Neil Clark - hypocrite

Joshua

If my late mother were around to hear me compared firstly to Pollard and then Kamm, I'm sure she would literally explode with nachus. Let's first deal with the Sir Stephen allegation. First off, as I've mentioned before, Pollard is an award-winning writer and my prose puts even me to sleep. Second, unless Pollard is a masochist, why would he want to attack himself in his own comments section on such a regular basis. Want an example? In his post about the vile Langham, Pollard got it all completely wrong, at least according to a 2000 House of Lords case I was perusing online: they are not offences of strict liability; mens rea is a vital component ("knowingly" is the operative word) of such offences; there is a defence for people who download this material legitimately in the course of their work (university researchers and so forth - hence, Langham's barmy defence). I really do wish that Pollard would do more research. OK, let's move along to the Lord Kamm allegation. Given the incredibly idiosyncratic nature of Kamm's writing and the fact that each and every one of his sentences is chock-full of at least seventeen facts drawn from all quarters of the known intellectual universe, any comparison with my meagre efforts is again completely meshugeh. Beyond that, I think that Kamm demeans himself by attacking Clark with such force and on so many occasions. Kamm is the consummate patrician and should rise above such things. Put it another way, because Clark is a nothing and Kamm is an everything, K should, on most occasions, simply hold his nose and stroll past. Having said all that, I'd really love to be Kamm, if only because it would be a hoot and a half to see Pollard strolling through Finchley in a loincloth. Namaste!

Chris Goodman

Exposing a Guardian columnist as a malignant narcissist is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. I notice that you (rightly) do not spend much time exposing the sad bigotry of your resident nutcase “Joshua” (who at least has a sense of humour) so why do you feel the need to keep reminding us that Clarke is an idiot? We live in an age (and this no doubt true of every period in human history) full of problems. How about supplying some solutions, or at least use your skills to articulate the views of those who you believe have answers you respect?

Joshua

Oh, sweet f****** Jesus, the board's resident intellectual (it's a free country, we live in an age full of problems etc. etc. etc.) is up to his usual tricks. Melanie Phillips is "mad". Joshua is a "nutcase". I suppose that's the only way many Brits can cope with certain sad truths about their nation: that Britain collaborated both directly and indirectly in the genocide of the Jewish people before, during and after World War II; that if Britain had been invaded in 1940, the vast majority of her citizens would have collaborated with the Germans to murder the Jews of Britain; that Dresden was a war crime every bit as bad as Auschwitz, at least in principle; that Britain stands at the very centre of this storm of anti-Semitism which is currently sweeping through Europe; that the eternal enemies of the Jewish people are not Muslims but European gentiles, and long after we have made peace with the former we will still be at war with the latter (not because we Jews wish it, but because they the gentiles make it so). One question does remain. Is Goodman one of the many kapos who seem to infest Britain these days or is he just another sad gentile with the usual bug up his exceedingly constipated butt? The problem in trying to differentiate the two is that their pungent odours are so very similar.

Chris Goodman

I agree even the sentence 'I notice that you (rightly) do not spend much time exposing the sad bigotry of your resident nutcase "Joshua”.' gives you more attention than you deserve. Joshua, you sad man, is more succinct.

jameshigham

...why would he want to attack himself in his own comments section on such a regular basis... Ah but he doesn't, Joshua - he praises Stephen an enormous amount [quite rightly too or don't you agree?]

Lee Jakeman

You don't like Neil, do you Stephen? Funny, that. I can't stand him either. If it's true that my enemy's enemy is my friend, then I guess that makes you, Stephen, my friend. I could do a lot worse ...

Martin Meenagh

I am somewhat disconcerted to find my name on here. I was not a 'meatsock' for anyone, I have not worked for OTC (where I was a part-time tutor) for over a year, and don't live in Oxford, and I am not to be read as respecting anything but independence of mind, thank you very much. There is a confusion I think from people not updating websites, but that isn't my fault. Please just publish this as an addenda to the whole wikipedia silliness.

Oliver Kamm

Full marks for effort, Mr Meenagh. It appears to me that your opaque remarks are intended to leave readers with the impression that you are unconnected with Neil Clark's Wikipedia fiasco, without your actually saying so. That impression would be mistaken, so I'm sure you'll have no objection to my clearing up any possible confusion. The sequence of events was this. The Wikipedia administrator proposed that Neil Clark's entry be deleted because Clark wasn't notable. Citylightsgirl objected, stressing the brilliance of Neil Clark's work. The administrator overruled the objection on the reasonable grounds that Citylightsgirl was, in fact, Neil Clark. (Citylightsgirl had denied being Clark, but proved unable to explain how he knew things about Clark that had never been published.) Further, the administrator blocked Citylightsgirl permanently from editing Wikipedia. Immediately after Citylightsgirl had been banned, Meenagh signed up as a user of Wikipedia. He too objected to the deletion of Clark’s entry. The administrator, suspecting that Meenagh was just another name for Citylightsgirl, also overruled him and banned him from the site. The administrator was mistaken in thinking that Meenagh was Clark/Citylightsgirl, but was otherwise correct in interpreting the intervention. Meenagh's protests that he doesn't live in Oxford and doesn’t now teach at Clark’s institution are non sequiturs. He is, or was till recently, Clark’s immediate colleague, yet he failed to disclose this. Citylightsgirl, true to form, then touted Meenagh as an independent voice in support of Clark. I don't know whether Clark directly appealed to Meenagh to try to save his Wikipedia entry after being banned from the site himself. The chronology of Citylightsgirl's ban followed by Meenagh's sudden registration as a Wikipedia editor is suggestive, but not important. What is significant is that Meenagh failed to disclose relevant information when making booster comments about Clark. The fact that Meenagh refers to the episode as "the whole Wikipedia silliness" suggests he is unable to see what's wrong with this. I recommend he reflect further.

