Guardian in not having a clue shocker

For the record, I don’t care or give a fig about “content labels” and all that other insufferable snakeoil shite. I am against a blogger code of conduct which some predatory scum are trying to force on a group in order to cash in on mass hysteria. Had the Guardian actually read my post properly, besides copying and pasting from Paul Walsh’s blog post, which egotistically assumed (without checking) I had been talking about his idea, they would have known that. I would have expected something better from BBC Print Lite. I would have also expected a link to what they falsey said I had written. It is easier to make false claims and not back it up, isn’t it though?

While on Content labels, I’ll make a special label from pipecleaners and toilet rolls and call it the lazy research label. I hereby award it to Jemima Kiss for that piece that was vomited on to the web tonight.

One more thing for Paul and Jemima, I may write a column for the Sunday Tribune, but labeling me as a Sunday Tribune columnist as if it were my main job is completely incorrect. You might as well refer to me as a mechanic because I put oil into my car once. Had Jemima sent an email, picked up a phone or sent a pigeon winging its way to Ireland, she’s have known I am a Technical Writer by trade and do far too many other things, including writing now and then for the Sunday Tribune. (And having a whole load of fun doing it too. 🙂 )

Hey Guardian, please buy a packet of extra large clues. K, thanks, bye.

Edit: Thanks to Green Ink:

Mulley Grinder

19 Responses to “Guardian in not having a clue shocker”

  1. I’d say you’re probably the most evil human being who ever lived, and it’s very likely that you are the man who killed Kathy Sierra.

  2. Shawn says:

    “I am a Technical Writer by trade”– are you sure about that?

    Because i don’t see any sign of that, you are much more like arrogant human being who consider himself jack of all. You don’t like other people’s idea, that’s fine, but when you say horse shit without explaining why you are opposing, that’s just dumb.

    So it’s just not Codes of conduct, or Segala, or Guardian, it’s about keeping your arrogance up.

  3. Branedy says:

    Shawn you have not met Damien, that much is obvious, so please reserve your comments for Kathy Sierra.

  4. dahamsta says:

    You never put oil in a car, ya lyin’ bollix.

    Can I get one of those awards for presentation to ENN btw?

  5. Damien doesn’t like the idea of a code, he doesn’t care about content labels. Fine so far. But Paul does care about these things and has made a link between the two. That’s not unreasonable. It’s also a FACT that Damien bills himself as a (sometimes) columnist but I see no inference as to whether it is a main or secondary source of income. Whichever way – so what? Who cares?

    To the more substantive point – content labels, tied to the idea of a code – makes a heck of a lot of sense for business people. With freedom comes responsibility and accountability. The problem is, most potty mouthed bloggers don’t get that.

  6. Paul Littlebury says:

    Seems the internet is full of angry teenager, or how it appears. Damien should be spending more time growing up. I have little time for newspapers in general – tabloid or broadsheet. What the Guardian think about anything is of little consequence, as all they think about is the next days headlines, the next days story to stir up paranoia. Instead of knee jerk reactions, how about some common sense. I am more concerned with increased CCTV surveilance, increased money into nuclear arms, and goverments treating their populace like toys. Get a grip Damien, get a life. Content labels and other moves are to improve internet quality, and control for parent, not to control the web just user-control on access. Also, I think people should stop swearing andcussing in blogs – it shows a lack of vocabulary and rationality. Little sweaty bloggers holed up in their bedrooms, thinking they are changing the world with their pointless insulting rants. Invisible people have rights, as long as they are not infringing on others.

  7. Dan Sullivan says:

    Paul, I see no reason why the net has aim to be some lowest common denominator family friendly environment or why it has to be tweaked to make it more or less business friendly. As for swearing and cussing and such, fucket maybe I’m just a thick mick (and remember Billy Connolly that might too much) but sometimes exclamation marks just don’t cut it.

  8. Paul Walsh says:

    I’ll respond to this in due course on my own blog. I’ll take the debate of a set of best practices for blogs to where it belongs.

    I would like to address a couple of points here though.

    Damien wrote – “about “content labelsâ€? and all that other insufferable snakeoil shite”

    1) We all have the right to have an opinion and the right to express them. So, I’ll voice mine. The Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA), global child protection body, uses Content Labels to help protect children from inappropriate content.

    Protecting children from potentially harmful content by enabling parents to filter stuff out, isn’t in my humble opinion, insufferable snakeoil shite. But then again, that’s just my opinion… and that of a few more adults I know of. Content Labels is being proposed to replace PICS – the system used by Internet Explorer for content filtering as it doesn’t work.

    2) “predatory scum are trying to force on a group in order to cash in on mass hysteria” – I have no idea who this could be targeted at, again, there’s no references or links to any resources (it’s so easy to fling mud everywhere without pointing the finger!). What I will say is that I personally don’t see the need to hurl insults at people – especially when one doesn’t appear to demonstrate any knowledge on the subject.

  9. Damien says:

    I was waiting for this whole child protection bullshit to appear. Not even 24 hours.

    Funny how it is yourself and right wing christian zealots who use the whole “thinking of the children” excuse to sell your wares. Be it shutting down free speech, burning crosses, or selling software that “protects” children for only €9.99 a month, there’s always something to guilt trip the general population in order to gain money or power with the dafault excuse being “You mean, you are against child protection?”

  10. Paul Walsh says:

    Damien – you really need to take a chill pill before giving yourself a heart attack. ICRA labels are FREE. It is currently the only child protective solution that’s available for free as far as I’m aware. Not that you care but… IE still uses the outdated W3C recommendation (PICS) that ICRA first introduced in the early to mid 90’s. IE’s Site advisor however, doesn’t work very well so it is now being proposed that it be replaced by Content Labels.

