Nickers in a Twist: Whale Oil goes Random

As would be obvious if you ever waded through the comments on this blog, the right wing blogosphere is a pretty angry space right now. Years of political, organisational and intellectual failure and the boredom of life in opposition has created some angry young men.

At least, if they are not angry, then they write as if they were.

I'm no stranger to that myself in my own way, having more than once written (on Usenet or on blogs) things I have regretted.

That said, I don't think I have ever gone as far as one Cameron Slater, the author of the cleverly named "Whale Oil Beef Hooked" blog.

Cameron, to the best of my knowledge, is the son of John Slater, a former National Party President. He is by virtue of that fact closely linked in with the Auckland National Party hierarchy and has been since his youth. His views, in a way, are a reflection of the sort of angry young men that most political parties accumulate after some time in the wilderness, but who are usually careful enough to be kept well away from the spotlight.

Where I think he has gone a bit over the top (or a bit troppo, really) is in this thread. In fairly strong distinction from my own comments that I punch first (which was in words, not physically), Mr Whale Oil has taken great exception to being accused of being gay, presumably as a throwaway barb during a discussion about a completely different issue.

Finding this situation unsatisfactory, he says:

Blogger Bash

Over at Farrars, Phil U had the temerity to allude to the fact that Murray and I are gay which we are not….he was of course backed up by that other socialist coward Sonic when I quite justifiably took offense at the uncalled for attack by the half-sucked throatie. If Phil U had made the same comments to anyone in any decent man’s pub he would have had the shit kicked out of him and then been tossed in the gutter for all and sundry to have a kick at, the fact that he made the comments on someones blog and they were completely unrelated to the original posting doesn’t matter one jot to me, a beating is deserved if a beating is deserved. Phil U for his part clearly woke up from his drug induced stupor of the weekend and saw what had been posted and started crying like a baby and mentioning the police as well as over indulging in his over use of punctuation.

Sonic decided that he may take me up on my offer to bash the living shit out of him and/or Phil U (a task that shouldn’t take me too long to achieve) and I have subsequently put some thought into this.

I therefore offer up the following solution.

The Blogger Bash Charity Slug-fest.

Blogger vs. Blogger, Left vs. Right, Red Corner, Blue Corner, Libertarianz as umpires

If Sonic agrees, he will meet me in the ring. then I will pound him legally into the canvas.

I can organise the start of some fundraising and the winning team gets to choose the Charity.

If this is a good idea, or not leave comments as well as volunteers for bouts. I also need a team captain for Team Red. I have a gym organised and for those who need training this can be arranged as well.

This is a bad idea on many levels, as a moment's thought would indicate. Most important is that politics in the civilized world has moved on from physical violence. We win and lose by debate, by ideas and by argument, not by who has the biggest body or the fastest right fist. And of course, to most Kiwis, being accused of being gay is generally earns a "not even" or "whatever", rather than a boxing match, or a suggestion that it should result in a hate crime being committed, which the post above seems to advocate.

What really seems over the line is one of the comments, apparently from Cameron, in the discussion thread that follows his post (dated 13 Feb at 09:41):

Oh tap away…I’ve been threatened by better thugs than you….they all slink off very quietly when someone stands up to them, especially if that someone has a gun.

Now run along coward and go change ya nappies.

I can't work out in my own mind whether this is a threat, or simply a randomly threatening comment. Either way, it does say something about the state of mind of the man who wrote it.

I wish that the mainline media would pay more attention to the toxic hate that is spewed by people like Cameron Slater on the blogs. The huge majority of it comes from one direction: the right. It is aimed in one direction: the left. It is not something that forms any part of democratic politics. It is the same political tactic as that used by a much uglier political tradition: totalitarian regimes everywhere are founded on the desire to intimidate, and silence, people who disagree with them.

When an impeccably connected scion of the major right wing party says things like this, it ought to be cause for media to shine a very bright light on what it is that is happening among such groups. New Zealand does not need that kind of politics.

In aid of that, I will try every now and again to post some examples of the worst comments I see. Not that I read many of the comments (or blogs) on the right, but sometimes stuff does come to your attention.  I'd encourage those of you who DO read lots of blogs to email me any bad stuff you find. Unfortunately, I suspect there is rather a lot of it out there. The basic principle I wish to see at work is that people are held responsible for what they say. Seems fair enough, really.