Stuart A

While I agree about Neil Clark - he's an unpleasant buffoon at best - I can't help but wonder at the minimal comment on the most crazed visitor to this blog, Joshua. Firstly, his frank bigotry and incessant ravings about anti-Semitism have not, to my knowledge, incited any remark from this blog's host. Secondly, he strangely apparently mutated during one debate (http://tinyurl.com/yw2k3s) into a poster called DrWho, whose signature linked to a bizarre creationist site (it's since been altered, but it's probably in the Internet Archive) run by somebody called Mike Janitch, who achieved brief fame last year for claiming scientists had named a dwarf planet Eris as part of an anti-Bush conspiracy. An examination of the IP evidence would perhaps clear up his identity, and allow us to alert the appropriate mental health services.

Tim Ireland

This is me quietly sitting in the corner and taking notes. :o)

Martin Meenagh

Oliver (if I may)--this is all fair, I think. You are wrong in thinking I was urged by Neil to object to his deletion from Wikipedia--I wasn't, I just thought it unfair. It is a silly dispute, given a sense of proportion, which is what i meant by silliness; and Neil never appealed to me directly. I have no objection to you putting your point!

Oliver Kamm

I naturally take you at your word that your Wikipedia edits were not done at the request of Neil Clark. It did strike me as an odd coincidence that you signed up for Wikipedia immediately after Clark, in his "Citylightsgirl" guise, was banned from the site, but coincidences do happen. I do not, however, agree that the issues are silly or the criticisms of Clark disproportionate. You accept that, while intervening in the Wikipedia dispute about Clark, you failed to disclose that you had been his immediate colleague. The Wikipedia administrator who blocked you from the site thus had ample justification, and you were neither candid nor courteous in your dealings with her. (I refer to the indignant remarks you placed on your Wikipedia user page before she banned you.) More to the point, this is not an issue about whether Neil Clark is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. That issue is governed by Wikipedia's own criteria. Rather, we are discussing Clark's promoting himself under false pretences on Wikipedia and on Stephen's blog. In both cases, Clark extravagantly praised himself and damned his enemies while pretending to be an independent party (with the heavy implication that he was a girl). The particular offence is that in each case he explicitly denied that he was Neil Clark. In short, he lied. This is not a case merely of a pseudonym. It is about Clark’s adopting a false identity, in the extraordinarily naive belief that he would be untraceable, in order to boost himself. Ties of friendship are all well and good, but you were knowingly an accessory in an imposture, which is only a slightly more polite word for fraud. These are not minor indiscretions, on Clark’s part or on yours. I cordially suggest you make this clear to your friend before he does himself any more damage.

Emanuele Ottolenghi

Chutzpah is not even Yiddish. It is Hebrew. That's how educated the former Pravda contributor is.

Thor

Why don't you guys just write 500 times "I HATE NEIL CLARK!" each and get over with it? It would be less malignant and would make the whole bunch of you Kamm Groupies appear a bit less ugly. So much "cleverness" employed to try to infect others with your poison can't be good for you. Now go, run to check my IP address - maybe I'm Neil too... or his wife, or his pal, his dog, his waitress, his long lost twin brother, his SOMETHING (I HAVE to be, otherwise I'd hate Neil too, I'm sure :-))) Maybe I'm Milosevic speaking from another side of the grave on behalf of Neil Clark? Boy, are you a sorry bunch of losers!

Sogejn

Pollard: You and Kamm are incredibly insecure. How else to explain your joint obsession with Neil Clark? The fact is that despite the mutual backscratching, few of us have forgotten how you "intellectual powerhouses" helped saddle us with an almighty mess in Iraq. The real question is simply this - if we are fighting a war to defend Western civilisation, then what the you-know-what are you doing blogging when you could be laying down your life in glorious sacrifice for the Supreme Cause? And you call Clark a hypocrite?

Nelson Lemmond

I must reply to your comment on Martin. I know him and he is one of the good people of the world. I have no idea whether the Spectator is left, right or indifferent. In his case you have him wrong. As an unreconstructed redneck you can kiss my rebel ass. Nelson Lemmond

Nelson Lemmond

I must reply to your comment on Martin. I know him and he is one of the good people of the world. I have no idea whether the Spectator is left, right or indifferent. In his case you have him wrong. As an unreconstructed redneck you can kiss my rebel ass. Nelson Lemmond