I like Andrew Bolts editorials and he also posts good stuff to his blog.
That said I don't agree with everything he says.
Unfortunately, the overall quality of his posts aside, I find that the commenting facility that is attached to his blog is highly flawed.
The main problem is the moderation.
Now I've posted to moderated forums before, I know the drill. Don't be abusive. Don't say things that are legally ambiguous. Defamation is definitely unacceptable.
It's not rocket science.
However on Bolts blog you can meticulously spend 10 minutes crafting a coherent and incisive post that has no chance of being abusive or legally dangerous only to find that it simply never gets approved.
There seems to be no logic whatsoever, although I have noted that even mentioning the moderation in any way is a guaranteed one way trip to /dev/null for that post.
Even when posts do get approved it can be several hours later.
On the other hand Bolts resident trolls (every forum has them) including "Mr Jordan", "steiner", "reco" & "Ross from Woy Woy" all seem to get their obnoxious and inane garbage posted regularly and reliably.
But then again maybe they are all just unemployed bums who post constantly and the 20 percent of their dribble that actually makes it past the moderators just looks out of proportion to those who post maybe one or two times a day.
I don't know.
But then you take a look at Piers Akermans blog at the Daily Telegraph. Piers doesn't post as often as AB, but he seems much more proactive when it comes to approving posts. An hour or two for approval is still too much but it is also far better than the 6 - 12 hours it seems to take on Bolts blog, if you are lucky enough to make the cut at all.
His post for today is up to 336 comments at the time of writing which is about three to six times the number of comments that Andrew gets for any particular story, albeit with some exceptions.
Over 400 comments for that last post is impressive, but a huge proportion of those comments took over 24 hours to before they appeared online.
With such a huge lag time it is simply impossible to actually have a discussion and commenting simply becomes a fire and forget process with no feeling of engagement whatsoever.
Now, I realise that Andrew Bolt is hitting 3M page impressions per month now so the moderation load must be pretty high, but this is why forums across the Internet are now moving away from manually moderating forums and more to a self moderating approach.
Consider the UK tech blog "The Register". For years their comment section was a fully moderated style and posts could take more than 12 hours to appear for international contributors, even more for those posting from different time zones.
Then, about 2 years ago they updated their forum.
Posts now appear instantly and were accompanied by a "Report this" button.
A set of rules were announced stating that if reported (and the report was found to be justified) you would be placed on a moderation list for a period of time.
As well, new signups were automatically placed on that same moderation list.
Long term posters were given freedom to post unmoderated under the understanding that were they to abuse their freedom they would be first put on the restricted list and repeated abuse would result in a permaban.
As far as I know it has been working fine since then.
If you are not a techy/geek. you could be forgiven for thinking that since it is just a tech blog, it's not likely to be infested with abusive trolls and the like.
Well, if you think that then I invite you to think again. The site regularly publishes climate change articles of the skeptical variety, articles regarding race and gender studies as relating to the IT industry and other not quite politically correct stories and editorials.
On top of that, anybody that has any experience in the tech sphere will tell you, there are no hotter flamewars fought than over subjects such as Microsoft vs Linux, XBox vs PlayStation or even AMD vs Intel.
In all these areas highly excitable fanboys abound.
Yet even in such a hotbed of dispute their self moderation policy seems to work fine.
It's a pity Bolts blog is still stuck in the previous century then because I sure would like a more responsive forum to discuss the current gang of neer-do-wells that are currently infesting Canberra.
Maybe if he had better moderation then perhaps he could hit 5 million impressions per month?
Then I could discuss why newspapers are so bad at putting advertising on their websites (and subsequent blogs) necessitating them putting up idiotic paywalls to make money instead.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
C.S. Lewis quote
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under
robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s
cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be
satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us
without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Julia Marries The Government
Julia Marries The Government
This is nothing new, it is a deliberate strategy of those who crave bigger, more intrusive governments.
Since the dawn of time the family unit hes evolved as mechanism to protect and preserve those people who are genetically close to each other.
The trouble for those who want to continually grow governments is that a close knit family is remarkably self sufficient and therefore independent.
This is less than ideal.
First the extended families became a thing of the past.
