Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Road to the Tropics
Road to the Tropics
Starring Bing Crosby, Bob Hope, and Dorothy Lamour
“Of all the bars in all the world …”
… well, there we were a couple of weeks ago, David Roffey, Richard Tonkin and I, enjoying a glass or three of a cheeky little shiraz in the virtual bar, and having one of our occasional chats about whither Webdiary.
Richard: IMHO before Fiona departs we need to establish the future movement of the site.
David: The most likely sorted-out future for Webdiary is that it will trundle along much like it has lately, with occasional smorgasbords of new stuff and occasional bouts of living off the fat stores of the archive. In times when Fiona or Richard are away, comment publication will get more sporadic, but others will pitch in a bit to make it less so. Probably none of the people writing comments will be that upset …
The old description of Club Chaos still pretty much applies. We don't change the world much but there are a lot of people kibitzing on the rambling discourse at the bar who appear to be enjoying doing just that ...
Fiona: I am really glad we are having this conversation. Lots of things to consider; I shall aim for a detailed response tomorrow. [Yeah, yeah, that was a fortnight ago. I do procrastination really well.] David, your description of xxxxx's behaviour had me in stitches. Oh dear, giggling again...
The main reason (apart from habitual laziness) that I never came good with a piece about what Webdiary means to me is that David Curry expressed almost everything I think and feel so eloquently almost six months ago. Webdiary is my virtual community. I feel privileged to be a member, and even more privileged to have been able to help with moderating and sourcing content. Along the way I have met (virtually and in the real world) many wonderful people, all of whom I hope will be my friends to a greater or lesser extent for the rest of my life. Of course there are people who irritate me profoundly – something that is especially problematic for a moderator because, unlike other Webdiarists, we have to read their comments. Nevertheless, I think I can say that even with those people with whom I’m fundamentally at odds, there is always some point where we do have a meeting of minds.
Webdiary was among the first of what now is a huge array of blogs. In my opinion, it continues to be a pioneer by its active encouragement of citizen journalism and of (heated) discourse amongst its community. For that reason alone I hope that it has a future, as I think the combination of citizen journalism, a broad range of political stances, and active debate distinguish it from, for example, the blogs on the Australian and the ABC.
I’ve thought long and carefully about this next bit. One matter that has concerned me over the two and a half years that I have been moderating is the way that a small number of people has persistently tried to steer Webdiary in their preferred ideological direction. This has been done in different ways, e.g.:
- accusing Webdiary of being a captive of right-wing Zionists
- insisting that other Webdiarists be prohibited from responding to their comments when those responses take a different ideological perspective
- making – in most cases unwarranted – assumptions about the identity of other Webdiarists and accusing Webdiary management of not living up to its aim of being independent, ethical, accountable, and transparent.
and has taken the form of Not for Publication posts, emails to moderators, and comments on other websites which have ranged from being fairly polite to highly abusive. Again, in my opinion, those people who have tried to capture Webdiary for the purposes of their own agenda are in flagrant contempt of Margo Kingston’s desire that all Webdiarists should respect the right of others to hold and express different opinions. So I make no apologies for having continued to publish voices from all points on the political continuum, or for not publishing some comments from all those points. Webdiary is, after all, supposed to be about the contest of ideas.
Why am I writing this now? Over the past eight months I’ve been putting a lot of time into Webdiary while trying to decide what to do with the rest of my life. At the end of this week, however, I shall be heading to the
So, my dear fellow Webdiarists, as David Roffey asked the other day, whadyawannado? I hope the consensus will be to keep going – but folks, it’s up to you.
Goodnight and good luck.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Cyber snipers coming unstuck
Now this just made my day.
Fiona: Mine too, Jenny.
No worries
Scott Dunmore: "Which part of that applies to me, or both?"
Actually, not much - only the good bits.
I feel you underestimate your charm. My harsh words don't apply to any person that contributes to this board. Personally, I rather enjoy our disagreements.
Keep your friends close and ....
"Actually, not much - only the good bits."
(This got past me.)
In truth I dont feel I've been charming all the time. I've been guilty on many an occasion of breaking my own dictum. "Blog in haste, repent at leisure."
She-of- the-wise-head gently asked if I wanted to proceed with a post. I wasn't listening but then steam emanating from the ears impairs hearing. I didn't regret the post so much as realising later I could have done it differently to better effect.
