Prev
Next

Anonymous comments: why we all need an escape goat

Paul Colgan

by Paul Colgan

21 Sep 05:58am

Must Reads

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win - this is a caption

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

32

Schapelle has done her time - this is a caption

Schapelle has done her time

145

Do women need to know when to walk away? - this is a caption

Do women need to know when to walk away?

70

Filed under: Escape Goats, Free Speech, Internet, Language, Media, Stupid

118 comments

The headline is not a mistake. Escape goats exist - at least, they do in the comment threads of websites everywhere, including The Punch.*

Awesome.

The beauty of this term is that while being appallingly bad English usage in a narrow sense, it is a spectacular conceptual improvement on the very word it butchers. Who needs a scapegoat when you could have an escape goat?

I want an escape goat. Rather than resorting to blame any time there’s any sort of problem, just hop on this conveniently-positioned imaginary beast and ride off, leaving behind only the comical clatter of little hooves, and maybe a faint bleating sound. Baa.

To illustrate how this phrase can be utterly wrong on one level but test your imaginative powers better than Salman Rushdie on another, here’s an actual example of it in action, in a comment from a real person, attacking The Greens.

They are coal huggers, promoting one of the most polluting transportation available in Australia, coal powered public transport system, and using the car as an escape goat.

Yeah. Who needs a stupid car when you can have a goddamn escape goat?

This glorious malapropism is an exception, of course. If you are a regular reader of comment threads - and in fairness, it would be silly to single out any one site - the low quality of the language can be dispiriting.

The nature of public debate in this environment, characterised as it often is by provocative, freewheeling and sometimes rabid commentary on the internet, has been getting some attention lately.  Calling for sanity, if you’ll forgive the expression, is a bit of a craze.

US TV host Jon Stewart is holding a rally on the theme at the end of next month in Washington. Implicit in the rally’s cause - to restore sanity - is the notion that American democracy has been hijacked by crazy loudmouths on both sides of politics.

Back here in Australia shadow treasurer Joe Hockey threw in his two cents of indignation over the weekend on Twitter. “I admit I am losing faith in Twitter (& BLOGS) because the anonymous commentary is often banal, nasty and meaningless,” Hockey said. “No name = cowardice.”

Many people will agree with the first part of this statement. But while you can’t imagine Hockey meant it literally, equating anonymity with cowardice is taking it too far. Sure, posting under your full name and address might make for a bit more of a civilised debate but it is a huge disincentive to the free exchange of ideas when anything you say might have a negative impact on important parts of your life. Like, say, your job.

The unpleasant flipside of this new reality of public debate is the menacing behaviour of those who mistake the ability to comment as a license to insult. Right-minded people are abhorred by these people, and they were the deserving target of Hockey’s disgust.

There is also the problem with imperfect language, seen in some quarters as a sign of a declining literacy rate and triggering a special despair when people are commenting on weightier matters such as, you know, politics. For many it seems the affairs of state should be only discussed among graduates of certain universities.

Since when was high-quality prose a prerequisite for taking part in a debate?

Sorry to go all Rob Oakeshott on you, but web commentary is beautiful in its ugliness.

It would of course be an excellent thing if every comment on a website was beautifully crafted, grammatically correct prose.

But the disjointed thinking, spelling errors and descents into personal abuse are to the internet what cold wet weather is to Melbourne. Part of the package. You just deal with it.

In my view this is is a small price to pay to allow people to say what they think. And occasionally, it will throw up a linguistic gem like escape goats replacing scapegoats, and the world becoming a much more enjoyable place as a result.

What are your tips for improving online conversations? Bonus points if you post under your real name.

Mine are: avoid using swear words - if you can’t make your point without cursing you probably shouldn’t make it in the first place; don’t call people names or say they are stupid for holding an opinion; use a spell checker; never, ever use capital letters; and always look for new ways to use language creatively. Good luck trying to beat escape goats.

*As this column deals with English usage it is subject to Muphry’s law, which states any piece of prose on misuse of language will contain one or more errors. Consider them corrected in advance.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

414Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
353"Gifting", "journey" and other words we hate
309Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
255Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
230South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
224The most laughable, err, spoof since Einfeld

118 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      06:06am | 21/09/10

      My commenting tip: Keep it simple. Don’t write a paragraph if you can get your essential point across in one sentence.

      Reply

    • AussieJazzman says:

      11:16am | 21/09/10

      Sorry to be a pedant but you communicated your tip about communicating in one sentence in two sentences.

    • Eric says:

      03:37pm | 21/09/10

      True, AussieJazzman, but I did that for a reason. One sentence would have been too awkward in conveying the three essential points I wished to make.

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:03pm | 21/09/10

      Well the rules to an online debate are simple and I think this is a good opportunity to get the best ones out

      1. Claim facts and provide no proof or just passing proof (I know a guy…)

      2. Compare to hitler, pol pot and co as soon as possible

      3. Attack grammatical or spelling mistakes and disregard the point made

      4. Copy and paste irrelevant points about your side onto almost every post

      5. Post at least 10 times on the one article to ensure your point gets across

      6. Never give context to your position or argument so we do not know exactly what we are debating

      7. Try to be hypocritical in your own post.

      8. Make sure to use plenty of buzz words because it makes you seem smart (dog whistle, paradigm, mad monk, denier)

      9. If you are proven wrong by a follow up comment, never ever admit that, either a) don’t ever post again, b) change the focus of an attack

      10. Never let points you have made previously get in the way of making contradictory new points

      11. As eric alluded to, make sure that you use massive paragraphs (or don’t even worry about them) and jam as much non linear information in thier as possible

      12. Plan the man as much as possible, never refer to thier actual point

      13. Don’t read the whole article, just view the headline and the image and post on what you think it was about

      I am sure I have missed a few, can’t think of them right now

    • Barb. Dwyer says:

      06:40am | 21/09/10

      Dunno about this,the chooks have to be let out,the cows are in the long paddock,the sheep are willing and the horses have bolted the stable door.The goats have always been devotees of Houdini. Commenting under a range of different names allows a greater range of flexibility in opinions,attitudes and general stupidity.Theres nothing like a good Barb in salt.