(In case the blog gets edited, I have taken a pdf copy which is here - see the top of page six for the comment).

Comments

[Tony Milne]

In Shakespeare's Hamlet there is a quote: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

[Jenny Campbell]

I will sleep far easier at night now, knowing that you will be 'exposing' toxic hate speech. Especially as it comes from those nasty rightwingers.

However, I don't remember you ever being elected to the position of Blog Policeman. Did Helen appoint you? We know how much she loves freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.

[span]

My favourite was the bit where Whaleoil effectively sticks his fingers in his ears and goes nah nah nah (literally, in type, I kid you not).

Also big props to Danyl for taking the piss quite early on in the thread.

[Spirit Of 76]

Jordan, you pinkos throw more than your share of vitriol and bile around as well. So let's just dispense with the phoney morality shall we ?

[Aj]

It's the Limbaugh virus taking hold...

[Russell Brown]

"When an impeccably connected scion of the major right wing party says things like this ..."

And, also, someone who runs a professional security company.

And Spirit of 76, perhaps you could meditate on the irony of your own post, where you managed to get to a whole three words before being abusive. I thought Phil U was a bit dumb with the Brokeback Mountain crack, but Slater's subsequent post and the comments below it are really pretty creepy. It's not the first time either. You may recall his bizarre rant about not coming to bloggers' drinks with "the enemy", which also contained juvenile fantasies of violence.

Mr Oil has helpfully indicated his area of particular sensitivity for anyone who may want to tease him in future though ...

[Carl Anderson]

Spirit, the right is far more vitriolic than the left in the blogosphere. Just look at the average thread on Kiwiblog. The comments from Redbaiter, insolent prick, yourself, whaleoil etc form a catalogue of nastiness. And if anyone calls you on it, you cry about freedom of speech, implying that freedom of speech includes a freedom from being criticism. I can't think of a single left-wing commenter who even approaches the nastiness included in whaleoil's post. if you can, please name names.

[Paul W]

Slater's comments are simply idiotic; the kind of posturing that is usually only possible when anonymous. What's really annoying is that he's getting encouragement from less juvenile bloggers - Farrar included.

[tim barclay]

Oh really. If you want hate speach you need go no further than the top of the Labour Party - Helen Clark, Michael Cullen and that oaf your president. The rest including you do not, I accept, though some trade Union Leaders can hate with the best of them.

[Whaleoil]

Oh Jordan, how petty, Why don't you get some facts right. It was Sonic who invited me to drop him a line for an "arrangement". I thought about it and thought a Charity Boxing match would be a good idea, unfortunately only one person on the left, and a girl at that thought so too.

The comment re the gun is in retaliation for Sonic threatening to surprise me one day with a "tap" when i least expected it, something i called him on. I have actually run off drug dealers etc who tried the same little scare tactic. It doesn't work with me ever.

Why on earth you have to bring my father into this is beyond me. Him and I agree on virtually nothing when it comes to politics other than that Labour are a bunch of cheating weasels.

What I think is stunning is the incredibly churlish comments from the likes of Sonic and recently Che Tibby.

I am never one to tell people how I think and I still think the charity boxing match is a good idea.

I particularly don't give a hoot if some one calls me gay or anything else, my usual response is "Hey Don't knock it till you've tried it". It was actually Sonics behaviour that escalated the whole thing.

Never mind, i don't particularly care what you or anyone else on the left thinks. I do what I do, you do what you do.

[Whaleoil]

oh yeah and why would the blog get edited?

[Whaleoil]

Mr Brown, being called ajuvenile by someone in his forties whose big thrill of the year is to go to the Big Day Out with all the teenagers is like being gummed by bambi.

[Aucklander At Large]

"Never mind, i don't particularly care what you or anyone else on the left thinks."

Yet, three comments in response??

[David C]

Whilst I certainly don't agree with what WhaleOil says (ever), I think if he chooses to write under a nom-de-plume then you should have respected that and not outed him, his family and Russell, his job.

Poor form Jordan.

[Anita]

David C,

There is a difference between using a pseudonym and intending anonymity. Whale Oil has never hidden his real name or family, and he's been linked to his father on the net many times in the past, including at his instigation.

As for the relevance of his parentage; NZ is a small country which runs on who's-related-to-whom, who-knows-who and who-screwed-who. Family connections do matter - whether we think they should or not - how many times do we come down on someone because of something their child/uncle/cousin has done?