Which reminds me; four games all in the fifth set before rain stopped play.
I'll get back to it later as the "State of Origin" is not far away and I have guests in the restaurant.
High flattery
'The highest rank I have achieved is "arch liar and deceiver" of which I am immensely proud. '
Well done Craig. I can well understand your pride in this achievement. Coming from them this is high praise indeed. It is truly a testament to your excellent character. It is remarkable how striking is the inverse relationship between the stridency and disgusting offensiveness of the abuse from this little gang and the strength of decency and character of the target. It is almost mathematical.
I hope it will not regarded as too immodest of me to point out that I have earned a considerable ranking as well. Including:
"The arch Zionist lunatic himself, Geoff Pahoff. [I particularly like 'The'- GP]
"Known pro-Zionist Geoff Pahoff, whose MO includes lies and abuse "Apologist
"Deceiver
"Islamophobic
"Liar
"Lunatic
"Warmongering
"Ziononazi
"Zionist thug"
And that's just since Mothers'Day.
You may know I have a practice of downloading and copying the worst (best?) of the abuse directed at me, laminating them and using them as table place mats. I nearly have my fifth set. I might use them for Christmas presents.
Blogs And Life
Jenny Hume
Thinking on my life I find that criticism is one of the most hurtful things to endure - yet one of the most helpful - "constructive" criticism that is.
As of the last time I read (last week sometime) you still were.
In many ways being thought of (even not nicely) is a compliment. In the brutal world we live; some people struggle everyday, for even acknowledgement (in whatever form).
Craig Warton
Personally, I find those rather naive put downs, well, sweet. Having a teenage daughter, getting over her first relationship, does give a new found perspective. That such a routine comes from the fingers of obviously mature men (probably not in a relationship) does take the "sweetness factor" out of the equation - I must say. All one can take from that is the certainty, nobody, and I do mean nobody, behaves in such a manner in real life.
Scott Dunmore
And a brilliant blog weapon it can be (even when on the receiving end). Strangely enough, the masters of such a blog weapon generally have the happy knack of knowing the line.
PS the most despicable thing I've "blog" witnessed (my eyes still can't believe it) is a person (in living blog) go against people he once publicly swore loyalty toward; as well as making public, private "correspondence". There are many words for this action (which I won't use); however, there are times, people take actions that well deserve the label: Never to be trusted.
I assure this particular person (actually, I swear to this person), if I ever find myself in a situation of being helpful or hurtful toward you (may never happen, and hopefully for him it doesn't), I will make my full opinion known. There's an art to picking up friends, and there's a real art finding enemies - the test for you; has been passed with flying colors.
Now I'm worried
Paul: "There's an art to picking up friends, and there's a real art finding enemies - the test for you; has been past with flying colors."
Which part of that applies to me, or both?
The lessons we give the young
Paul, I am trying not to blog at the moment as there is so much else on my mind. Am glad my advice was useful.
It does not surprise me I am still the target on other sites, but I simply could not care less. It must be over a year since I ever bothered to look. One of course does wonder at times how all the other Jenny Humes on the net might feel as I note there are in fact quite a few. I am by no means unique. They might get a shock if they google up their name.
What is really troubling about this flaming, as they call it, is that the people doing it know almost nothing about the person they might be bullying online in this manner. And it sets a very poor example for young people on the net. Bullying we know causes a lot of harm, to young people in particular who have not yet had the chance to build their suit of armour for life. And young adults too in many cases are not immune as the high rate of youth suicide in this country demonstrates. Some people are easily tipped over the edge.
The bullying online by an adult and her daughter of another child, in the US I think it was, resulted in that child suiciding recently.
It is sad that adults use the net to try and bully those whose opinions they object to. It reflects badly on the character of the people concerned. And what is surprising is that often those same people try to afford themselves such attributes as compassion and concern for others in this world, when their very writings tell the opposite.
So to all those reading this, and I know you still come here from those other sites, I just say: If you truly care about other human beings then you will think about how your abuse of people on line might hurt vulnerable people, and what sort of example you are setting others.
Webdiary is the only site I bother with, not because it is a coward's site, but simply because by and large you get rational debate here on a whole range of important issues with people of undoubted intellect participating.
The Guardian's Ten Rules
The relaunch of the Comment Is Free site drew my attention to the latest version of the Guardian's Ten Rules for the site, which are said to be "evolving" and are a tad familiar:
oddsbodkins
Only just discovered this thread - what a weird one.