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      08:45am | 21/09/10

      “The sheep are willing”? May be in New Zealand!
      Commenting under a range of names allows gutless wonders to hide from their friends & families. In front of them they are as pure & politically correct as the purest of the pure to the extent they see themselves & hope others see them as Supreme Candidates for Sainthood! Then under their cowardly covers they can express their true feelings

    • Max Vaunted says:

      01:40pm | 21/09/10

      And what proof do we have that you are indeed Robert S McCormick? I suspect that you yourself are using a pseudonym to deflect the possible retribution of beefy All Blacks insulted by your tired old sheep gibe. Or perhaps to focus the attention of infuriated All Black flankers onto the real Robert S McCormick, your rival in love.

    • Barb. Dwyer says:

      04:35pm | 21/09/10

      Dear R.S.M, that was the typist,s mistake, I actually said the sheep were wooling,the chooks are fed up and the pigs was swilling,  and the goats are still absent

    • Steve says:

      07:06am | 21/09/10

      The trouble with this site is there are far too many Judas goats, yes I know, not in front of the kids.

      Reply

    • Russell says:

      07:28am | 21/09/10

      Last week I commented on a story in Punch (as in Paul’s example, on the Greens), and someone (a Greens supporter) directly accused me of being “a liar”.

      I had reported an incident which had happened and I used my real (first) name, as I also do on Punch. On other more formal sites, I use my full name. The person who called me a “liar” did so under a “funny” assumed name. They had no reason to doubt what I had to say other than that they disagreed with my point.

      That person was a coward. Calling someone a liar is actionable. My integrity and professional reputation (if it mattered, and if I was fully identified) could have been damaged, and such matters regularly end up in the courts.Of course I would never take action in circumstances like this, but the fact remains, the level of “debate” on this site and many others, is pathetic.I like the robust nature of most it, most of the time, and anonymous commentary can be useful and entertaining. However the there is a job for the moderator, right Punch?

      Reply

    • Jonathon says:

      11:32am | 21/09/10

      Why would you make something like that up?

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:34am | 21/09/10

      Hi Russell, I’m that ‘coward’.

      “I had reported an incident which had happened and I used my real (first) name, as I also do on Punch.”
      As do I, actually.  My name is just as anonymous as yours.

      “They had no reason to doubt what I had to say other than that they disagreed with my point.”
      Not true at all.  Your point sounded like a bad straw man representation of Greens and their policies.  I have reason to doubt anything unlikely unless evidence is provided. 

      “That person was a coward. Calling someone a liar is actionable.”
      I’ve seen people being called a lot worse on the Punch. 

      “My integrity and professional reputation (if it mattered, and if I was fully identified)”
      And there you go.  I understand the law, and so do you.  Unless you’ve updated the thread with another comment, you didn’t even name the politician.  Is that cowardice, or are you just aware that if this politician managed to track you down you’d be sued for defamation?

      I don’t use accuse people of being liars often, but in this case I think it was reasonable for me to do so.  I suspect that He of No Surname invented the anecdote.  But if The Punch moderators won’t allow one commenter to call another a ‘liar’, that’s fair enough.  It’s their site and their rules.

    • Rick (not really) says:

      01:28pm | 21/09/10

      Russell??!! Is that really you??!! OMG, I would have never thought… oh…

    • Samuel says:

      07:59am | 21/09/10

      One of the most important tips is to never shoot the messenger.  Too often people throw in a partisan or ideological barb in place of engaging with the debate at hand.  Writing off someone because of who they might vote for is a quick step to stupidity.  Call someone a denier or a racist or a bleeding heart and you absolve yourself of the responsibility to mount any sort of coherent argument.

      As soon as someone invokes that kind of argument I immediately switch off.

      Reply

    • Houdini Goat says:

      09:38am | 21/09/10

      @Samuel: agreed, in fact resorting to any kind of personal attack is quite pathetic.

    • Greg Blackmore says:

      08:03am | 21/09/10

      Some community sites can only post as “real people” under a real name. One example that comes to mind is Agmates, but you do have to sign in to post (and read unfortunately)

      Reply

    • George says:

      08:17am | 21/09/10

      @Paul – Thanks for this!

      Second Australian society has become permissive of poor English language skills. One only has to chance upon a suburb with a high concentration of people with non English speaking backgrounds and try to ask for directions let alone find a shop with a marquee in English.

      Second I blame the school system for focusing on a low target of ‘basic skills’.  Compare that with society’s very high expectation of sports personalities.  I loathe thinking that most of the revered and almost beatified football players of our time can string decent sentences themselves and not their minders.

      I agree that ‘web commentary’ does not require “beautifully crafted, grammatically correct prose”, however some posts here defy primary school level English language skills, perhaps I’m even one of them.

      Reply

    • yofussn says:

      08:19am | 21/09/10

      One of the most frustrating issues is the selective censorship of certain peoples comments.  Is the idea for people to express their opinion or be made to think their opinions dont warrant wasting ones time with.

      Reply

    • Nigel Catchlove says:

      08:39am | 21/09/10

      ‘High quality prose’ is not and should not be a pre-requisite for taking part in a debate. However, basic functional literacy is.  Blithering non-sequiters and horrendous dangling participles that allow a sentence to be read in several different ways have a serious effect on the ability of a person to frame an argument. 
      Lack of basic punctuation, failure to use capitals, over-use of capitals and of course use of terms such as escape goats are all ways that people can destroy what may have been a valid viewpoint.
      Spelling mistakes happen, and we’ve all hit the wrong key in our excitement to post a comment, but spelling Labor with a ‘u’ or lose with a double ‘o’ is simply a sign of a feeble, lazy mind.
      In my experience as a PR guy, use of terms such ‘escape goat’ often indicate that the author doesn’t read much.
      I share Joe Hockey’s dispair with anonymous comments - if you are too ashamed to put your name to a comment then you probably shouldn’t post it.

