tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25230932.post4463023117788044588..comments2023-10-06T10:10:06.982-04:00Comments on La Russophobe: Sean Guillory: What's WRONG with him? Another open letterLa Russophobehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05672264388217953086noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25230932.post-36697000787798039912006-12-20T17:33:00.000-05:002006-12-20T17:33:00.000-05:00Kim,
You know, I've sat silent for several weeks ...Kim,<br /><br />You know, I've sat silent for several weeks as you denounce and slander me. What is this the fourth one? I've lost count. For the life of me I don't know why you are so damned obsessed with what I do. Plus as I told you in an email a few months ago when you were digging dirt on another Russia blogger, I don't get involved in blogwars. <br /><br />Andy is absolutely correct your whole kick devalues you as it does me.<br /><br />But now I feel I have to say something because for you to think that my post about soliciting submissions contained a veiled reference to you is just flat out ludicrous. You just don't occupy my thoughts. I was trying to be honest with people who might be interested in submitting because my blog doesn't get much traffic, but people do seem to read it. <br /><br />In regard to a commenter on my blog saying those things to you, let me make something clear. I don't moderate the comments nor do I ban anyone from participating. The fact that I've never officially banned you is a testament to that as well as my patience. (As far as I remember, you left my blog . . .)Sean Guilloryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06994183550218306219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25230932.post-92209788385698303882006-12-18T18:26:00.000-05:002006-12-18T18:26:00.000-05:00Kim - absolutely you are entitled to your opinion....Kim - absolutely you are entitled to your opinion. To be honest, on the main opinion you expressed in the article, I don't have a particularly strong view one way or the other. <br /><br />What I do have a strong view about is when you, and others, get distracted by what are nothing more than sideshows. It devalues you, it devalues Sean, and it makes me feel cheap to read them.SiberianLighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05845408842286573061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25230932.post-57721947596183785412006-12-18T13:32:00.000-05:002006-12-18T13:32:00.000-05:00ANDY:
Sean allowed a commenter on his blog to a...ANDY: <br /><br />Sean allowed a commenter on his blog to accuse me of advocating the mass murder of Russians without posting a shred of evidence to that effect and despite the demand for it by other readers. If Sean wasn't referring to my blog with his comment, then let him say so. Until he does, I'll assume he was referring to me and in that case a response is entirely appropriate. Frankly, I think it's outrageous for him to refer to other blogs without giving specifics. He's the one who opened this discussion,not me, by making a public attack on other blogs and implying that while they have traffic they aren't actually read. If you have a problem, it's with Sean not with me. He can talk about how great he thinks his blog is, but if he compares it to others then he will get a reponse.<br /><br />Your point about the number of articles on my blog is not well considered. Just because I have more content than Sean's doesn't mean there is any reason to conclude that people spend a small amount of time reading many posts here. Here, unlike Sean's, they can choose among many different pieces to read in depth if they like, and you have no information to indicate that isn't exactly what they do. I don't read every article in the New York Times, I read a few in depth. The fact remains that the amount of time spent on this blog by an average reader is no different than that at Sean's and he implied to the contrary, that peole spend less time at a blog like this. That's just one of many wildly inaccurate statements he's made, and if you research this blog you'll find I've documented many others. <br /><br />You haven't touched on the main point of my post, which was to highlight the grossly misleading statements that have been made on Sean's blog recently. Perhaps you're prepared to overlook them, but I'm not. If you respect the commentary of Mike Averko, that's your privilege. I think it's utterly worthless propaganda and I'm entitled to my opinion and to express it as a warning to those unfamiliar with his dreck. In fact, I think it's my obligation. And I'd appreciate it if you'd make your position on Averko clear, because if you find him in any way worthwhile other than as a reptilian example of Russophile propaganda to be studied in a laboratory, then I'll reevaluate my opinion of your blog. If you think Averko isn't worth publishing, then the lay reader must be warned.La Russophobehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05672264388217953086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25230932.post-71760255168117485892006-12-17T04:41:00.000-05:002006-12-17T04:41:00.000-05:00Kim - chill out. Getting into little spats over t...Kim - chill out. Getting into little spats over the duration of visits to yours and Sean's site does nobody any favours.<br /><br />I've just taken a look at Sean's article and can't him drawing a comparison with LR at any stage, so I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand why you are making the comparison yourself.<br /><br />(For what it's worth, if you really want to make an issue of quality, I'd note that Sean publishes far less articles on a daily basis than you do. It takes far less time to read one article in-depth than it does to read 5 or 6 per day. So, for the average reader to give the same attention to each and every article on LR, he would need to spend five times as long here as he does at Sean's blog). <br /><br />Making an issue of the quality of some comments is also rather pointless. Taking a look at the comments at Sean's blog myself, I can see some very good, well thought out comments (some I agree with, and some I don't) and some mindblowingly stupid ones, like those you've highlighted. <br /><br />But the stupid comments are a part and parcel of opening up comments to the wider internet. Try talking to some of the folks who run the large, well respected blogs (and newspaper comment sites, like the Guardian's). They're inundated with daft comments, but they're also full of intelligent ones too.<br /><br />If you have a problem with the views Sean is expressing about Russia, by all means raise those issues. But by getting drawn into daft sidelines like this, you don't do your reputation all that much good. And, more to the point, it's wasted 20 minutes of my Sunday morning.<br /><br />Bah. I'm off to get breakfast.<br /><br />(PS - in my opinion, you both produce interesting, readable blogs. I, personally, find the (often wildly) differing viewpoints expressed of great value when it comes to making my own mind up about issues of the day).SiberianLighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05845408842286573061noreply@blogger.com