    Like I said, it appears as if you have little to no knowledge on the subject matter. May I suggest you do a little homework before hurling insults at companies and people? Alternatively you can continue to look like a fool in front of those of us who have a little knowledge in this area.

    Child protection bullshit? Wow, I didn’t think even you could stoop that low. I had some respect for you only because you appear to have built a little community… I now think otherwise (unfortunately). You should try to act a little more professional instead of sitting behind a blog, assuming that you can act like a child playing around with after hearing about it on CBeebies .

  11. For someone that claims to have a 200 Million pound company, you really don’t act like any kind of professional Paul. Brave people or maybe stupid people must do business with you. You Irish would want to get over your usual pub-type brawling and concentrate instead on getting down to business. I do wonder how people sleep at night by making profits from the fact that they fighten parents with thoughts of their children being harmed. Very Pied Piper.

  12. Jason Roe says:

    Paul, I have been staying out of this for some time. In my opinion, your last comment just went over the line. You have played every card in the book so far to try and show your offering has value.

    At the moment your offering is smoke and mirrors. You know it, I know it and everyone reading your ridiculous statements knows it. If you are so confident about your offering, why do you have to keep defending it time after time? If your offering is as good as you say, then it needs no defence.

    In my opinion, your content labels will protect no one. Technology has been in place for many years to detect and block unwanted content. All of these technologies use much more sophisticated methods of detection. A simple opt-in tag will prevent nothing.

    Instead of pushing reams of ridiculous statements at people, maybe you should sit back and research what people want from your offering. Maybe instead of telling people what they need, you should take a step back and listen to the drivers.

    The final decisions will come down to the people who will implement the technology. If implementers feel that your offering is going to hurt them in any way, they will run a mile. You will not succeed if you keep showing disadvantages in using your offering! ID3 tags worked because they gave you more, not less.

  13. Matthew says:

    Heh, as an adult of only 5 months, I can be thankful that I was let use the internet on my own without someone staring over my shoulder, directly or by proxy. I get the impression off a number of comments that some don’t realise that the users are what make up the internet. There is an industry which willfully seeks to psych up parents into putting software on computers, despite knowing that a) the kids can side-step the software in umpteen different ways and that b) profit is the priority.

    And Paul, Damien hasn’t built up some kind of dollhouse. Cop on. If web-pages can be coded to say that they are child-friendly or otherwise, then it will be absurdly easy *not* to write that label. The worst people out there will not care about mandates to do this that and the other.

    Paul Littlebury would be better off pulling his head out of the chasm and looking around at reality. The reality is that you brand Damien as some sort of angry teenager in a derogatory way, yet these people are the ones that you claim to protect. You are a hypocrite sir, and worse, you are deluded enough to think that content labelling will help children, while their email inboxes fill up with offers of Viagra and Sex.

    Finally, Mr. Walsh, don’t you dare stand up for child protection. I don’t know if you have any kids or not, but don’t act like you have a god-given right to decide what’s best for everyone’s kids. I’m in a secondary school, and if teens are not able to figure out for themselves that giving out their mobile phone number is a bad idea, then they probably have other mental difficulties too. Keep your patronising behaviour to your own kids, god love them.

  14. Paul Walsh says:

    Mr. T – “concentrate instead on getting down to business” – you’re absolutely right, couldn’t agree more. Blogs make it too easy for some of us to feel like they have to defend themselves. The End.

  15. Paul, do you know why Content Labels is “insufferable bullshite”? It’s because any suitably motivated kid is perfectly capable of navigating their way around them. I know when I was able to do similar things when I was a kid, so I doubt anything’s changed in the meantime.

  16. Shawn says:

    Branedy, obviously it is my pleasure that I didn’t met him.

    Dan Sullivan, there is nothing wrong batting back what you don’t like or don’t agree. But civilized people have to bat back with reasons and logic not hell I just don’t like it, since i don’t have a clue what it is.

    Mr. T. Wallance, in case you don’t know, a lot people do earn money by selling drugs/med for sick children, does that make those people insufferable human being? Think again?

    The point, what the outcome is not who will get profit. Off course every act in the world has something in return, so obviously Mr. Walsh may have monitory profit. Every technology/security has way around it, that doesn’t mean we have to sit back and put our hand on the ass. We have to seek better technology, that’s where innovation come from.

    So why not you guys propose something better? If not, why not just say we don’t understand it, and that’s why we don’t like it. Or the best point out the flaws of proposed technology.

    Keith G. as far as I recall Content Label was a leaf technology came out from RDF/RSS/XML/FOAF technology endorsed by W3C. So even if Walsh and his company failed to implement it, that doesn’t make it bullshit, Perhaps you got some bright idea too, why not say what u have to offer? Don’t take my word for it; search those keywords in google/yahoo or wikipedia. The OpenID rocking Yahoo, MySpace, Technorati, was based on same technology (Macro format).

    So ultimately its pointless discussion, one group trying to say whatever coming from their finger point to defend their mentor (Damien), another trying to show their proposed products goodness.

  17. Matthew says:

    I thought the issue was not understanding what Content Labelling was about, but more a case of “What’s the point of it”?? There is no need for content labelling in my view, and I haven’t seen a watertight point in favour of it so far.

  18. […] Jemima Kiss from the Guardian has gotten back to me about the attack piece on me in her Organ Grinder Column. She has now rectified (at the end of her piece) the misrepresentation that I said “fuck off” to content labels. I also asked that the piece link to what I actually stated, since she linked to a blog post where Paul Walsh argued against what I said. It would only seem right in terms of balance. Glad that has happened. Apparently this could have been resolved sooner had it not been for Jemima being away from the office and apparently because of my agressive attitude to this. Glad this is sorted. […]