      Reply

    • Amy says:

      01:22pm | 21/09/10

      While I agree that ‘lose’ with a double ‘o’ is inexcusable, you have to remember that, according to Australian spelling, Labor is not actually a word, it’s a name.  I’ve managed to teach my phone and home computer to no longer correct my spelling of ‘Labor’, but my work computer still frequently ‘corrects’ the ‘mistake’ for me.  I can’t help but think that others also have this problem, and that’s why ‘Labour’ is posted so frequently.

    • Nigel Catchlove says:

      02:42pm | 21/09/10

      You’re absolutely right Amy and I hadn’t considered the automatic spell check on some computers. 
      Just for the laughter, here is my favorite dangling participle from the Sydney Morning Herald online.

      “A 45-year-old NSW man is set to receive more than $300,000 in damages after successfully suing the state for assault, which left him needing facial surgery, and malicious prosecution.”

    • fairsfair says:

      03:11pm | 21/09/10

      Whilst listening to the radio on the way to work this morning the highly intelligent DJ made a comment about his co-host: “[whoever] is being rivoted by the topic”.

      Ummmmmm….

    • Zatnikatal says:

      04:24pm | 21/09/10

      Seriously, your name is Nigel Catchlove? I love it but thought is was a joke name.

    • Nigel Catchloves Mother says:

      05:27pm | 21/09/10

      I love you Nigell

    • Kevin Rennie says:

      06:06pm | 21/09/10

      Most spell checkers, including this one, like labor and want to correct labour. One of my blogs is correctly titled, ‘Labor View from Bayside’ because it’s party political but not British. This spell checker doesn’t like bayside either.

    • KH says:

      08:45am | 21/09/10

      I remember a teacher once (yes, but it was the 80s - schools was quite good in those days) said ‘personal insults are the last resort of someone with no intelligent argument left’.......but that assumes that you are arguing with someone capable of intelligent argument.  Sadly, that isn’t always the case online….... so I can’t always stick to this!

      Reply

    • The Badger says:

      01:35pm | 21/09/10

      personal insults are better than some alternatives

      The first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization.
      Sigmund Freud

    • Al says:

      03:08pm | 21/09/10

      I would actualy have to disagree with this point.
      Personal insults can actualy strongly assist an intelligent argument.
      What I am going to assume was meant when the teacher said this would be along the lines of “‘base’ or ‘crass’ language is the last resort of someone with no intelligent argument left.”
      It is not the personal insult that destroys the argument (calling someone a liar when they post blatantly incorrect info is a ‘personal insult’ but can also be a PART of a reasoned, logical and intelligent argument PROVING them wrong).
      Insults are great and give a huge opurtunity to expand your vocabulary, I find it hillarious when I can insult someone to their face and get a ‘dazed and confused’ look from them because they have no idea what I just said (and I am speaking English).

    • TheRealDave says:

      08:58am | 21/09/10

      I do post under my real name…I am the Real Dave after all, not one of these impostors trying to ride on the coat tails of my sheer awesomeness.

      I actually like the cut and thrust of internet stupidity, I mean ‘discussion’. Its a great opportunity to vent after a stressful day at work….or while you are at work as the case may be. Instead of screaming down the phone at yet another glaring example of ineptitude, mediocrity and or moronic stupidity from a client, customer, boss, team member, family member etc you can get online and abuse some knob who is speaking absolute twaddle.

      Its done wonders for my blood pressure.

      The main thing is - if you can’t take it then don’t get online and dish it. Just like real life…well…the unadulterated, touchy feely, ‘play nice’ parts of it anyway…

      Oh and, I want an Escape Goat! Where do we line up?

      Reply

    • TimB says:

      10:26am | 21/09/10

      *Applauds*

      Pretty much my sentiments right there Dave.

    • Louis McLennan says:

      09:04am | 21/09/10

      I guess to add to the list would be.
      Never expect everyone to agree.
      Greg Blackmore makes a good point about AGMates (I don’t post, just read). However, the approval process for the account is to make sure your name isn’t something obviously false.
      Caps lock is cruise control for cool.
      Finally, If you are going to go looking through someone’s twitter or facebook don’t bother replying as anonymous. You’ve just lost. However, the punch commenters don’t seem to bother which is nice. So I continue to post using my name.

      Reply

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:04am | 21/09/10

      Oh, I forgot to mention.

      Posting with your real name - is not generally a good idea. Especially for females. The amount of seriously bent and twisted people online nowadays, well not ‘nowadays’ per se - they’ve always been there, is staggering. Over the course of my time being ‘Online’ I’ve seen many of these individuals dig up all kinds of info on people they get fixated on.

      A LOT of people who are not IT savvy leave all kinds of personal info lying around unprotected on he net and not just in places like Facebook. We rightly try and educate our kids in what they should and shouldn’t reveal online to people they don’t know yet I see far more adults giving out personal info far more freely.

      Anonymity on the internet is a two edged sword, you guarantee some privacy BUT you are exposed to absolute morons with appalling personalties and moronic stupidity. Using real names matures the conversation BUT it opens up a whole can of privacy issues especially for people who aren’t savvy enough to protect themselves from predators and morons.

      Reply

    • Markus says:

      09:41am | 21/09/10

      Agreed.
      I remember a great line from a doco on hackers I watched a decade ago, that went something like: “the rise of the internet has been built on the false premise that everyone would play nice”.

      The one rule I was taught when first accessing the internet back in ‘94 was never give personal details online.
      Unsurprisingly, people letting this rule slide over the years has coincided with a spike in identity theft.

    • Internet Privacy Not Negotiable. says:

      10:57am | 21/09/10

      Police regularly educate the public that online privacy is not negotiable.  Parents who comment over their real names may be unintentionally exposing themselves and even worse - their kids - to serious risk.

      Best to stick to police recommendations - don’t supply real name or any personal details.

