Justin Hartman - Latest Comments in Is David Bullard an utter wanker?

Re: Is David Bullard an utter wanker?

Oresti (reply) — Fri, 11 May 2007 05:07:44 -0000

It is not a bigger step to put your name on such a comment. The point is that you cannot compare blogging to professional journalisim, it is like comparing day and night. David Bullard and journalists like him are qualified professionals who are paid, with good reason, to right columns. He has a strong opinion and I respect that, along with any other writing that he does because of his proffesional position. I will concede that not all people who are involved in blogging fit his discription, as i have previously mentioned, but he is right in saying that most blogs contain nonsence from people who think they can write a column but they are actually amateurs and poor writers with nothing better to do with their time. Theris no need for him to appologise. He is expressing his opinion which is a valid one.

Re: Is David Bullard an utter wanker?

Oresti — Fri, 11 May 2007 05:03:29 -0000

Re: Is David Bullard an utter wanker?

Justin Hartman — Thu, 10 May 2007 07:25:24 -0000

Oresti: Not sure what your point is really? The fact that I put a title like this post makes me nothing more than the serial-killer, pimply nerd, sex deprived loser that David Bullard speaks of? Personally I think that the fact that I am prepared to call him what he is and associate my name with this a bigger step but that's just my personal opinion.

Re: Is David Bullard an utter wanker?

Oresti — Thu, 10 May 2007 06:31:13 -0000

I will acknowledge that blogging allows people to share views and opinions on various on various topics that interest them, and these people arent all neccessarily the type that David Bullard described in his article. But I agree with him fully that blogging does not allow for proper accountability of authorship, that most blogs contain utter nonsence and that a large proportion are being typed by 'nerds' and other forms of antisocial people. He is a professional journalist and I agree to a leage extent with his point of view. Case in point; just look at the title of this blog.

Re: Is David Bullard an utter wanker?

FeistyFemale — Tue, 08 May 2007 11:36:42 -0000

LOL!

Usually I love reading Bullard's very cynical topics in the Sunday Times, but I must confess I thought he was having an off day!

Could his article be based on the fact that the Sunday Times has published a myriad of articles on blogging in the last two months?

More prominently, most of the articles in the last two months have all been pointing to the decline in blogging. The Sunday Times also focussed on Hollywood and celebs blogging - perhaps this is the dilemma! Professional bloggers with relevant, up to date blogs are being compared to the lousy, glitzy failure blogs of Hollywood and as Dave would put it - wannebe journalists!

Not fair and very biased!

Re: Is David Bullard an utter wanker?

Louisa — Mon, 07 May 2007 14:14:05 -0000

Thanks for the facebook link

Re: Is David Bullard an utter wanker?

Matthew — Mon, 07 May 2007 11:02:23 -0000

Ha! Nice one mark.

This whole shebang reminds me of the NY Times cartoon:

Two dogs talking to each other: Dog 1 says -

I used to have a blog, but I decided to just go back to pointless, incessant barking.

WOOOOOOF!!

Re: Is David Bullard an utter wanker?

mark — Mon, 07 May 2007 08:42:33 -0000

Justin, the difference between you and Bullard is as follows;

you - 'in one fowl swoop'

Bullard - In one fell swoop

Meaning

Suddenly; in a single action.

Origin

This is one of those phrases that we may have picked up early in our learning of the language and probably worked out its meaning from the context we heard it in, without any clear understanding of what each word meant. Most native English speakers could say what it means but, if we look at it out of context, it doesn't appear to make a great deal of sense. That lack of understanding of the words in the phrase is undoubtedly the reason that this is often misspelled - 'at one fail swoop' (or sometimes, stoop).

So, what's that 'fell'? We use the word in a variety of ways: to chop, as in fell a tree; a moorland or mountain, like those in the northern UK; the past tense of fall, as 'he fell over'. None of those seem to make sense in this phrase and indeed the 'fell' here is none of those. It's an old word, in use by the 13th century, that's now fallen out of use apart from in this phrase and as the common root of the term 'felon'. The Oxford English Dictionary defines fell as meaning 'fierce, savage; cruel, ruthless; dreadful, terrible', which is pretty unambiguous.

Shakespeare either coined the phrase, or gave it circulation, in Macbeth, 1605:

MACDUFF: [on hearing that his family and servants have all been killed]

All my pretty ones?
Did you say all? O hell-kite! All?
What, all my pretty chickens and their dam
At one fell swoop?

Re: Is David Bullard an utter wanker?

Marlo — Mon, 07 May 2007 07:44:43 -0000

I agree that there are some blogs that that are dumb, but they are there for dumb people.

Crappy blog's never lasts long...the more crap, the greater the chance that people won't go back to it. This is the way the Internet cleans itself from stagnation and drivel.

If David thinks he should be the Blog-watchdog, then he is definately a wanker.

ard=shit

Re: Is David Bullard an utter wanker?

Wezzo — Mon, 07 May 2007 06:32:33 -0000

Yeah it's the kind of title that could land you up with a 100k lawsuit ;)

Re: Is David Bullard an utter wanker?

Paul Jacobson — Sun, 06 May 2007 19:10:52 -0000

Love the title!