For my part, have just followed a hunch to discover what alternative mysterious site may be involved and who is involved.
Sure enough, the intemperate comments from several people here led me to just discover my hunch is likely correct.
For my part, my experience lead me to consider shades of grey as to apportionment of blame, rather than black and white as to rights and wrongs of those involved, and of course I have not been available to witness intra moderator conflict at Webdiary, either.
Have not done much blogging myself lately, partly because of my own frustrations in the past with some questionable moderation re middle east, almost since Loewenstein's forthright debate concerning Palestinian Hannan Ashrawi's victimisation by the Israel lobby and its right wing local allies, some years ago. Jack Robertson particularly comes to mind.
Sooner all parties sit down and discuss their respective grievances honestly and openly, the better for all concerned, because this would be a great site rather than merely a good site if some of the talented, principled people who have departed, obviously frustrated at mix ups or whatever, were again contributing.
Way too much gut emotionalism and even prejudice at the mo replacing open, informed debate, and it is dragging Webdiary down.
Also, would sincerely hate to think Webdiary would be following a policy of discouragement against Israel lobby sceptics, especially given resistance required against anti-sedition laws, which are a form of censorship.
Margo: Hello Paul. It's all a process, this moderation thing. Some are suited, some are not. My advice to all is go with the flow, assume good faith, and ponder the content, tone and style of your comments to maximise the possibility of authentic communication.
Mysterious lobbies
"Also, would sincerely hate to think Webdiary would be following a policy of discouragement against Israel lobby sceptics, especially given resistance required against anti-sedition laws, which are a form of censorship"
Paul, I totally agree regarding discouraging of discussion. But this whole thing goes way beyond that. Because i have made statements that some people on other sites don't like I am quite routinely listed as a "zionist sympathiser" as well as a liar and deceiver. The highest rank I have achieved is "arch liar and deceiver" of which I am immensely proud.
My crime has been to click on some of the links that have been posted on here and go to the sites. On other pages on these sites have been articles questioning the existence of the holocaust, even to the extent of saying why gas chambers didnt exist in the concentration camps.
Im sorry, but when you are linking to a site that has that sort of stuff posted on it how on earth can you expect people not to come back and question your motives?
One of my main interests, as many would have noticed, is German WW2 military history but at the same time I am neither blind to nor ignorant of the horrors commited. Seeing people deny those events or pass cheap comments about concentration camps annoys the daylights out of me. But taht in no way makes me a Zionist nor a Zionist sympathiser.
I have copped my very fair share of abuse on other sites and for a while it really got to me. I started getting into tit for tat comment battles and all it did was turn me off blogs. That's the main reason I ceased posting on here.
In the end, though, they are simply not worth bothering about. I march to my own drum now. If I wish to comment on something I do and when I have nothing else to say I go again.
It is a good way to be and it preserves your sanity into the bargain!
Greasy poles
G'day Craig. In this case did not have you in mind, just new to this discussion myself.
The sort of people being mentioned in this discussion are likely lefties and no way into David Irwin's holocaust denialism, which is a rightwing phenomena. My fear is that if humanity has been capable of disasters ranging from the Thirty Years War, to the wars and depressions of the early twentieth century, to Stalinism, then it is valid to employ reference to Nazi Germany as illustrative of a slippery slope argument that could have even us in deep sh-t one day. Hence things like censorship, vague security laws, racism and so forth will always ring a bell for me.
"The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance".
As for being "knocked", anyone who participates in current affairs blogging is going to have to have a thick hide, or grow one quick smart.
Hi there
Also, I'm working on a little project involving Webdiary, and hopefully I can write something about it soon. I'm sure Webdiary will still be a happening thing when you return, Fiona. You've cared for her so well she's in good shape to manage without you for a while.
Love Margo
PS: The bar theme persists as a descriptor for the Webdiary conversation. See Polly Bush's August 2001 piece Webdiary Women, her February 2005 piece Carving up Club Chaos, and her August 2005 piece Waiting to take us away...
On reflection
So many beautiful ladies, so little time and (regretfully), only one of me.
Fiona: I have every admiration for a man who is prepared to live dangerously...
Flame crazy world of the net
David R, Certainly there is something to be said for not reading the site (these guys are banned and are webdiary history). For Webdiary (and many contributors) it's probably fair to assume that these people's opinions are no longer of importance (not of enough importance to contribute there).
I will from now be following the same simple rule (no longer reading). People can make up their own minds on the "importance", and the "validity" of the issues that the site raises (people mostly being normal probably couldn't care less).
Certainly, many of the things being written are not fair, and I certainly don't think some of it would escape Australian libel laws. Naturally what action taken (if any) is for each (slandered) individual to decide upon for themselves.
PS The personal attack has always been a part of social interaction, and rightly, or wrongly, will always be a part of it.
Richard: It sounds like a sensible approach, Paul. Thanks a million !
When is enough, enough?
I'd strongly advise the directors of Webdiary pty ltd to read a certain blog (I'm sure you're aware of). My belief is that there is definite grounds for a cease and desist letter (certainly I'm not an Australian law expert).
What is apparent is an escalating pattern of cyber harrassment, threatening behaviour, and attempted intimidation against both this particular company, a number of its directors, and a number of the forums posters (including me).
Many people are under the very false impression that free speech implies the right to say, and in this case, write anything "they may believe to be true". Australians (extends to Australian net sites) certainly do not enjoy highly liberal freedom of speech protections (or a number of vilification protections).
This particular site is starting to progress into more than just a cyber annoyance (I've read about such things, though, up until Webdiary, never experienced them) - and speaking personally I've had enough of it.
David R: Hi, Paul. For some reason Margo used to attract an extraordinary volume of incoherent hate and abuse. During some of the periods when she needed some mind space away from it I would go through her mailbox every day and delete numerous pieces of personal abuse, usually with no indication whatsoever of why or what the writer objected to in her life or her writing. Some of this was inherited by this site.
One result was that very early on in the life of the independent Webdiary I came to the conclusion that I wouldn't read any of the other sites, and never respond to any allegations or opinions written anywhere other than on Webdiary itself - though on a couple of the less frothing-at-the-mouth sites I would simply correct any facts that were misstated, and leave the opinions to (mostly) expose the ignorance, bias or stupidity of the writers on their own.
So, actually I don't personally know which site or writings you're referring to or what they say, because I've never read them nor have any intention of doing so. We know what we do. We know that Fiona and Richard follow the shining example of previous moderators in striving to be fair and apply the rules to whatever comments get submitted. Balance is not imposed by the moderators, because we publish almost everything: balance comes from the people who submit coherent comments without personal abuse. The site can therefore never be captured by one side of any debate unless the other side stop debating.
From the beginning we've published 97% or so of all comments submitted to the site, which is a considerably higher number than many sites which don't pre-moderate: I believe the Guardian's Comment Is Free post-moderated site ends up deleting a much higher proportion than that, for example. Similarly, in three years we've banned a handful of people for persistent abuse of the guidelines, whereas apparently Comment Is Free have banned around 40% of all registered contributors.
At least one of the most vocal critics of our policy of pre-moderation is now having to live with it himself, it being the opinion of his employer's lawyers that "Australian libel laws are ... ridiculous and require that each comment be viewed before publication." So, I'd guess those lawyers would agree that a libel action would be successful. Knowing the sort of people who indulge in this stuff, they'd carry on spouting libels and add a new stream of drivel that amounts to:
Ignore those sites Paul
Paul Morrella, take my advice and ignore those sites. The hate that dwells there, the abuse and the foul language are not worth the click of your mouse.
I was the subject of long diatribes on one by diaffected ex Webdiarists and I am told I am still on the hate list. I took one look and never bothered to go back. Whatever turns them on as they say.
Don't bother to go there. After a while you forget they even exist.
Cheers.
Richard: I agree entirely, Jenny. It's sad that people lose their dignities in such a way.
Gimme a clue
Paul, do I get a guernsey? I can always use a good laugh.
Centreman
Wot, no soccer team?
On reflection Paul, this is a "cowards castle" and I am guilty in that regard. I've been curt with people, sarcastic to Kathy, a weapon I haven't used in real life (and in the use of which I am a past master,) since adolescence without the level of provocation that would result in my use of such.
Under normal, face to face circumstance I would gently steer the conversation away from contentious issues. I've been accused of arrogance for as long as I can remember and can see the truth in it. I did not suffer fools gladly although I've mellowed with age.
The problem here is that it is impersonal in that we do not see the nuances of facial expression or have the benefit of observing body language.