      Joe Hockey is foolish to suggest that anonymous posts equate to cowardice.

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:47am | 21/09/10

      Excellent call.  I don’t use my full real name as it’s generally not a good idea to announce it on the internets, and even less of a good idea in these sorts of forums.

      Some people might call that cowardly, I call it sensible.

    • Adam Diver (My real name) says:

      08:09pm | 21/09/10

      Perhaps in some circumstances but on the punch? What are they going to track me down via email to do what exactly? Can we have an enlightened example of what could possibly happen with details on the punch that could not happen on any transaction website, social network, malicious website etc etc.

    • Al Black says:

      09:05am | 21/09/10

      Just skim read comment threads and forums for what takes your fancy. Chuckle at (or disregard) the rest. Works for me raspberry

      Reply

    • David says:

      09:06am | 21/09/10

      I’m eating breakfast….

      Oh, sorry.  Thought this was twitter )

      Reply

    • Sam Chowder says:

      09:44am | 21/09/10

      What brand?

    • T.Chong says:

      10:04am | 21/09/10

      LOL. Thats funny.  smile

    • Ben Mendelsen says:

      09:10am | 21/09/10

      I think you’re on the verge of creating your very own internet meme

      Escape Goat.

      Look at me, I’m riding Escape Goat.

      “Your comment is so stupid even escape Goat knows you’ve failed”

      It could be right up there with Failboat, LOLcats, Pedobear, sad Keanu, that little girl running away looking back over her shoulder et al

      On topic: You could delete comments that are factually incorrect instead inserting a link to the actual facts or analysis from a reputable source (this would be time-consuming).

      Or simply delete comments from people with a poor grasp of the written language and tell them that Jules Winfield will be paying them a visit.

      Or have a rule that stupid comments will just be deleted.

      But censorship is vexing.

      Reply

    • Jenni (my real name) says:

      10:48am | 21/09/10

      This is a great idea - somebody follow this up please?

      ... I wonder if http://www.escapegoat.com is available? wink

    • bobw says:

      09:14am | 21/09/10

      If the idea is to facilitate sensible discussion, I actually think that relatively heavy-handed moderation is perfectly acceptable, provided that it’s consistently applied by reference to relatively clear and easily discoverable criteria.  I am aware of The Punch’s “Community Agreement”, but I’m not convinced that it’s enforced in a meaningful way.  A lot of “nonsense” posts seem to get through, and conversely, I’ve had several comments apparently disallowed for no reason (or at least no reason that was obvious to me).

      Presumably no one favours the stifling of legitimate opinions, but imposing a basic relevancy/rationality threshold hardly amounts to censorship.  If I was moderating the Punch, I would start by trying to weed out:

      - Long, rambling tirades about [eg] “Kevin747”, “Krudd”, “Phoney Tony” or “the Mad Monk” that have little or no relevance to the original post.  There are a few regular commenters who seem to specialise in rants along this lines, which often also list irrelevancies as though their endless repetition will somehow make them pertinent to the issue at hand [eg “Think about pink batts, BER, real Julia/fake Julia etc This illegitimate Govt is full of LIES!!!” when the original post is about the media].

      - Comments making ridiculous factual claims that even a modicum of research would show to be false or misguided [see eg a significant number of the comments on Tim Costello’s recent post]. 

      In my view, comments falling into these categories are much more objectionable than poorly expressed ones.

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      12:11pm | 21/09/10

      Spot on, bobw, I couldn’t have put it better myself. My personal favourites are the comments which are not only long and irrelevant, but are also written horrendously badly, so it is difficult even to understand the nonsense.

      And you can’t respond to thos comments, either, because you will look like the grammar Nazi.

    • Ben81 says:

      02:45pm | 21/09/10

      That’s the problem AdamC, it’s hard to reply to certain people who lump 50 random, unrelated and dodgy points into a paragraph and don’t make a basic attempt at using proper spelling and grammar.
      You can’t even begin to respond to stuff like that, and suggesting to them nicely as possible that they have the IQ of a cinder block and have the maturity of a 12 year old is obviously out, i’ve tried.

      It’s kind of frustrating when someone responds to a post with “rAbbot, Mad Monk, snivelling libs” etc with a few rare points between the insults and that’s the end of the conversation, the twit wins.

    • TimB says:

      03:36pm | 21/09/10

      I feel your pain Ben. It’s very hard trying to appropriately respond to those people without stepping over the (apparently constantly moving) imaginary line that dictates whether a response is published or not.

      It’s even more difficult when the only appropriate response to those comments/people would resemble the response of the adjudicator in the final showdown of Billy Madison:

      “Mr. Madison, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

      I think I might just start posting the youtube link to that clip in response everytime I encounter another twit post like you describe above.

    • Andrew (Macca) says:

      09:21am | 21/09/10

      The barracking for each side (thinking acotrel, MarK, Badger, T. Chong, Shane from Melbourne, Dave from Darlinghurst, thatmosis), regardless of their political ideolgy can get rather tiresome. Although when they are at each other’s throats it also makes excellent viewing.

      Basic courtesy is also missing. Rather than simply disagree with someone basic on an intelligent argument, we are forced to read the intellectually vapid “Your Wrong!”

      I’d also be in favour of a word limit. If a comment has exceeded 200 words it has missed the point of effectively aruging a point opportunity making.

      Reply

    • T.Chong says:

      09:46am | 21/09/10

      Macca, yur list of undesirable pundits is fairly light for conservatives, except for MarK, he cant do all the work by himself. How about Diamanti Dick, Rosie, and Joan, Greg(s), Ägainst the Man,KH, Wayne ,Ecca etc ?
      Agree with name calling, the personal attacks aint necessary, but if you put yur hand up to post, then you may get replys you dont agree with, but thats the fun of the game.
      BTW Punchers , any heard of DD Ball , and his small business / conservative Christian party went?

