If you go through the comments thread in the second post, there are barbs either way but you’ll also notice a lot of smilies. In other words, adults disagreeing and agreeing to disagree – or that’s how I read it.
The nature of blogs is that even though that was the second post, the last comments were back on post one.
The gracious “maybe I am just an overly-sensitive little flower who somehow has read those comments wrong,” was quite to the point and would seem to have ended the matter.
You can imagine my surprise though to suddenly see offense being taken and frankly, I was bemused because there seemed no deeply personal comment anyone had made beyond the odd barb here and there. Plenty of strong words on topic but none designed as hatchet jobs on a person.
Now I was annoyed and so, looked back at the blog policies on comments:
2. Breach of copyright;
3. Arguing off-topic in order to push a certain political line;
4. Trying to advertise one’s site by leaving a link.
Oh dear, I forgot to put in Victimhood Poker. That shall be rectified. It goes in at N5.
Anyone centre or right knows what VP is but many on the left might not know it as such, even though the main perpetrators in the public sphere tend to come from that sector.
The notion of victimhood poker is that one gets offended for dodgy reasons, sometimes dishonestly so. In the case of Diane Abbott and Co, it’s for political reasons in order to push an agenda and quite dishonest.
With other people, it can be getting one’s knickers in a twist over nothing.
With yet others,it can be a response to not winning an argument. One then resorts to taking offense in order to win the day.
And as I wrote, that’s something up with which this blog will not put and shall go in as N5. As you can see from various bloggers’ posts on the matter, it’s a sensitive issue in itself, Victimhood Poker and no blogger I know likes it or will put up with it.
My attitude on commenting here is that issues are always going to be touched on which someone, somewhere, is going to be sensitive to. Thus, to me, it’s deeply annoying the way Hamas acts and using children as human shields is just subhuman. Someone else might be sensitive to other issues, e.g. abortion.
So, with that in mind, discussion is going to get hot. My attitude to ad hominem is that things said in the heat of battle and in the context of the point made are par for the course – we’re big boys and girls and can handle ourselves. We’re not sensitive little flowers.
If someone deliberately comes in though to destroy someone else, as a couple of the banned commenters at this site try to do with me, then that’s another matter. That ad hominem will be Monty Python footed. I don’t mean things like: “I don’t care what you think,” which are mild but deliberately telling porkies about someone else in order to hurt them and having zero to do with the topic. The intention here is the critical factor.
To most people who visit this site, all of this is self-evident, obvious, but for the unaware, I felt it needed to be stated yet again.
I hasten to add that that all of the parties – offenders and offendees, at either of those two posts are always welcome and will be luvved to bits. 😉