When someone with links to any political party spins out there are possible ramifications for the party - and Whale Oil chooses his behaviour knowing that.

Anita

[David C]

Whilst I get your point Anita I do not approve of Jordan's actions. Russell as well, the two of them gave out more details about Whale Oil than necessary, and for what gain? Point scoring?

[David C]

It all just smacked of a "look how much we know about you" mentality.

[Idiot/Savant]

The above sort of post is the reason I maintain a strict cordon sanitaire policy against the sewer. I won't link to them, and don a full biohazard suit before delving in to see what they are frothing about. Fortunately, most of them return the favour.

[Jordan Carter]

David, I disagree. WhaleOil has never been known as someone who tried to hide who he was, and I suspect in most cases it doesn't matter who one is. His comments though are outrageous which is why I chose to highlight them. His identity is part of why they are outrageous.

[David C]

Given that the post was not made on your blog and given that there are others out there (i.e. Sonic) who are similar, not as vitriolic I admit, but still, but happen to argue from the left I just believe you've opened up a can of worms that should not have been opened.
It's not unethical to hide behind a pseudonym, maybe it's a tad cowardly if you're going to be that inflammatory but it's still not unethical. And I'm intrigued to learn why it's public interest who this person is?

[David C]

Ok you totally changed the post I replied to...

[lyndon]

Whale Oil goes Random

And this is news?

[Craig Ranapia]

*sigh* Since I started baby-sitting on a fairly regular basis, I've learned the profound wisdom of this advice: The worse thing you can do with a temper tantrum, or any offensive acting out that isn't a threat to the physical safety of yourself or others, is reward it with attention.

It does work with toddlers, and I'm getting there with the blogisphere fucktards of the loony left or the rabid right - and I've had the unwelcome attention of both. When I was blogging on NZPundit, I received a very ugly - actionably defamatory and quite threatening - e-mail. Among other things, it expressed the fond wish that my partner would be raped, infected with HIV and die a painfully slow death from AIDS. Judging from the tenor of other comments, I suppose you could say he was a lefty but that's not really the point. It went into the virtual trash where it belonged, and I've really seen the point of giving people like that the attention they're trolling for.

Jordan, I've long be concerned about the toxicity that exists in a small but very vocal section of the Kiwi blogisphere - and I don't think the left's shit doesn't stink on that score. Now, if you're serious about lifting the tone, even with a bit of judicious naming and shaming, all to the good. But I hope you're not going to turn this into some cheap attempt to score party political points.

BTW, does now mean you're going to moderate comments and refuse to publish any that don't appear over a real and verifiable name? I think it would be quite easy to ask commentators to supply contact details, not for publication.

[Craig Ranapia]

And, Jordan, before you accuse anyone else of nascent totalitarianism I'd think through this a wee bit:

QUOTE
Cameron, to the best of my knowledge, is the son of John Slater, a former National Party President. He is by virtue of that fact closely linked in with the Auckland National Party hierarchy and has been since his youth.
END QUOTE

Well, fascists and bullies are also rather keen on trial by innuendo and guilt by association, since you raised the subject. FFS, Maori Party MP and long-time political activist Hone Harawira's daughter is currently facing serious criminal charges. If she's convicted, does that now mean the Maori Party caucus is 'closely linked' with arson and aggravated robbery, and what conclusions are we supposed to draw from that? Was Labour tainted by association when one of it's rising stars, John Tamihere, happened to be the brother of the man convicted of the high profile murder of two foreign backpackers?

Jordan, I'm in no position to criticise anyone else for being intensely party political. But trying to score political points off polticians - let alone former office holders - through their children has a nasty habit of turning into an own goal. If that's the political tone you want to set for the rest of this term, be my guest. Just don't waste your breath playing Miss Manners while you're at it.

[Murray M]

To quote you Jordan "New Zealand does not need that kind of politics". Does NZ deserve the kind of politics we have at present? A pack of corrupt, dishonest, thieving, self interested pricks. I think it is perfectly OK for someone to take offence to being accused of being gay if they are not. You leftie pinko's wouldn't understand that considering the examples of your idols.

[Whaleoil]

Apparently being the son of someone precludes you from having thought processes of your own.

You know on the right we can and do think for ourselves. We certainly don't need Herr Rottenführer Carter to tell how we should of should not engage in politics.