    • Macca says:

      10:25am | 21/09/10

      Ah, my apologies for forgetting Wayne, Against The Man and KH. However I wouldn’t include Rosie and I cannot recall DD, Joan or Ecca. I’ve obviously not been spending enough of my working day here

    • DD Ball says:

      07:07pm | 21/09/10

      T.Chong, I have not forgotten your penchant for ad hominem attacks. I wasn’t given reply on several occasions, so you haven’t read what I wrote, but they addressed the issue, so you would have lost interest. There is a need for a small business party, in much the same way as there is a need for the Green party. In all likelihood, the flow of preferences would be balanced in such a scenario, restoring democracy in this time of ALP government.

    • David C says:

      09:38am | 21/09/10

      anonymity encourages commenters to play the ball not the man

      Reply

    • Mike T says:

      09:49am | 21/09/10

      I like being “faceless”. It stops people judging me for being really really good looking…........

      Reply

    • Naomi Camel says:

      02:39pm | 21/09/10

      Being faceless makes me better looking

    • Bob H says:

      09:56am | 21/09/10

      The reasoned comments are always worthwhile, the rabid left/right and waffling comments can be avoided if required,  but please keep the funny ones coming in as some are pure gold.

      Reply

    • Garfield says:

      10:35am | 21/09/10

      I second that…rabid ranters stay out unless you have something funny to say!!

    • Antenna says:

      10:02am | 21/09/10

      We see posts in the CM with names deliberately childishly spelt wrongly, like Krudd, Blight and Dillard.
      Perhaps the CM could start the ball rolling by not printing letters with names like this included

      Reply

    • Northern Steve says:

      11:00pm | 21/09/10

      I have to agree.  I think this irritates me more than anything on these sorts of sites.  If the best argument someone can make is to give someone a ridiculous name, they need to go back to primary school.  A bit of respect for our public figures (if not necessarily for their ideas) would bring the debate back up.

    • iansand says:

      10:11am | 21/09/10

      One thing that will almost inevitably result in comment being spiked by the Punch team is criticising the intellectual “rigour” of one of their contributors.  The powers that be do not appreciate having their editorial failings highlighted.

      Reply
    • Paul Colgan

      Paul Colgan says:

      11:48am | 21/09/10

      How did this get through?

      Ian, far be it from me to criticise one of The Punch’s regular readers, but that is complete rubbish. And of all people you should know because pretty much everything you submit gets published.

      What we don’t stand for is calling people stupid, stupid.

      Punch on smile

    • iansand says:

      12:19pm | 21/09/10

      But Colgo, those that do not “get through” are almost always in this category.

    • MarK says:

      10:34am | 21/09/10

      Let me get this straight.

      You start a internet site about politics. You even have pieces about religion.

      You then by virtue of the medium and the guaranteed anonymity of the web get shocked by comments?

      I get what you mean but be serious. The net is just a example of Lord of the Flies for big kids. This is what society would be like without control.  That is all.

      Personally I find it amazing it is so calm.

      http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/

      sums it up

      btw nsfw or kids - swear word used.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      10:52am | 21/09/10

      I got various personas and like ter sound like huck finn ginger meggs wallace stevens n’ calamity jane sometimes all in one sentence.
      Kinda fun. And when i started writin on this site i used ter put in mistakes so’sme teenage friends could pick’m out. Kinda like homework, but now it’s kinda habit.
      (And what’s rong with capitals ?)

      Reply

    • Edward James says:

      12:54pm | 21/09/10

      using all capitals is considered shouting.

    • Al says:

      03:17pm | 21/09/10

      Edward James - Actualy, while a large proportion of people believe this it is not strictly true.
      All capitals is considered to be putting particular emphasis on that particular word, not neccasarily shouting.
      For example “They spent $50 BILLION dollars on WHAT?”
      As shown, it is not specificly shouting (although it can be used this way).

    • TimB says:

      04:39pm | 21/09/10

      I agree Al, the capitalised word is something I have to use in order to add necessary emphasis. Not sure if anyone on the Punch tech team is looking into site improvements, but some formatting options for the comment box would be a welcome addition. Then we could use some Bold/Italic/Underlining tricks instead of offending everyones eyes with nasty capital letters.

    • Edward James says:

      11:32pm | 21/09/10

      I am aware using capitals for emphasis on some words works when underlining bold or italics is not available. However I wrote “using all capitals is considered shouting”  As you advise Al putting emphasis on that particular word, you have noticed the difference. I am one of the large proportion of people who believes using all capitals not just the occasional word in a sentence is shouting.

    • Zeta says:

      11:20am | 21/09/10

      I think the comments are often more interesting than the stories because of the anonymity.

      When your name is on something, you want it to reflect you, you want the words to go with the nice little black and white photo, you want it to say something of the person you really are. But in the process of self-censorship you lose something of that honesty.

      I think that’s the secret to good online commentary - alarming, disarming honesty.

      And laughs. My real name is John.

      Reply

    • Amy says:

      01:32pm | 21/09/10

      Dang.  I was hoping for something trilling and exotic, like Pierre, Javier or Steve…  There goes the mystery.

    • ricardo (maybe) says:

      02:13pm | 21/09/10

      @Amy:

      How is Steve “trilling and exotic”? How about thuéng Phinx Ngueueyén? Now that is exotic. Fernando is too. Horacio. Tray, Kordell, Jamal and the rest of the American football association. But Steve? The only way it can stand out is if it is followed by Irwin - as a whole name, i.e. Steve Irwin (and then the surname) López.

      btw, my name is Ricardo. yes, with the first R very rolled. RRR.

    • Zeta says:

      02:42pm | 21/09/10

      What I really want to know is if Amy mispelled thrilling, or else was she talking about trilling consonants just like the alveolar trill in the name Ricardo, and if Ricardo knew about that before responding.

      If so on any counts, bravo. Bravo.

    • rrricarrrrdo says:

      04:40pm | 21/09/10

      I did know that, dear Z - or should I say John?... in fact, that (knowing the thrilling wrongness in trilling) is what I mean when I use those little thingies we call ‘quotations’ and that we use for ‘quoting’ someone else’s words (or quotes - not quotas) - in this case, with intended sarcasm over Amy’s thrilling grammar.