Prior to the industrial revolution, families were centered around the home, which as often as not was the same place where the family income was derived. Think farms, traders/shopkeepers and tradesmen/craftsmen. With the arrival of the industrial revolution two things happened.
People became more dependent on an employer. We started to have "jobs".
Later, it became easier to travel longer distances due to technology advances which enabled younger people to relocate to where greater job opportunities were located.
It was the beginning of the end for extended families, although it has to be said changes up to this point were due to societal and technological changes rather than social engineering by policy.
After the rise of the profession of "Psychiatry" people in power began to turn to this new "science" to find ways that they can understand how people think.
This later evolved into a desire to understand how people may be manipulated, and then controlled.
Since the seventies the so called "Nuclear family" was identified as a social mechanism that still provided too much independence to people, and if that could be broken up then society could be broken down into its component individuals, half of which would be totally dependent on government and the other half being harnessed to pay for it.
The radical feminism of the 70's was used as a vehicle to deliver "No fault divorce".
Soon after that came alimony, and then "child support"
Today, it is financially advantageous for women to relegate the fathers of their children to a mere income source with the inconvenience of fortnightly visits regarded as a necessary evil.
Now, many men have no say over how their children are raised while their mendacious ex-wives use there own children as a meal ticket and often also as a weapon of spite.
It is no accident that divorce rates are at historical highs and it is a deliberate strategy of Socialists whose goal is to make every citizen either fully dependent on government or or an indentured servant tasked with paying for it all.
The only surprise with this Democrat advertisement is that the Socialists appear comfortable enough with what they are doing that they are no longer concerned with hiding it.
Also posted as a comment on Andrew Bolts blog, let's see if it gets past his Nazi moderators.
This is nothing new, it is a deliberate strategy of those who crave bigger, more intrusive governments.
Since the dawn of time the family unit hes evolved as mechanism to protect and preserve those people who are genetically close to each other.
The trouble for those who want to continually grow governments is that a close knit family is remarkably self sufficient and therefore independent.
This is less than ideal.
First the extended families became a thing of the past.
Prior to the industrial revolution, families were centered around the home, which as often as not was the same place where the family income was derived. Think farms, traders/shopkeepers and tradesmen/craftsmen. With the arrival of the industrial revolution two things happened.
People became more dependent on an employer. We started to have "jobs".
Later, it became easier to travel longer distances due to technology advances which enabled younger people to relocate to where greater job opportunities were located.
It was the beginning of the end for extended families, although it has to be said changes up to this point were due to societal and technological changes rather than social engineering by policy.
After the rise of the profession of "Psychiatry" people in power began to turn to this new "science" to find ways that they can understand how people think.
This later evolved into a desire to understand how people may be manipulated, and then controlled.
Since the seventies the so called "Nuclear family" was identified as a social mechanism that still provided too much independence to people, and if that could be broken up then society could be broken down into its component individuals, half of which would be totally dependent on government and the other half being harnessed to pay for it.
The radical feminism of the 70's was used as a vehicle to deliver "No fault divorce".
Soon after that came alimony, and then "child support"
Today, it is financially advantageous for women to relegate the fathers of their children to a mere income source with the inconvenience of fortnightly visits regarded as a necessary evil.
Now, many men have no say over how their children are raised while their mendacious ex-wives use there own children as a meal ticket and often also as a weapon of spite.
It is no accident that divorce rates are at historical highs and it is a deliberate strategy of Socialists whose goal is to make every citizen either fully dependent on government or or an indentured servant tasked with paying for it all.
The only surprise with this Democrat advertisement is that the Socialists appear comfortable enough with what they are doing that they are no longer concerned with hiding it.
Also posted as a comment on Andrew Bolts blog, let's see if it gets past his Nazi moderators.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
A Letter To Martin Dixon MP, Victoria
Dear Mr Dixon
I am one of your constituents (Rosebud) and it concerns me that the Victorian school curriculum is actively engaged in promoting homosexuality as well as many other politically correct notions that do not stand up to even the most minor scrutiny.
I draw your attention to the document Kaleidoscope Student Lesson Plan (PDF - 152Kb) which may be obtained from the Respecting Diversity page of the Victorian Education website.
One of the more egregious mistakes in this document is where it makes the completely unsubstantiated claim that homosexuals represent 10 percent of the Australian population.