[kiwi_donkey]

A smogardsboard of comments - take your pick !

(1) I agree. There is nothing worse than using a blog to mount a personal attack on another individual.

(2) Yep, it's all Whaleoil's fault. I know, because I have it on good authority that Sonic is the pinnacle of reasonableness and moderation, and never tries to wind anybody up.

(3) Not only might Whaleoil be associated with his father, who once held political office, there is a good chance he knows people who have been expelled from the labour party, set up dodgy enquiries, rorted the public purse or deliberately overspent on election spending. Why, I suspect he even holds literature written by John Howard and Tony Blair.

Witch! He's a witch! Quick, burn him!

[Deborah]

What worries me is people who use quite vicious language from behind a pseudonym.

And yes, I don't use my full name. That's due to my day job.

T'would be nice if people would try, "That's a silly thing to say", instead of "You are silly." (Weak words, I know, but I'm trying to avoid giving offence here.) It would just be good to see people focusing on arguments, rather than the person who wrote them. Ad hominem attacks prove nothing.

On the other hand, after a year or so reading and posting on blogs, I know whose comments are worth reading, even if I don't agree with them (Craig Ranapia often provokes me to think some more), and whose are not. I rarely read what phil u and sonic have to say, and even more rarely what whaleoil and redbaiter say. It's just not worth it.

However.... threatening physical violence is just a silly, and really rather peurile thing to do.

[Cardinal Walsingham]

So Jordan, what does your father do? What are his politics? If you want to bring Whaleoil's family into it, how about introducing yours?

[Whaleoil]

And while you are at it why don't you explain your actions over a certain hijacked IRC channel.

[Spirit Of 76]

Take a look at the invective the Upper Party throw at anyone who dares to rise above the parapet and utter a mere nuance against them. Examine the comments made by Mallard or David "I get off by acting out fantasies about sodomising 6yo girls" Benson-Pope before passing comment on the rest of us.

It's like the TV series Blake's 7 or Logan's Run. You pinkos want to control how people think, and turn us all into mindless muppets who toe the Ingsoc line. Well that ain't gonna happen, not on my watch, some of us aren't ready to give in yet.

[aladin]

Wow, so as far as I can make out Phil U mentions "Brokeback Mountain" and Whaleoil is still livid almost a week later, wanting to bash people etc and now even bringing up the Third Reich as part of his dreary campaign. Hey Whaleoil, are you this desperate? Ever heard of rising above it all and moving on? Maintaining some dignity perhaps? Water off a duck's back?

aladin

[Cactus Kate]

QUICK boys --- everyone run to the top of the mountain to claim the moral high ground.

Except when you all get there you will find there is no such thing.

I don't see the relation to John Slater at all relevant in this debate. To the best of my knowledge he was and still is the consummate, dull, slightly born-to-rule Tory puppy dog. So his son's got a bit more fire. Who cares?

Jordan - blogs are reasonably self-regulating so we don't need this sort of carry on. If you can't read humour where it is intended then that is your issue. Plenty of times I have found what you write offensive and a deliberate shit-stirring attempt to wind certain majority groups in NZ society up (ie. straight white males) and so simply hit the "back" button because the reaction is as predictable as you fully intended it to be. People will read what Whale Oil writes and if they find him over-the-top then they will simply hit the "back" button as well and de-gage him from debate if he gets too bad.

You admit yourself to have posted things you did not intend etc..so please don't pretend that you are some lily white kind of angelic enforcer over the blogosphere.

Along with myself you would be one of the last people capable of putting on a wig and sanctioning such morality.

[Carl Anderson]

Why do people keep on comparing Labour to Stalin, and/or the Nazis? Maybe its just a lame rhetorical device, but I'm sorry, our government is a million miles from being either fascist or communist. Disagreeing with the government is perfectly legitimate, but please have the originality to actually do so with some reference to the actual facts. If Helen Clark was even vaguely comparable to Stalin or Hitler, we would not even be having this conversation!

And Kate, straight white males aren't a majority in NZ. We might be as much as 30%, but that is not quite a majority.

But let us take a moment to rejoice, the Black Caps have just towelled the aussies. all cannot be doom and gloom!

[Spirit Of 76]

FFS Carl, open your eyes.

[Rex Hydro]

This person is suffering from post traumatic homosexuality. Cactus Kate is in fact a small Asian man.