    • Ricardo says:

      04:51pm | 21/09/10

      and, forgot… R rolling is not alveolar, is rhotic.

      de nada, con mucho gusto.

    • Amy says:

      08:46pm | 21/09/10

      I’ll happily own any compliment from you, Zeta. 

      Ricardo, my use of “Steve” was a clear joke, though ironically, if I was going to go for the least exotic sounding name for maximum hilarity, I would have gone with John…

    • Fiona says:

      11:28am | 21/09/10

      In the pursuit of truth and editorial integrity, I would like to point out that I am yet to come across a goat large enough to ride to carry a fully grown human and therefore facilitate your ‘riding off into the sunset’ scenario. Think of the goats people.

      Reply

    • Al says:

      11:57am | 21/09/10

      Muphry’s law - i’m sure you did that on purpose.

      Reply

    • Jan says:

      12:05pm | 21/09/10

      I think the “escape goat” theme was quite witty and also appropriate in that article.  Perhaps now it will become yet another handy definition.  Trouble is every time I think of goats I recall how odourific they can be.  Simply wouldn’t fancy riding one of those.  Yeah, I’m thinking of the goats people. 

      Sniggles…My name really is Jan.

      Reply

    • Nicole says:

      12:13pm | 21/09/10

      I use my real first name, but not my last name. You see, I’m related to a few high profile sports people, in horse racing and NRL (no they don’t screw up), and I just don’t want everyone to be jealous of me. Besides that, I would hate to place the family name in to embarrassment, due to some of the dribble I pen smile

      Reply

    • Bill G says:

      01:03pm | 21/09/10

      I understand.  Sometimes I dribble drivel.  It is annoying, but that is my problem.

    • Yokahontas says:

      03:49pm | 21/09/10

      I see what you did there Bill G, and I like it…the far-too-prevalent use of the word ‘dribble’ when people actually mean ‘drivel’ is one of my pet hates. And, funnily enough, the first thing this article made me think of.

      I also hate it when people aren’t ‘phased’ by things of that nature…

    • Vicki PS says:

      04:57pm | 21/09/10

      Yokahontas, I’m wrapped!  Your a champ and I’m in total agreeance with you. Their are to many incidences of these kind of things. I’ve lost count of the times I must of read them lol.

    • Nicole says:

      05:05pm | 21/09/10

      Yokahontas, your chrystal ball needs a service. When I said dribble, I meant dribble, not drivel. Drivel also plays a big part in some of my comments, but today I’ll just stick with dribble.
      But it’s ok, I’m not that phased.

    • Nicole says:

      05:53pm | 21/09/10

      Yes, and one of my pet hates is when people confuse ‘their’ with ‘there’. I just don’t get that one. I’m not the spelling police, far from it. Just saying.

    • Yokahontas says:

      08:36am | 22/09/10

      Dribble only ever comes out of my pen when I’ve been chewing on it for too long…just sayin’

    • Nicole says:

      10:15am | 22/09/10

      You really shouldn’t do that. You never know where it’s been.

    • Vicki PS says:

      11:12pm | 22/09/10

      I didn’t mention it the first time to avoid embarrassing any of those well-known rellies of yours, Nicole, but you mis-spelled ‘crystal’.  Or was that a bit of postmodern irony that whizzed past me? (P.S.  I have been known to dribble in divers ways—age, you understand).

    • Nicole says:

      11:03am | 23/09/10

      Hahaha, Vicki that’s funny. I don’t like spelling competitions and I don’t like the spelling or grammar police. Hell, I can’t spell, that’s what my spell checker’s for (when it wants to work).  But I reckon we might quit while I’m ahead, yes?

    • Edward James says:

      12:31pm | 21/09/10

      Bad politics and politicians are reason enough for me to identify their lies and name them in my local paper often. When I do that I use my name and address sometimes my phone number. I understand Joe Hockey writing “No name = cowardice.” because it so often means that.  But he should keep in mind too many politicians avoid engaging with constituents unless they are known party faithful. Many of those same politicians hide behind a fire wall of staffers the “party” plausible deniability and sometimes Parliamentary privilege. After almost ten years I understand there is no point promulgating my writing and photographs identifying what the issues are without putting my name to them.  Edward James. Umina CBD

      Reply

    • Gavin Hodge says:

      03:57pm | 21/09/10

      And rightly so. Its one thing to be anon on a web blog where all you are doing is being heard (or read), but another to corrospond anonymously with a pollie, claim to be his/her constituent and expect them to do anything other than throw it in the bin or delete it. Similarly, news publications need to be able to hold you into account before they publish potentially defaming claims about another person.

    • Edward James says:

      06:11pm | 21/09/10

      @ Gavin Hodge.  I am publishing allegations in full page ads, which I have in turn made to politicians, Ministries, political parties, ICAC and the State Ombudsman. Because like so many other whistle blowers our complaints are lost in interpretation. Or considered not corrupt enough to warrant action. People like me can either suck it up or ramp it up by publishing. After all the separation of powers permits the peoples to ask others to consider the conduct of our politicians and elected corporate entities in the court of public opinion. The truth is not always a good defense to defamation action. Powerful activist groups use the term SLAP writ to identify what large corporations do to stifle dissent. I am currently working on a full page for next week which will invite Minister John Robertson to become involved in the best interest of Gosford ratepayers, Sending emails to politicians is not inclusive enough, it is better if we the peoples can engage with them in a public forum.  Edward James 0243419140 .

    • Julie Coker-Godson says:

      12:52pm | 21/09/10

      I have always posted on the Punch in my birth name and will always do so.
      I would like to see an end to filthy language being used on any website blog and especially sexually explicit abusive language and words to describe a woman’s anatomy or parts of it.  This really sickens me and I cannot understand why these words are not programmed into a blog system to be automatically deleted when used or, alternatively, have the whole post rejected in the same manner an editor rejects a manuscript for publication.  If that cannot be done then simply blackflag the poster who has a tendency to make these sorts of posts until such time as he/she redeems themselves by not writing in such an offensive manner.