This figure does not concur with published statistics* that put the figure at around a tenth of that number (1.2 percent)
It is true that this could be attributed to a simple mathematical error as the author of the "lesson plan" apparently believes that 200,000 / 20,000,000 x 100 = 10 (which it does not).
Mathematical error or deliberate misrepresentation aside, this gross error of fact is repeated throughout the document in question.
If this is the state of research, mathematical competency and lesson planning in the Victorian Education Department then I weep for the poor children who are held hostage in classrooms while such misbegotten PC drivel as this is presented to them in the guise of education.
Quote:
Facilitator: What percentage of the population is SSA?
Researchers have found that more than 10 per cent of the population is SSA. Let’s
work out what this means for the Australian population. What is the population of
Australia?
Participants: (20 million)
Facilitator: If 10 per cent are SSA, how many people are SSA?
Participants: (200,000).
Facilitator: So, we know that 10 per cent or 1 in 10 people are SSA. Therefore, if
you know more than 10 people including family members, then all of you will
know people who are SSA. (Pause for comments.)
Incredibly, the "facilitator" (read Politically Correct Indoctrinator) then goes on to suggest that this means that there over 100 so-called "SSA's" in this very school!
The hidden message being that one of them may be you.
The Lesson Plan concludes with a poorly disguised attempt to ensure that students don't go telling "outsiders" about the lesson in question;
"What you hear in this room stays in this room."
I would be interested to hear your opinion on this matter, both as the relevant Minister and as my local MP.
[redacted]
* "Number of homosexuals in Australia Nationwide statistics - 1.2% of adults identify as homosexual or lesbian. * 1.6% of adult men identified as homosexual and 0.8% of women as lesbian. * 1.4% of women and 0.9% of men said they were bisexual. Source: The 2003 'Sex in Australia' survey of 20,000 people, with a special weighting to Sydney's homosexual centre. Conducted by the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health & Society(ARCSHS) at La Trobe University. Published in Australian & NZ Journal of Public Health, Vol 27 No 2 2003 ISSN 1326 0200." (saltshakers.org.au/issues/
UPDATE:
Received a form response 18/04/2012
I am one of your constituents (Rosebud) and it concerns me that the Victorian school curriculum is actively engaged in promoting homosexuality as well as many other politically correct notions that do not stand up to even the most minor scrutiny.
I draw your attention to the document Kaleidoscope Student Lesson Plan (PDF - 152Kb) which may be obtained from the Respecting Diversity page of the Victorian Education website.
One of the more egregious mistakes in this document is where it makes the completely unsubstantiated claim that homosexuals represent 10 percent of the Australian population.
This figure does not concur with published statistics* that put the figure at around a tenth of that number (1.2 percent)
It is true that this could be attributed to a simple mathematical error as the author of the "lesson plan" apparently believes that 200,000 / 20,000,000 x 100 = 10 (which it does not).
Mathematical error or deliberate misrepresentation aside, this gross error of fact is repeated throughout the document in question.
If this is the state of research, mathematical competency and lesson planning in the Victorian Education Department then I weep for the poor children who are held hostage in classrooms while such misbegotten PC drivel as this is presented to them in the guise of education.
Quote:
Facilitator: What percentage of the population is SSA?
Researchers have found that more than 10 per cent of the population is SSA. Let’s
work out what this means for the Australian population. What is the population of
Australia?
Participants: (20 million)
Facilitator: If 10 per cent are SSA, how many people are SSA?
Participants: (200,000).
Facilitator: So, we know that 10 per cent or 1 in 10 people are SSA. Therefore, if
you know more than 10 people including family members, then all of you will
know people who are SSA. (Pause for comments.)
Incredibly, the "facilitator" (read Politically Correct Indoctrinator) then goes on to suggest that this means that there over 100 so-called "SSA's" in this very school!
The hidden message being that one of them may be you.
The Lesson Plan concludes with a poorly disguised attempt to ensure that students don't go telling "outsiders" about the lesson in question;
"What you hear in this room stays in this room."
I would be interested to hear your opinion on this matter, both as the relevant Minister and as my local MP.
[redacted]
* "Number of homosexuals in Australia Nationwide statistics - 1.2% of adults identify as homosexual or lesbian. * 1.6% of adult men identified as homosexual and 0.8% of women as lesbian. * 1.4% of women and 0.9% of men said they were bisexual. Source: The 2003 'Sex in Australia' survey of 20,000 people, with a special weighting to Sydney's homosexual centre. Conducted by the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health & Society(ARCSHS) at La Trobe University. Published in Australian & NZ Journal of Public Health, Vol 27 No 2 2003 ISSN 1326 0200." (saltshakers.org.au/issues/
UPDATE:
Received a form response 18/04/2012
Thank you for your email to the Hon. Martin Dixon, MP, Minister for Education, regarding the Kaleidoscope student lesson plan.
This is a response to advise you that your email is receiving attention. Please do not reply to this message
UPDATE
Eventually I received a reply via snail mail. I'm not going to reproduce it (because I lost it, doh!), suffice to say it was your normal boilerplate political waffle. It can be boiled down to this:
"Thank you for your correspondence, we're busy improving schools on your behalf and we fully support all forms of politically correct nonsense" spattered with words like "inclusiveness", "equality" and "sensitivity".
UPDATE
Eventually I received a reply via snail mail. I'm not going to reproduce it (because I lost it, doh!), suffice to say it was your normal boilerplate political waffle. It can be boiled down to this:
"Thank you for your correspondence, we're busy improving schools on your behalf and we fully support all forms of politically correct nonsense" spattered with words like "inclusiveness", "equality" and "sensitivity".
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Not the Gender Pay Gap Lie Again
I see the "Women earn 17% less than men for the exact same work" lie is being trotted out on it's bi-monthly outing.
But this time it is with an added twist!
Apparently it is because women are not as good as negotiating as men!
Yes, really.
This lie has been doing the rounds since at least the 80's, and quite possibly the '70s.
It is based on a flawed U.S. study that I cannot find a reference to right now. This study essentially added up the total number of dollars earned by men and the total number of dollars earned by women.
Divide each by the number of participants, compare the numbers and voila! Women earn 17% less than men.
Can you see the flaw in that methodology at all?
The truth is that work choices made by men vs women lead to a number of "inequalities".
For example, during economic hard times, men tend to lose their jobs at a rate 8% more than the ladies do.
Excellent article on the subject here.
Even if you don't believe me, answer me this.
Labour costs are one of the highest burdens on the majority of businesses.
If it truly were that easy for businesses to employ women for 17% less to do "the exact same job" then how on earth do men ever get hired?
But this time it is with an added twist!
Apparently it is because women are not as good as negotiating as men!
Yes, really.
This lie has been doing the rounds since at least the 80's, and quite possibly the '70s.
It is based on a flawed U.S. study that I cannot find a reference to right now. This study essentially added up the total number of dollars earned by men and the total number of dollars earned by women.
Divide each by the number of participants, compare the numbers and voila! Women earn 17% less than men.
Can you see the flaw in that methodology at all?
The truth is that work choices made by men vs women lead to a number of "inequalities".
For example, during economic hard times, men tend to lose their jobs at a rate 8% more than the ladies do.
Excellent article on the subject here.
Even if you don't believe me, answer me this.
Labour costs are one of the highest burdens on the majority of businesses.
If it truly were that easy for businesses to employ women for 17% less to do "the exact same job" then how on earth do men ever get hired?
Sunday, March 4, 2012
A Letter to Stephen Parker, VC Canberra U
Dear Mr Parker
I would like to understand the official stance of the University Of Canberra on the matter of political censorship given that your current head of journalism is a major proponent and contributor to democracy threatening Finklestein report.
The proposals contained in the Finklestein report are nothing more than an attack on free speech as well as on democracy itself.
If it is implemented it will allow an enormously unpopular government who have been the most ramshackle, corrupt and self interested example of such since the utterly incompetent Whitlam debacle to control debate and stifle the few dissenting voices who are willing to stand up and take them to task.
With the News Media Council in place, the entire political debate will be completely controlled by the ALP, Unions and the Greens. Anybody else will be excluded from participating.
The most egregious examples of news bias that currently exist (The ABC and Fairfax) will of course be free to continue their campaigns of support for the ALP/Greens in the face of all reality.