[sonic]

I worry that by trying to be flippant I have obscured the real issue here.

Threatning people just because you disagree with their political views is unacceptable, threatning them personally just because they make a joke about you being gay is doubly so.

Whale Oil, you owe Phil an apology. Until that is done this will not go away. Don't worry about me, I'm big and ugly enough not to be bothered, but you need to square the situation up with a simple "sorry" to Phil.

[Cactus Kate]

Rex

If this is the case then get it right. If you want to make it up then please, I would definitely prefer to be a small Asian gay man and therefore part of a long suffering minority. I shall send in an application for the Labour List courier post.

Save the Whales though. Particularly those hooked at the moment in oil with a rather large beef.

I think Whale Oil should apologise to Phil U the millisecond Phil U apologises for all the silly comments he has made on blogs in the past that we have all been grown up to overlook simply because they are what they are - silly.

[Craig Ranapia]

Carl Anderson:

Since you raised the subject, do you think the folks on the left (including on this blog) who've spent the last equating Don Brash - and the party he used to lead - to the KKK, Pauline Hanson and every far-right racist group under the sun were going a wee bit over the top? I think Kate's got a point, the best way to deal to fucktards in the Kiwi blogisphere (and everywhere else) is to starve 'em of the oxygen of attention.

Having said that, I don't think it's posturing on the moral high ground to say this: If you disagree with anything I say on a blog or in a comments box, my ideas are fair game. Bitch me to shreds if you must. But leave my family and partner the fuck out of it, especially if you're presuming to get Miss Manners on my arse.

[kiwi_donkey]

On reflection, we have all missed the point. Whaleoil wasn't attacking Phil U or Sonic. He was attacking the Phil U and Sonic *brands*.

[Chicken Little]

I agree Kiwi Donkey - the other thing to consider is that some commentors here talk about the interwebtubesthingy as though it should be some highbrow debating medium for very serious discussions. WRONG. The joy of the medium is that every man can have their say, no matter how uneducated or unappealing to others. To me this sums up what the internet is all about.

As to the Whaleoil/Phule/Sonic bitch fight Phule got it rolling, Whaleoil replied, Sonic somehow ended up in there(how did that happen Sonic???Huh?)as Sonic seems want to do.
I think a Bloggers charity boxing (or cage fighting :)) match is a great idea for those interested if it is for a good cause (like RARE - a charity for children with rare illnesses that aren't well funded by government(self plug)) I have been involved in several of these type of matches over the last few years and a left /right bloggers theme would work well IMO. I understand its not everyones cup of tea but I don't go to church sales so there you go.

Jordan - I assume that Whale is over 20yrs of age so I can't really see what his parents have to do with anything. Same goes for you RB. Maybe you guys are the ones a little out of line in this thing?

[ScrubOne]

Amusing post. A picture of somone swinging a sword killing people who get in his way to the top of the moral heap comes to mind.

Jordan: Yes, Whaleoil is acting in a way you don't like, and a way many people have no time for. He's doing it on his blog. Some people act like this in Government. Think about that next time you're speculating on why people are angry.

I suspect the real reason for this post is to cover up the fact you're too chicken to face him in the ring, along with your distain for charity of any kind.

[Russell Brown]

"Mr Brown, being called a juvenile by someone in his forties whose big thrill of the year is to go to the Big Day Out with all the teenagers is like being gummed by bambi."

No, I go to the the Big Day Out with other fortysomethings and their teenage children. It's good fun.

But you're going to have to get used to being called juvenile if you insist on filling up your own blog with the likes of this:

"What a pussy. I called you out and you chickened out. Soft cock, no dick."

Whatever.

Phil U shouldn't have made his crack, and Sonic shouldn't bother winding you up (although that really doesn't seem to be very hard). But the subsequent thread, in which you fantasise twice about using firearms and your chums chip in with the likes of "I’d like un-armed, hand to hand combat, so that little prick Phill knows who is beating him," is creepy. I wouldn't let my children behave that way.

[Paul W]

"But the subsequent thread, in which you fantasise twice about using firearms and your chums chip in with the likes of "I’d like un-armed, hand to hand combat, so that little prick Phill knows who is beating him," is creepy. I wouldn't let my children behave that way."

This part of the disagreement is the most unpleasant - it's one thing for a disagreement between bloggers to get out of hand (and for arguments to be made about fault etc) but entirely another matter when the mob (barnslybill, bastable, Farrar, leonadis, cresswell, coyote, 76, exocet) line-up and suggest different forms of rough-justice. How far away from cyber stalking is this situation - barnslybill suggests "doorstopping"?

[kiwi_donkey]

I agree it is creepy, and I don't like it. But there is another dynamic going on here - a gross and hypocritical double standard. For example, the accusation of cyber stalking by the mob has now been made. What about publishing a bloggers name and business? How is that not cyber-stalking?

This is partly what infuritates people about the "left" - a tendency to a holier than thou attitude, combined with blatant hypocrisy and a belief that the end justifies the means. Some of the "left" attitudes that I see look like the first steps on the road to totalitariansim: my party right or wrong (Jordan); corruption is justifiable in a good cause (Chris Trotter); you are guilty by virtue of your relatives (Jordan); we must document all examples of incorrect thinking (Jordan); all my political opponents can be dammed by the actions of a few (all those raving against 'right wing bloggers').

How about it all you "left wing bloggers". Care to repudiate any of that? Or should we just appoint a Stasi watchdog for each blog?

[Deborah]

Four thoughts:

It was a right wing blogger who offered physical violence.

The 'holier than thou' attitude of the left pisses me off too.

Stay away from people's families.

If you are going to use a pseudonym on the net, then it behoves you to adhere to a higher standard of behaviour than people who use their own names. As Jordan said in his post, the basic principle is that people are held responsible for what they say. People who use their own names can be held responsible. People who hide behind pseudonyms and use that protection to shriek hatred behave in a cowardly fashion. It is an abuse of the privilege of using pseudonyms.

[Paul W]

kiwi_donkey, I've not commented on the issue of naming Slater/Whaleoil as I'm in two minds about it. In my opinion however, anonymity is what emboldens some to make extreme comments that would likely not be made if the author's name was out their in the public.

As to the comment about cyber-stalking; I don't resile from that comment one bit. Several comments have strayed dangerously close.

Deborah's "holier than thou" comment may have some merit though I don't feel this relates to me in any way. I generally avoid getting into slagging matches on the right or left but as a regular blogger I'm very interested in the debate not degenerating in the way the Slater/Whaleoil one has.

[Whaleoil]

Worried about the debate degenerating. How is this for a story.

I was having a few drinks and a chat at a mates place (farrars), then all of a sudden someone barges in all obnoxious like and hurls abuse around. I took exception and said how about we take it outside. Someone else (Sonic) stepped in and added provocation so I said you next....as I walked outside the protagonists ran off down the street flipping the bird and claiming victory.

So, I go home, back to my place and start to talk to my mates about the carry on and who should barge in unannounced, trespassing if you will but one of the protagonists. I let him rant and rave and again he runs of flipping the bird and claiming victory, worse he gets his childish little mates to run a pamphlet around the neighbourhood and invites a whole lot of them over to my place to mess it up a little.

All of a sudden I am the bad guy coz I take exception to the rantings and raving some some rude and impolite people at my mates place and at my own place.....puleeease.

[Russell Brown]

"How far away from cyber stalking is this situation - barnslybill suggests "doorstopping"?"

The opening line of his comment, the first to Mr Oil's post, was: "it would be more fun to trace him through his IP address and doorstep the little weasel."

The pseudonymous Mr Barnsley then went on to brag about, and repeat, his brilliant idea, on Clint Heine's blog, expanding it to a general threat against all "the pricks" in the process.

Gee Bill, does that include me now? Could you promise to hold back if another member of my family answers the door? Or was that just an idle threat?

As usual, Oil, Bill, Heine, etc, only pause their invective long enough to whine about "insults" from the people they're attacking.

Meanwhile, Mr Oil has made a new post in which he basically calls Jordan a Nazi (he even has a photoshopped picture of Jordan in a Nazi uniform) and then whines about being picked on. Again.

I'm not quite sure where these people's boundaries are.

[Paul W]

You're the bad guy 'cause you ranted and raved and threatened people including a none-so-oblique reference to your weaponry. You're the bad guy 'cause you lack moderation and over-reacted.

Your mates, in my opinion, would have done better to have quietly admonished you rather than standing around speculating whether or not the bike-shed or alleyway were the best place to jump the other bunch.

A blog isn't an entirely private space Whaleoil, you'd be equally wrong had you made the same comment in a bar or on talkback.