      And why aren’t we trying to get people to write properly whilst they are blogging.  Here is an excellent opportunity for some clever clogs to actively encourage people to improve their spelling, grammar and knowledge of correct English usage via the blog sites.  Have a special section for it for those less knowledgeable.  It may help their schoolwork, since most of the really awful stuff I reckon comes from schoolkids anyway.  My apologies to those schoolkids who don’t write trash of course.  A bit of innovation wouldn’t hurt.

      Reply

    • James says:

      01:19pm | 21/09/10

      The word “scapegoat” is a mistranslation of the word Azazel (In Hebrew: ?????). The Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Old Testament, had incorrectly translated Azazel as ez ozel – literally, “the goat that departs” – and translated the word as tragos apopompaios, meaning “goat sent out”.

      The error was further promulgated in the Latin Vulgate, which rendered the word as caper emissarius, or “emissary goat”. William Tyndale rendered the Latin as “(e)scape goat” in his 1530 Bible.

      This translation was later appropriated in the King James Version of the Bible (Leviticus chapter 16) in 1611.

      Kind regards to Wikipedia.

      Reply

    • A Bob says:

      05:08pm | 21/09/10

      Biblical trivia time:

      The Hebrew AZZL was ‘mis’ translated in the way it was due to the purpose of the goat. Every year the priests would enact a ritual to have Israel forgiven of her sins. These sins were cast onto a goat that was then sent out of the city to wander in the wilderness, taking all the sins with it.

      However the word evolved, its meaning is correct, a scapegoat is someone/something used to bear the blame for another.

      “Escape goat” is a wonderful mondern, if accidental, neologism of it.

    • stephen says:

      07:47pm | 21/09/10

      .. . And Judas goat ...?
      Ez Azal ?

    • fairsfair says:

      01:32pm | 21/09/10

      When I first started punching I tended make up a witty and funny names that were infitting with the story being commented on. I was never the same name twice, however soon realised that as a rule I am not witty or funny - so fairsfair stuck and I have moved on.

      I think that you have accountability to your chosen name if you stick with it. People just attack your online identity - which I would much prefer over hitting the remote of an evening to find T.Chong and RobRCharteris waiting for me behind the garage door….

      I often wonder how some posts actually end up published. However, I wonder even moreso as to why my response to those comments don’t get published… One of life’s great mysteries I suppose.

      It is all in good fun and I would hate to see it change.

      Reply

    • jk says:

      02:00pm | 21/09/10

      “Escape goat” is almost as funny as my fave- a conviction being “squashed” instead of “quashed”.

      Reply

    • One of the unreal Daves says:

      02:33pm | 21/09/10

      Finally and thanks jk.  This thread has been far to esoteric when it could have been a great opportunity to feel superior.  More classic examples please.  Here I’ll kick it off with     as a child my farther was distant

    • The other unreal Dave says:

      03:31pm | 21/09/10

      Ha Ha Ha, surely you meant “two esoteric by half”

    • ImaWestie says:

      02:40pm | 21/09/10

      If I can’t mix metaphores on comments, then where?
      Personally, I don’t know what I appreciate more: calling the Greens a bunch of coal-huggers (I see it as intentional, btw) or the reference to the escape goat.

      He looks such a friendly fellow!

      You do know that terms like tree-hugger and scapegoat had to be invented somewhere after all?

      As for my name - I’ve been using this one online long enough that it will do nicely thanks!

      Reply

    • El Damo grando supremo with olives and side dish o says:

      02:40pm | 21/09/10

      i prefere the houdini goat. bit more class c, Anyway peeps Spanglish will be the most popular language on the planet within 10 years, it is already used in every major airport and that small island above france has to accept that the queens lingo has to adapt to the 6 billion other peeps on the planet.

      Reply

    • Al says:

      03:27pm | 21/09/10

      While you might like to think that, it is quite likely that it would be a ‘bastardised’ language with combinations from Chineese, Japanese and (possibly) some Spanish/English (based solely on populations who are fluent in these languages).
      There is also the good possibility of Korean being thrown in as well.
      English will never survive because it is actualy one of the most difficult languages to read due to the fact that it was NOT created with rules from the start but has evolved over centuries and almost EVERY ‘rule’ for the English language has exceptions to the rule.
      A reasoned and logical language that ALWAYS follows the rules is much easier to learn.

    • Eric says:

      03:57pm | 21/09/10

      Al, do you realise that English is the product of many centuries of pilfering from other languages? It’s the ultimate bastardised language, and future bastardisations such as those you anticipate will simply be continuations of an ancient tradition.

    • TimB says:

      04:07pm | 21/09/10

      But a language with a bazillion (/slight exaggeration) different characters is easy and will survive?

      I don’t think ease of learning has anything to do with it, its simply a case of how widespread/useful the language is. Chinese (Mandarin?) will probably survive due to the sheer number of native speakers. Same goes for many of the other big languages, with Spanish, English, Hindi, and Arabic rounding out the top 5.

      English though,is probably, the closest thing to a world language we have. Much of the world’s cultural media (books, TV, movies etc)  is in English, and many fields require proficiency in it. As such it’s probably one of the most widely learned second-languages in the world.
      English isn’t going anywhere, no matter how tricky it may be to come to grips with.

    • Andrew says:

      01:20am | 22/09/10

      English isn’t tricky for those who grow up with it. It just takes time. And it is far too gloriously illogical to get rid of: a treasure for the ages.

    • Ash Simmonds says:

      02:43pm | 21/09/10

      I made my getaway on an escape goatse.

      Reply

    • Toby Tortoise says:

      02:56pm | 21/09/10

      A pet peeve is the commenter who starts by writing ‘umm’ (the number of m’s is variable) as if the writer were politely pausing, but noisily enough to attract your attention. It’s passive-aggressive on a level with someone in beginning a spoken interjection with ‘I just wanted to say…’
      To paraphrase Douglas Adams: if human beings stopped speaking their brains would work.