Any journalist who supports this abomination is completely unfit to use the name "journalist" and certainly should not be teaching the subject.
UPDATE:
No response from Mr Parker as of 12/04/2012
UPDATE:
No response from Mr Parker as of 5/05/2012
I would like to understand the official stance of the University Of Canberra on the matter of political censorship given that your current head of journalism is a major proponent and contributor to democracy threatening Finklestein report.
The proposals contained in the Finklestein report are nothing more than an attack on free speech as well as on democracy itself.
If it is implemented it will allow an enormously unpopular government who have been the most ramshackle, corrupt and self interested example of such since the utterly incompetent Whitlam debacle to control debate and stifle the few dissenting voices who are willing to stand up and take them to task.
With the News Media Council in place, the entire political debate will be completely controlled by the ALP, Unions and the Greens. Anybody else will be excluded from participating.
The most egregious examples of news bias that currently exist (The ABC and Fairfax) will of course be free to continue their campaigns of support for the ALP/Greens in the face of all reality.
Any journalist who supports this abomination is completely unfit to use the name "journalist" and certainly should not be teaching the subject.
UPDATE:
No response from Mr Parker as of 12/04/2012
UPDATE:
No response from Mr Parker as of 5/05/2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
The Worst Government In The History Of Australia
The Gillard government has now cemented itself as the very worst governemnt in the history of Australia, and I say that knowing full well what a shambles both the Whitlam and Rudd governments were before her.
Not content with destroying the economy with an unnecessary and totally worthless Carbon Tax along with rolling out the enormous, tax payer money guzzling NBN under the guise of "faster Internet", when in reality it is merely a stealth means of slipping in Conroys Great Firewall Of Australia under the radar, her government has now been handed a report that they commisioned that recommends the they create a massive, over-arching bureaucracy to oversee the Australian media to "ensure fair and unbiased reporting".
If you find yourself wondering whether such a laudable sounding idea might be not such a bad thing then be aware that Bob Brown wholeheartedly supports it which means that it is most likely actually a very bad thing.
This is an attack on democracy itself, ironically coming from a government that failed to be elected and had to resort to doing dirty backroom deals with a couple of independents whose only motivations in the whole sorry mess is self interest and a desire to stick it to the conservative party that they had defected from.
Wilke and Oakeshot both presented themselves to their electors as alternate conservatives when running against the Nationals yet no sooner than had the counting stopped they both jumped into bed with two parties that are the antithesis of the conservative view, those parties being the ultra communist Greens and the ALP, whose parliamentary leader and Prime Minister aspirant was herself a member of the Communists until only a few short years before.
They betrayed the very people who elected them within days of the vote.
If you think that this proposed media watchdog will allow the expression of any viewpoint that is not ALP/Green/Union approved then you are in for a rude shock if this ever gets in.
It is a complete and utter disgrace.
Not content with destroying the economy with an unnecessary and totally worthless Carbon Tax along with rolling out the enormous, tax payer money guzzling NBN under the guise of "faster Internet", when in reality it is merely a stealth means of slipping in Conroys Great Firewall Of Australia under the radar, her government has now been handed a report that they commisioned that recommends the they create a massive, over-arching bureaucracy to oversee the Australian media to "ensure fair and unbiased reporting".
If you find yourself wondering whether such a laudable sounding idea might be not such a bad thing then be aware that Bob Brown wholeheartedly supports it which means that it is most likely actually a very bad thing.
This is an attack on democracy itself, ironically coming from a government that failed to be elected and had to resort to doing dirty backroom deals with a couple of independents whose only motivations in the whole sorry mess is self interest and a desire to stick it to the conservative party that they had defected from.
Wilke and Oakeshot both presented themselves to their electors as alternate conservatives when running against the Nationals yet no sooner than had the counting stopped they both jumped into bed with two parties that are the antithesis of the conservative view, those parties being the ultra communist Greens and the ALP, whose parliamentary leader and Prime Minister aspirant was herself a member of the Communists until only a few short years before.
They betrayed the very people who elected them within days of the vote.
If you think that this proposed media watchdog will allow the expression of any viewpoint that is not ALP/Green/Union approved then you are in for a rude shock if this ever gets in.
It is a complete and utter disgrace.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)