I will keep this in mind.
New views
So, either you are going to drown in the unrelenting rain — or isn’t it the wet season? So long since I was there I have forgotten! — get stung by a scorpion, bitten by a snake, or eaten by a croc!
A lot like moderating I would guess, you ought to feel right at home.
I have long thought that the moderators are too damned concerned about the feelings of the contributors. If you are subbing you are subbing. In the next day's daylight you, with the rest of the world see your blunders, or hopefully not, and the following day they are fish ‘n chip wrappers!
Well that is not quite so today, but figuratively it still stands.
(Years ago, with a far bigger audience I used one of those different spelling, same sounding, distinct meaning words in a top of the page headline. Decided to get in first, pinned the page to my door with: ‘I know!’ scrawled across it, only to be continually asked by mystified people: ‘You know WHAT?’ )
As for those who do not post under their own name: my view is that there would have to be an awfully good reason, and damned difficult to defend on an ongoing basis.
For the rest I will miss the occasional late night conversation. The time away ought to be a tonic, give you a fresh view on the world and remind you that life goes on, even though there are times that one wonders why, and times when for periods one may even wish it didn’t!
WD will, I am sure stumble along, with the usual high and low periods. Certainly the work that Fiona has put in has been the reason for much of the life of the site in recent times. I know, I have suggested that a piece was worth looking at and have seen the effort Fiona has put in to secure the permission, write the intro — time consuming with no little ability involved!
Have fun up there, say hello to my favourites, the many and varied many beautiful lizards, and remind the beautiful green tree frogs that I remember them still.
That elusive dinner waits; sometime, somewhere.
Thanks and about moderating
Thanks Fiona, Richard and David for all the obvious hard work you have done this past year to enable the rest of us to sit back and enjoy.
In my view a moderator's decision on a comment should be final and commentors told firmly that no correspondence will be entered into should a comment be DNP'd or edited.
Anyone hassling, sending abusive or vexatious emails to moderators or repeatedly attempting to post abusive comments on the site should be promptly banned from the site. Moderators should not have to put up with that sort of thing.
When The Clowns Come To Town
Oh yes, the done to death burden of proof fallacy http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
Never ceases to amaze me the chuckleheads that actually think it works - on any person with an IQ above 80 that is. On the old scale, that highly misguided belief, would show definite signs of dullness.
Remorseless ridicule, remorseless questioning
Craig: “Why did your "different ways" list, Fiona, not include the "remorseless ridicule" technique ... ?”
For the reason that you should remember from your own years of moderating, Craig: what one reader may regard as “remorseless ridicule” another reader may consider to be entertaining piffle.
You are well aware that there has always been a range of views on Webdiary about the extent to which posts should be moderated. I’m probably a bit more hardline than some, but if everything that was likely to offend even one person were not published Webdiary would be a very quiet place.
As to the second part of your question, that fell squarely within one of my “different ways” list (which is why I deleted it) and is one that has been canvassed at length on Webdiary and in direct communication between you and Margo, as well as between you and other members of Webdiary management. Quite frankly, your “remorseless questioning” on this point has made several moderators’ experience (not just my own) over the past year somewhat trying.
Craig, you are a parent; presumably you have had experience of toddlers' tantrums. I'm sure that you know that the best behaviour management technique is to ignore tantrums. The same technique – deprivation of the oxygen of attention – is effective with "remorseless ridicule". Try it sometime.
No Hope
Not if my leading lady is David Roffey in a skirt, wig and high heels ;)
I have a few thoughts, but they can wait till later in the day. Let's just say for the minute that I'm proud to be involved with this site. Oh, and also that I'd love to see a few more ideas for thread starters coming through.
Yet never an answer
Over the past year my simple question (the second, censored one) has been met with anything but an answer, Fiona.
It has never been answered. Not by Margo, nor by any other members of Webdiary management.
And yes, I am a parent. I'm one who shared his real identity here; and to a degree put my family at some risk by sharing that genuine identity. You know I'd been threatened during the time I was moderating Webdiary.
I'm also one of those whom you and the others allowed to be targeted by the ridiculer (engaging in what is a form of bullying; a most cowardly form as he sheltered behind his false identity).
Why? Well now you reveal it was because you consider his abusive personal attacks to be "entertaining" and "piffle."
Do I really have to remind you that those targeted don't feel that it was particularly "entertaining" to be targeted?
