Courtesy of Justin at Chicken Yoghurt. One can quite see why Paul Staines wishes to remain anonymous.
UPDATE: Transcript at Guido Fawkes 2.0 This links to two interesting pieces by the BBC’s Nick Robinson, whom Mr Staines falsely claimed in the Newsnight discussion — he’s now apologised and retracted it — was the source for Staines’ claims about a second email system at 10 Downing Street. Mr Robinson’s response to some of the comments to his second article is worth a look.
UPDATE 2: Guido Fawkes 2.0 has prepared a NSFW version of how things might have turned out better for Mr Staines had he been able to involve his regular readers, or ‘co-conspirators’ as they apparently prefer to think of themselves, in the discussion. I’ve been having great fun trying to work out who they’re supposed to be; I think I know who the one on the right is modelled on.
Technorati Tags: Guido Fawkes, Paul Staines, Newsnight
Not Saussure 
…what can the matter be? Guido got stuck in Michael White’s lavatory. He’ll be there from Wednesday until Saturday and nobody will know he is there.
Father, I have sinned. I don’t mean the non-payment of the TV tax. I hoped to see someone fall flat on his face. And, I wasn’t disappointed. He tripped himself up just like Norman Wisdom. Only this guy wasn’t wise.
I so much wanted to see him fall flat on his face because of the way he has treated me on his and other peoples blogs. I was seeking justice and found it. So you see, Father, I admit to being biased. Should I now pity the underdog?
Comment by jailhouselawyer — March 29, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
According to Wikipedia,
It somehow seems appropriate, given Mr Staines’ behaviour at times, that today is Stop CyberBullying Day.
Apparently, the English word for Schadenfreude is epicaricacy. You learn something every day.
Comment by notsaussure — March 29, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
I’ve just been over at Rachel North London’s place and saw her post on the cyber bullying.
Its an abuse of power. I know what that is from Administrative law reading. And, from personal experience. As GBS said, assassination is the strongest form of censorship. I served time for the crime and ten years extra for good measure. However, there are some posters and bloggers who think that I should have paid the final solution price, or failing that still be in prison. I know that I can never satisfy some people, so I don’t waste my time trying. They are lost causes of their own choosing.
Knowing what it is in one’s self, there is scope for change. Once that has occurred, it is easy to see when others are abusing power. Guido is just one example, I have seen others too.
There should be rules of conduct and a remedy for breach.
technorati tags: takebackthetech
stopcyberbullying
Comment by jailhouselawyer — March 29, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
You’ve discovered the English for schadenfreude! What a peerless fount of wisdom you are.
Comment by Mr Eugenides — March 29, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
What can I say? I rarely read Guido so I don’t know what he’s said about you, but the way some others have gloated about your background is, to my mind, pretty distasteful. As you say, people can change; that’s one of the reasons I’m opposed to the death penalty. Another is that I’d hate to be judged only the worst thing I’d ever done.
The Parole Board know more about what you’re like now than do any bloggers and, as far as I’m concerned (though obviously others don’t believe quite the same thing) we’re all of us going one day to face a far greater and more merciful judge than we deserve. I’m considerably more bothered about the explaining I’ll have to Him than than about what He’ll have to say to anyone else.
I don’t know about rules of conduct when it comes to blogging; I’ve got mine and I try to stick to them, but I don’t know if I want others telling me what they should be. And I certainly don’t think there’s any effective remedy for breach other than those already available in the civil courts.
Comment by notsaussure — March 29, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
Thank you, Mr E. I’m still working on a rhyme for ‘orange,’ though. Watch this space.
Comment by notsaussure — March 29, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
The outbreak of anti-Guido is alive and well, I see.
Don’t go there often because the amount of comments that appear means it’s hard to follow the threads.
We prefer friendly blogs lik this.
Comment by crushed by Ingsoc — March 29, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Orange? As said, it ends in inge. The first letter you have to supply yourself…
Comment by jailhouselawyer — March 29, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
I can’t see how this could have turned out worse for Staines.
He looked weak and stupid in front of his team of bullies, his somewhat skewed moderation policy was in full view immediately afterward (along with many unconvincing sock-puppets… all screaming “Sock-puppet!” at negative comments, no less) and – retraction or not – that final blurt is going to stick in a lot of people’s minds, which is sure to cause some sources to shy away. There are also some sources who only feed Staines to be part of something ‘cool’… and from there we head straight back to the beginning of this paragraph.
One big spiral downwards is what it looks like.
PS – Thank you for ‘epicaricacy’. I shall try to work it into conversation.
Comment by Tim Ireland — March 29, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
[…] I recommend this Google Blogsearch as well. In particular, whilst ranting about Tories, “Hamer Shawcross”, another anonymous watcher-of-parliament, captures something of Fawkes’s blog’s contribution to contemporary debate and “notsaussure” tells us the English for schadenfreude. […]
Pingback by PooterGeek » Blog Archive » Shady Character — March 29, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
Not a fan of Fawkes either, but as someone on Nick Robinson’s blog pointed out, for Robinson to say “when I have stories, I publish them” is bollocks – did he not know that the leader of a major party was an alcoholic? At the very least it’s a Nelsonian kind of knowledge he had. So it’s a particularly blatant lie.
It’s not a point that Staines made, but I think the problem is not complicity amongst MSM political journalist – it’s their lack of specialisation. Why should a health minister and a defence minister be interviewed by the same general-purpose “political” journalist? Blogs like EUReferendum or BOM, tho clearly partisan, show how futile this is, and how much better it could be. It’s not so much that people like Robinson refrain from asking the tough questions – it’s that they’re intrinsically incapable most of the time of knowing what those questions are. Guido (along with loads of other people) is definitely right that Robinson et al are a huge part of the problem -he’s just got the wrong reasoning, and the wrong answers.
A plague on both their houses.
Comment by alabastercodify — March 29, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
I don’t believe the statement about “epicaricacy”. It’s in Wiktionary, not the OED; of course it might be a fresh minting, but it appears to be a non-standard transliteration of the Greek word mentioned in the first reference the OED provides for (the *English* word) Schadenfreude. A correct transliteration would be
“epichairecacy”, at a guess. At any rate, that’s my recommendation.
Comment by pedant2007 — March 31, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
According to the Wikipedia entry for Schadenfreude (which I suppose I should have referenced, too),
Not having a copy of Mr Bailey’s dictionary to hand (someone must have borrowed it), I can’t say if he gives any references or if it’s just something he made up. Probably the latter since, as you say, it’s not in the OED.
Comment by notsaussure — March 31, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
Quote: “Not having a copy of Mr Bailey’s dictionary to hand (someone must have borrowed it), I can’t say if he gives any references or if it’s just something he made up. Probably the latter since, as you say, it’s not in the OED.”
I’m the fellow who wrote that wikipedia entry. And yes, I verified it in Bailey, at the local university’s library. For more details see discussion at http://wordcraft.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/932607094/m/7886078523?r=2216042033#2216042033 by me and Mo. Shea; as he notes, you’ll find the word in Bailey’s and (in this century) in Shea’s book, Shipley’s, and Mrs. Byrne’s. It also appears in Burton’s “Anatomy of Melancholy”.
Comment by wordcrafter — May 23, 2007 @ 1:00 am
Thanks. I didn’t, of course, mean to imply you’d invented it, but I’m interested to learn that Nathaniel Bailey didn’t himself invent it but presumably found it in Burton.
Comment by notsaussure — May 24, 2007 @ 8:58 pm