Say what? In your post at the top of this page, you take issue with something he posted, right? Presumably you read the post you disagree with? He didn’t have comments enabled then, either. So why are you suddenly making excuses not to engage with what he’s saying?

I’ll tell you why: Because you began to suspect that you’re badly out of your depth. Let’s face it, you’re the kind of person who “refutes” easily-checked factual assertions by claiming that the source works for a TV channel you don’t like. You’re the kind of person who calls somebody “middle class” and figures he’s won the argument.

Now you’re going on about how Tall guessed wrong about your chromosomes (a fair enough observation, though irrelevant to the issue at hand, but how many times must you bring it up?) And now you’re accusing him of “failure to defend his own views”, although he’s got a perfectly lucid defense in your comments above — a defense you’re refusing to discuss.

So we’ve got one blogger who has comments disabled, and is defending his views (that’d be Mr. Tall). And we’ve got another who has comments enabled, and who’s doing just about everything but defending his/her/its/their views (that’d be you). So: This stuff about Tall not defending his views is a red herring, but it’s more than that: It’s gibberish, too.

I mean, I’m just sayin’, is all.

In the future, try not to be so personally abusive when you disagree with others. That way, it’s a lot less embarrassing to climb back down if turns out that you talking out your ass. We all do that sometimes.

How did you work that out? Of course he did. If I may say so, someone who prints the dismissive crap about Michelle Malkin that you did above should be wary of criticising anyone for “not reading”. (No, I’m not defending her views. I’m saying that what you wrote amounts to “She works for the wrong company, therefore everything she ever says must be wrong.”)

> presumed my sex. And got it wrong.

Happens a lot on the Interweb, especially to people who don’t use names like James or Helen, or to men who print the name Claire in their blog’s header. Happens to me. Get over it.

> Comment Spam. I probably know more about it and how to tackle it than you.

Probably, yes. Well done. If I ever get a problem with it, I’m shutting my comments down, because I don’t know as much as you, and don’t have the spare time to learn. Not everyone has the resources to devote to coding their way around spam, and, personally, I don’t think blogging should only be allowed for those who know lots of cunning code.

> Not having comments is nothing to do with my having a blog or not, it is a failure to defend his own views.

Bollocks. When he found your post, he responded to it, publicly. You may not think he defended his views adequately; you may think he defended his views and lost the argument with you; but to say that he didn’t defend them at all is an obvious lie.

The Web’s full of blogs which disallow comments for one reason or another. Many of them contain extremely useful and informative things. If you’re going to dismiss them all out of hand, it’s your loss.

> that’s a while ago isn’t it ?

Yes, it is. Well done. That, I think, was Mr Tall’s point.

Laban did not read anything else and presumed my sex. And got it wrong.

Comment Spam. I probably know more about it and how to tackle it than you. Not having comments is nothing to do with my having a blog or not, it is a failure to defend his own views.

And “For most of the first half of the last century” – that’s a while ago isn’t it ??

Maybe if Laban took time to read, I would take time to respond.

Besides, comments boxes are provided for people who aren’t bloggers themselves. Why on Earth would you need him to have comments open when you’ve got your own blog? You did comment on his post, and he responded. That’s a discussion, isn’t it? Or doesn’t it count because it used the wrong part of the software? That’s rather odd thinking.

Interesting to see that you want to encourage discussion and to kill anyone who you think is stupid. I note your comment policy. Was that you responding positively, then?

In case anyone’s interested, tattoos come from all sorts of different cultures, not just the Maoris. One of those things that different races have worked out independently. And British sailors got them from Polynesians before they discovered New Zealand. For most of the first half of the last century, they were associated with criminals in Britain. Now they aren’t. Quite what’s so controversial or intolerant about stating that, I don’t see. And I have two of them.

You are interested in seeing your words and opinions only.

P.S: Death sentence of the grounds of terminal stupidity? I’m all for it :D

Whether or not tattooing originated in Brit sailors reactions to Maoris, forty years or so ago only two classes of Brit were tattooed – criminals (usually the dots on the knuckles or other signifiers) and sailors. Around late 60s bikers got into it, but it was still associated with the ‘one percenter’ type of rider.

Piercings other than earrings were until twenty years or so ago only associated in the UK with Asian women (nose rings) or the (very) deviant sex scene, which twenty years back was certainly full of petty criminals (and probably fifty years ago if you read Jean Genet). Punk brought sex gear into the mainstream, though if you visit a top security prison like Gartree you’ll see an awful lot of facial ironmongery among the lifers, who are usually killers or rapists.

Now of course it IS mainstream, and fortysomething mums in the school playground celebrate the divorce with a nose ring and a tattoo on the bum. But it wan’t always like that.

And “smackhead” and “criminal” are pretty much synonymous.

I thought about ‘fragrant’ for Michelle. But that word is reserved for Condoleezza Rice.

I can see from your readers comments what a shock it must be to encounter diversity of opinion …. but it’s for their own good.