      Reply

    • brownie says:

      03:07pm | 21/09/10

      Hahahahaha, Muphry’s law . . . . love it

      Reply

    • Leah says:

      03:19pm | 21/09/10

      Disjointed thinking on a blog is perfectly acceptable. Some of the appalling language I see is not. How did some of these people get past Grade 8 English? Please, bring back compulsory “Pass” marks before allowing students to progress to the next grade. Bring back the right to “Fail” students!

      I always find it amusing when people use “Whilst” or “amongst” incorrectly, while trying to sound educated and intelligent. I studied language and grammar at a university level, and my grammar-nazi lecturer told us: “don’t even use these words. They aren’t different enough to “while” and “among” to risk using them incorrectly and sounding stupid.” (I do appreciate people who do use them correctly though”.

      Reply

    • Mr Pastry says:

      05:33pm | 21/09/10

      @Leah “I always find it amusing when people use “Whilst” or “amongst” incorrectly, while trying to sound educated and intelligent.” 
      I’m the same with people trying to sound intelligent that fail to close brackets after opening them.

    • papachango says:

      05:42pm | 21/09/10

      Winston Churchill, as always, had a brilliant reply to a grammar pedant who chided him for ending a sentence with a preposition.

      He replied “This is the kind of utter nonsense, up with which I will not put” :D

    • papachango says:

      03:42pm | 21/09/10

      73 comments and no-one has mentioned Godwin’s Law yet?

      Best rule ever for Internet discussions. Simply, it states that, as a given thread gets more heated, the probability of someone mentioning Hitler or the Nazis approaches one.

      It goes on to suggest that once Godwin’s Law has been invoked, the person who raised the inappropriate Nazi analogy has automatically lost the argeument for his or her side and the thread should cease.

      I see AdamC has already lot the argument above by referring to ‘grammar Nazis’ wink

      Reply

    • Schmavo says:

      03:45pm | 21/09/10

      I’m fascinated with people that go to the trouble of clicking on a headline, reading an article and then posting a comment such as “why is this news’ or “slow news day?”.

      Must have been news worthy enough for them to click the headline in the first place.

      Then again, maybe they are pure editorial geniuses (or is that genii?)

      Reply

    • Tanya says:

      04:03pm | 21/09/10

      Dispense with purple prose.

      Reply

    • DD Ball says:

      04:52pm | 21/09/10

      I think Scape goats are better off than sacrificial lambs. Scape goats get to escape, with the theological weight of the sin they bear. Nuts, radical lefties have accused me of lots because I claim to be conservative .. and am. I don’t mind debate. Even vigorous debate is good. But I dislike it when I criticise Obama for his manner, matter or method, and in reply I have vexatious complaints made about my youtube postings which threaten to remove over 500 items with over half a million combined hits.

      Reply

    • James S says:

      06:22pm | 21/09/10

      Escape goat is nearly as bad as when someone is a “splitting image” though I guess I can understand why people make that mistake as splitting image does seem at first glance to make more sense then spitting image.

      Reply

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      08:24pm | 21/09/10

      Can some kind person please explain to me why i cannot use capital letters in my posts to Punch. ( that’s one strike) I started posting to these columns about a year ago and was in the habit of emphasising a point by using capitals on the key word. An email was quickly despatched to my address
      requesting the cessation of this mode of emphasis. To this point in time , i still have no idea what the problem is. I post to various columns but this is the first time i have encountered such a request. Naturally , i must abide by the Punch’s (second strike ) rules . I guess i am rather sneaky in going right to the last post to this thread but i am a bit embarrassed because all other posters will think me dumb.  Phew !  escaped the third strike. Thank’s Punch.

      Reply

    • Ripa says:

      12:15am | 22/09/10

      Dear Paul, you are trying to be impartial, but youre not,
      Jon Stewart is holding a rally on the theme at the end of next month in Washington. Implicit in the rally’s cause - to restore sanity - is the notion that American democracy has been hijacked by crazy loudmouths on both sides of politics.

      since when was Jon impartial? since when was he not a leftist supporter, he is a pretender.
      You want to see some real footage? look up Breitbart confronting the “paid” union protesters at right nation 2010.

      Stop with the high and mighty written word crap most, immigrants, australians, original australians dont have the same grasp of educated english, but their views are just as valid, or are you saying immigrants whose English is not perfect should not have a say?

      why dont you go and attack the music industry especially rap. Karaoke anyone?

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:39am | 22/09/10

      Hockey said. “No name = cowardice.”

      For once, I agree with Joe Hockey.  On another (unrelated subject) forum, I was accused of telling lies.  I invited the person making the accusation to put his name up on the forum - never happened.  Why am I not surprised?

      Reply

    • TimB says:

      09:47am | 22/09/10

      So your real name is actually Acotrel then I take it?

 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 23 May 12 11:30PM

RT @gregprichard: The Victorian Sports Minister has just sent the New Zealand Prime Minister a commiserative email. #stateoforigin

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 23 May 12 11:27PM

@VanillathunderV fair comeback. But seriously, if that was a try then I'll book my skiing in Queensland this year

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 23 May 12 10:06PM

@BrettS69 the loveliest thing about post-origin is the sledges from gloating qlders #ratherbeagoodloserthanapoorwinner

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 23 May 12 09:55PM

That is the video referee howler to end all howlers to end all howlers to end all howlers to end all howlers #stateoforigin

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Animal experiments won’t cure me from cancer

by Helen Marston

0

Animal experiments won’t cure me from cancer

Lying on a cold table in an unfamiliar place and undergoing a core biopsy was probably one of the most…

If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

by Kate Southam

0

If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

Red alert, ladies. Making jokes about your ability at work is not funny particularly at board level.…

Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

by Tory Shepherd

0

Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

Punishing the baddies is only fun in the movies. In real life it’s messy, expensive, and fraught…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

242 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed