happen if Waghorne stopped blogging – you might have to find a hobby to replace Waghorne-baiting. Even worse, you might have to find a job! An actual job! The horror!
EWI said,
August 2, 2006 at 12:25 am
No, but you are anal enough to spend hours each day analysing every single post of his
I spend “hours each day”? Really?
because you disagree with him politically.
I think most Irish people commit the sin of disagreeing with Dickie and his FI chums (yourself included). On behalf of the Irish nation, we’re sorreeee.
As Damien said, you’re just an inverse fanboy.
I think our Mr. Mulley may be suffering jealousy.
I’d hate to see what would happen if Waghorne stopped blogging – you might have to find a hobby to replace Waghorne-baiting. Even worse, you might have to find a job! An actual job! The horror!
Graduated yet?
James said,
August 2, 2006 at 2:00 am
What Richard did was unforgivable imo. Damien – your situation with the civil servant was different, as he was speaking on behalf of the establishment, attempting to prevent you from doing something. Ultan was speaking his own mind – exactly like a blog post. I agree that Richard is free to write whatever he wants on his blog – if you don’t like it then you can debate it or ignore it (although comments disabled = bad). By the same token, I think that Ultan is entitled to give his own opinion in reply, however unbridled/misguided his passion may be.
Tax payer’s money at work – maybe Ultan was on his lunch break? Ultan was speaking on behalf of himself only, it was stupid of him to use a work email address, but that shouldn’t come into it. With this precedent set, none of us should post comments from work, because our IP address often gives away the workplace and some vindictive rat mightn’t like your tone and ring your boss to complain.
Richard’s actions just prove that anonymity is probably the better way to go. If Ultan had posted with an alias and an anonymous proxy then he would have had no trouble. When you respond to a blog post with your real name, regardless of the content of you response, you are giving the blog owner the courtesy of feedback. Richard abused this trust, and set out to hurt a kid who gave his honest opinion. This, imo, says a lot about his personality.
Sarah said,
August 2, 2006 at 12:05 pm
I don’t mind anonymous/pseudonymous blogging but I do have a problem with anonymous emails and comments if they are horrible. Because then you wonder does the person actually know you or are they really a stranger? People who want to say something nice will usually tell you their name. But the angry people don’t. Why not? If they believe so strongly that you are awful, well why not let them know who you are? I REALLY hate anonymous emails.
Anyway, lads, youze are all losing the run of yourselves. I think we should meditate for a minute on the wonderful glory of the Internet and how we will all try to use our powers for good rather than evil. May Ultan and Richard be well and happy and free from suffering. May they progress. (Buddhist incantation thingy). My, my, don’t I have a lot of material for my paper now?
I wonder can I get this week’s column out of it too….
EWI said,
August 2, 2006 at 1:23 pm
I don’t mind anonymous/pseudonymous blogging but I do have a problem with anonymous emails and comments if they are horrible. Because then you wonder does the person actually know you or are they really a stranger?
I only comment on Richard’s published thoughts and deeds, and what others have written about this as well. His personal life (of which one particular facet he might find publicly embarressing, given certain of his political associations) I treat as off-limits. There *is* a line between the public and private persona: the problem here is that Richard crossed it in a very serious manner.
AdamMaguire.com - Blog » Archives » Anonymity in blogging and comments said,
August 2, 2006 at 1:23 pm
[...] Sarah Carey’s post on the latest chapter in the Waghorne/Udaras spat has weaved its way towards the debate over internet anonymity, something that is a big part of blogging in Ireland. [...]
simon said,
August 2, 2006 at 1:56 pm
The relentless attack on Richard when done so with an “attack the person, not the argument” attitude is nothing short of bullying.
I see nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws in someones arguments and even hypocrisy if they are being hypocrites but the personal crap over the past while all lobbed at one person is petty. Why is everyone afraid of Richard so much? What is his potential to disrupt our world that gets you all into such a frenzy? I have to agree Damian. Much though not all of the critism that richard gets is playing the man not the ball. Even the title of this post is exactly this. It was meant to be a title of sorn on the man. Often his post are a bit out there but he has a right to make his point and while he doesn’t allow comments I have often written posts disagreing with what he says and he has put a link on the post to my post which is fair. He has also done it with many other poster most notable Fiona.
I have to wonder what would have happened if the person who sent the email was in the Israel embassy and sent it to EWI or badman etc would they a. have posted it and b. would everyone condem it.?
Badman said,
August 2, 2006 at 2:29 pm
I have to wonder what would have happened if the person who sent the email was in the Israel embassy and sent it to EWI or badman etc would they a. have posted it and b. would everyone condem it.?
I generally deal with abusive emails by either responding in kind (very childish, but that’s badman for you) or ignoring it. It would require some sort of plausible threat before I’d consider escalating. If you can’t take it, don’t give it. If I received an email such as Richard did, I’d just bin it straight away – it was nothing more than a throwaway insult which are rather common on d’interweb.
Colm said,
August 2, 2006 at 11:50 pm
My, my. I’m tripping over all the toys that have been thrown out of the playpin here.
EWI said,
August 3, 2006 at 11:47 pm
I have to wonder what would have happened if the person who sent the email was in the Israel embassy and sent it to EWI or badman etc would they a. have posted it and
Haven’t you been paying attention at all? If it’s someone writing in a personal capacity, no way.
b. would everyone condem it.?
Of course not. Because everything is a conspiracy against Dickie, after all.
ainelivia said,
August 16, 2006 at 8:54 pm
I did a radio interview yesterday and they were on about how some bloggers get attacked by anonymous people and get terrible things said about them. I spoke how the Irish blogging community was more mature than that but obviously it is not. The relentless attack on Richard when done so with an “attack the person, not the argument” attitude is nothing short of bullying. ”
Well at least Damien can see clearly….. Slan