Andrew Sharp (pictured) is the SNP’s Westminster candidate for East Lothian. This morning he made a post on his “Justified Spinner” blog, criticising a research paper by the Centre for Public Policy for Regions, among other things on the basis that he suspects a “political agenda”.I posted a short reply, pointing out that the CPPR’s figures were derived from works which had received at least a tacit SNP stamp of approval. I then noticed a further factual inaccuracy in his post, and so quickly replied again, setting the record straight on that as well.
Back came a very long rebuttal (67 lines long) which turned into a muddled rant, and which ended:
it’s been fun, but please try to keep your points short rather than trying to clog up my blog.Although somewhat taken aback by this peculiar reply, I resolved to ignore it and reply only to a small selection of his further inaccuracies. But by that time he had already banned me!
If you seek to adopt the 'snowing' approach that you have used on the 'Scotsman' discussion groups, then, with regret, you'll be blocked.
I've got no problem with debate (ask Iain Gray), but I have other priorities in life as well.
No offence taken, i hope.
If you’re reading this, Mr Sharp, despite your denial of my ability to reply to you, you’re very welcome to post here. I would have no issue whatsoever with being corrected if I made an unfounded statement or a factual error. In fact, I very much welcome open, democratic debate.
Pot, kettle, black springs to mind!
That's a trite and meaningless retort.
I wouldn't ban anyone from this blog unless they were being defamatory, obscene or abusive, say. Criticism doesn't bother me in the least!
That said, "Justified Spinner" is Mr Sharp's blog, and so he may operate a different policy if he wishes. But others are equally free to form an opinion about that.
AM, your blog keeps telling me "do I want to display non-secure items"
I think it means your wee Union Jack ;-)
Heh! Using Firefox? Just uncheck the box.
So, do you get the same problem here? ;-)
http://justifiedspinner.blogspot.com
Has he actually removed all his comments or just blocked me from seeing them?
Either way, unreal. Similar to this, actually.
Sad when some Nats think that the internet is only for their personal pleasure and are not willing to even enter into intelligent debate about issues.
Indeed so, Stephen. Thanks.
Update: Mr Sharp has now replied.
Revealingly, he didn’t link to this post. I suppose he might not want his readers to know some of what I wrote.
Apparently he only welcomes comments for which he has the time to reply personally. He also appears to think of comments which reveal inaccuracies in his posts as not being “constructive” or “rational” - his words.
He also seems to have some kind of issue with me knowing his name, despite it being on his blog and elsewhere.
But, as I said, it’s his blog, so his rules apply. Most of us, however, are open to debate, and even to being proved wrong once in a while.
"But, as I said, it’s his blog, so his rules apply. Most of us, however, are open to debate, and even to being proved wrong once in a while"
Aye, thats you AM ;-)
Be my guest, Conan... ;-)
Update 2: Andrew Sharp has posted that he has reopened his blog comments as he "can't resist" seeing what I have to say.
Not much, frankly. But I've posted the following in reply to the above-linked post. Let's see if he approves it:
“My comments showed, in very clear detail and with references, how various of your contentions were incorrect.
But rather than acknowledge that or discuss it further you simply deleted those for which you had no answer, and then knee-jerked by banning comments entirely.
Aside from my earlier remarks, that just about says it all.”
Your old 'big head' AM2 but the snp know you and they seem to fear you too.
i suppose the snp are working on the basis if you can't answer the critcism Then censor the messenger.
i mean when you see what the Cybernats do on the scotsman still thats allowed.
andy does not come out of this very well.
Fair comment, Morris. Guilty as charged. Dog with a bone; that’s me!
But why shouldn’t I respond to false statements, on anyone’s blog? I didn’t set out to be needlessly contentious here – just to set the record straight.
Today I note a few developments, most notably that Mr Sharp seems to think that effectively challenging what he thinks of as facts is “rude”, a breach of “basic rules of courtesy” and “might be viewed as harassment”. He refuses – so he says – to let his blog be used as a “mouthpiece” for what he calls “aggressive” comments.
He even objects to me quoting him “selectively” – despite the fact that my post containing the quote linked to his full comments.
I can scarcely believe that a parliamentary candidate seems to have such a thin skin and thick spin!
All that I actually did was to counter his false claims about the CPPR paper and council tax benefit - the latter in such detail that he felt compelled to delete the lot because not answering comments “looks bad” - his exact words!
(Perhaps I’ll repost my deleted comments here when I get the time. I’m visiting relatives for a few days.)
And you’re right on another thing too. Mr Sharp certainly doesn’t come out of this very well. He hasn’t even approved the comment which I sent him yesterday! How innocuous was that?!
But for me the most revealing aspect of all this is that not once has Mr Sharp linked to this blog from any of his posts decrying me. He seems unwilling to advertise the other side of the story. I have no such qualms. After all, his remarks only serve to validate your appraisal!
Now, I’m going to try and bury that bone. Enough, I hope.