So now I understand the "why" (you thought it was fun to facilitate the bullying), but I still don't see how it squares with WD Ethics?
Indeed, as one or two of you have acknowledged over time that very point about the special deal made to allow the ridiculer his pseudonymity (which is a deal it seems I cannot mention for fear of censorship), with no answer to my question I simply cannot comprehend how what's been done reflects WD Ethics.
That's the very reason why I have asked the question more than once.
I would really like to hear a reasoned response that attempts to demonstrate how the decision made to give that person a second identity could be ethical.
It seems I never will.
[There will be a detailed response to this comment]
In detail, then
It has taken me longer than I hoped to respond to Craig Rowley’s post, but the excuses are reasonable: travel preparation, a busy week on Webdiary, and the need to work through three months of last year’s posts to make sure that I responded accurately. Now, I get annoyed when Webdiarists reproduce the entirety of an earlier post, but I feel obliged to respond to Craig in that manner to make sure that I cover all the points that he raised.
Incorrect. (1) Margo made her position abundantly clear on several threads, in particular the Yep, says honest John and the Saudi Arabia behind Iraq terrorism threads. (2) I understand that Margo emailed you personally at least once about this matter. (3) I know that I also emailed you about it, and discussed the matter at length over lunch in August last year – or don’t I count as a member of Webdiary management?
To the best of my knowledge and belief, (1) all people who have been moderating on Webdiary over the last two and a half years have shared our real identities here, and (2) all such moderators have received varying levels of threats during that period.
Incorrect. All moderators (perhaps me more than the rest) have taken considerable pains to protect Webdiarists and, indeed, you in particular, from much of what you have deemed to be “targeting” by the “ridiculer”.
Incorrect – but we need to clarify something first. So-called remorseless ridicule, if it involves personal abuse, offends Webdiary’s moderation guidelines and is not published. So-called remorseless ridicule of other people’s points of view etc. does not amount to a personal attack but to robust contesting of ideas, and as such does not breach the moderation guidelines. Secondly, I have never regarded “abusive personal attacks” as entertaining. Thirdly – and I probably didn’t make this sufficiently clear, my observations were confined to so-called remorseless ridicule of ideas and opinions, and I did not say that I found that to be entertaining piffle – all I did was suggested that others might find it so.
Partly accepted. I sometimes don’t find it entertaining to have my opinions challenged, but I don’t see that as a personal attack on me. On the contrary, I see it as part of the cut-and-thrust of the contest of ideas. What I (and other moderators) certainly do not find entertaining is being “targeted” by remorseless, relentless questioning (or, more accurately, banging on and on and on about something that was resolved long ago).
Incorrect. See above.
Incorrect, and fallacious. IF one takes the position that (original) identity A is the same as (now) identity B, one cannot assume that identity B is the pseudonymous identity. It’s equally plausible that identity A may have been the pseudonym, and if as appears to be the case identity B is that individual’s true identity (insofar as it is possible for us to check), there is nothing more to be said.
And so ad infinitem. This particular topic is closed. Permanently.
After all of this, Craig, you may find it difficult to believe that I have great respect for you. You are an informed individual who demonstrates great compassion and an interestingly lateral approach to many troubling issues. Your contributions to Webdiary over the years have been appreciated by many people, including me. Your obduracy on this matter, however, is disturbing, unproductive, and frankly does you no credit. Maybe it’s time to take a break from Webdiary – but you know that you will always be welcome to contribute in the constructive way that you can do so well.
Fun in the tropics
Fiona, I hope you enjoy your time in the tropics. It is the only place to be at this time of year. Thank you for your time and support on Webdiary, I am sure we will survive and hopefully you will drop in from time to time.
I will miss your punctuation and spelling corrections.
your virtual friend John
Fiona: Thank you, John. It's 12 degrees in my study at the moment - I can hardly wait to get back to the island paradise.
Whadyawannado?
Say thanks.
Say goodbye.
And to ask one last question:
Why did your "different ways" list, Fiona, not include the "remorseless ridicule" technique used by one to target others with to make unpleasant, sometimes painful, their experience of this virtual community.
Just a sarong at twilight
Given my opinion on being identified as playing Bob Hope or Bing Crosby in this epic, I'll have to audition for the Dorothy Lamour part.
Fiona: Go for it, David - I've always wanted to be Bing.