Leave of Absence 1692

I was invited to be on the Murnaghan programme on Sky News this morning – which I always find a great deal more intelligent than the Andrew Marr alternative on the BBC. I declined because I did not want to get up and get a 7.30am train from Ramsgate on a Sunday morning. I had a meeting until 11.30pm last night planning a conference on human rights in Balochistan [I still tend to say Baluchistan], and I have a newly crowned tooth that seems not to want to settle down. But I am still worried by my own lack of energy, which is uncharacteristic. Is this old age?

I also have some serious work to do on my Burnes book, and next week I shall be staying in London to be in the British Library reading room for every second of its opening hours. So there may be a bit of a posting hiatus. I have in mind a short post on an important subject on which I suspect that 99% of my readership – including the regular dissident commenters – will strongly disagree with me.

This is a peculiarly introspective post, perhaps because my tooth is hurting, but I seem to have this curmudgeonly spirit which wishes to react to the huge popularity of this blog by posting something genuinely held but unpopular; a genuine view but one I don’t normally trumpet. The base thought seems to be “You wouldn’t like me if you really knew me”.

Similarly when I wrote Murder in Samarkand I was being hailed as a hero by quite a lot of people for my refusal to go along with the whole neo-con disaster of illegal wars, extraordinary rendition and severe attacks on civil liberties, sacrificing my fast track diplomatic career as a result. My reaction to putative hero worship was to publish in Murder in Samarkand not just the political facts, but an exposure of my own worst and most unpleasant behaviour in my private life.

I am in a very poor position to judge, but I believe the result rather by accident turned out artistically compelling, if you don’t want to read the book you can get a good idea of that by clicking on David Tennant in the top right of this blog and listening to him playing me in David Hare’s radio adaptation.

Anyway, that’s enough musing. You won’t like my next post, whenever it comes. Promise.

1,692 thoughts on “Leave of Absence

1 55 56 57
  • thatcrab

    Its not a general chat channel dopeyjoe, but there are lots and lots of them elsewhere on the internet for hanging out with your random views interests and hobbies.

    The mistake over ips was natural, ip identifiction and access control is the primary tool which web admin have for dealing with spam and disruptive messers.

    Whatever people say about Clarks manners towards exasperatingly determined twightlight zone broadcasters, the latest topic is doing very well with relatively little of it and may it catch on.

    SB it might have been newsworthy coming from someone else at a different time or a better source. But your source is a site devoted to educating us about, amongst other fiction….. Alien Overlords from the pleyades.

    Just wise up.

  • Scouse Billy

    No it was a Swedish newspaper where she commented.

    Too bad our MSM are not up to the job of telling the people and so bibliotecapleyades has to be applauded. That site does not take a position either but is a repository free from censorship unlike here it seems with a certain gatekeeper issuing threats.

  • Clark

    Scouse Billy, has it occurred to you that the Swedish Green Party leader may have been fed false information, to lead her into discrediting herself and her party?

    But you’re opposed to environmentalists anyway, aren’t you? You deny climate change.

  • Clark

    In any case, Scouse Billy, convince me of these chemtrails. I’d consider it a very serious issue, if I thought it was real.

  • Clark

    Scouse Billy, I’m sorry I called you a liar. I couldn’t sleep; contradictions getting to me… I really did think you were “Inside Mann”, so of course I was angry. But my assumption feels wrong now.

    Do you think that we can formulate a basis for discussion?

  • Scouse Billy

    Clark, I would be happy to discuss things with you.

    I’ll drop you an e-mail but need a little think and some caffein to wake my brain, ok?

  • Dopeyjoe

    “Its not a general chat channel dopeyjoe, but there are lots and lots of them elsewhere on the internet for hanging out with your random views interests and hobbies.”

    Get a life fella, I am sure Clark is more than capable of speaking for himself. I came here to read what people were talking about, see their views, read their comments…..is that not the idea?

    What I see a loony telling people to “fuck off” it’s not rocket science….go figure

    And when the “site administrator” is the telling people to fuck off……..yes…you go wise up !!

  • thatcrab

    ” And when the “site administrator” is the telling people to fuck off……..yes…you go wise up !! ”

    Not so long ago when there was almost no spam or disruption control, people used to say fuck off plenty in these comments. – Mods dont usually say that outloud, they make a comfortable summary and ban people before they are so frustrated. You can read back a very earnest and long engagement between Clark and Sb which leads up to the unguarded outburst. I wouldnt volunteer for the work and stress of housekeeping here even if i had the stability for it.

    fwiw i appologise to everyone for my recent offensiveness.

    Im regularly impressed by the patience and effort that Clark and others put into critiquing very esoteric and often seemingly uncontendable to normal reasonablness material, which is inserted into topical threads so frequently sometimes, as to wash out and put away those who have come to read and comment on *the topics which Craig raises*.

    Of course its not esoteric and uncontendable to some, but i believe confidently that it is to relatively few.

    If Craig commented on these topics even occasionaly – chemtails, depopulation, aliens, divine callings etc. There would be a place already for them. If it were a different kind of forum, they could make their own threads.

    I havent been complaining to get mention of them banned or completely out of the way. I am drawing attention to how they are most seemingly uncontendable by the majority of ontopic posters who engage with them, and Craig never ever does, except reluctantly 911 conspiracy (which i personally believe is/was more than contendable and confused by the quantities of alternatives).

    Given this nature, of special ‘fortean’ type interest of an often valuable group of regular commenters: I petition to show some restraint over publicising all interests that are away from topic at the expense of coherence of craigs topics (which are the intended attractors to the open platform). Can we not pepper them opportunistically and can they be pooled in recent but as auspicious as possible topics. Where someone interested will not so often arrive and think “how on earth did they get onto this?” Then Craigs platform will benefit and all our varied interests will benefit from that and less meta-topically frustrated discussions throughout.

    Apologies and progress.

1 55 56 57

Comments are closed.