Following neilninepercent’s link above I stumble upon such gems as…

Must be an overwhelming majority of uninteligent people out there then Pete. Perhaps instead of bluster you could have tried to give us some factual explantion …

Explan the uninteligents!

and

How interesting Sectariat – an entire blog dedicated to rubbishing comments on BBC after they have been removed from the public view.

So I assume it is run by BBC employees or whoever the BBC allow free run of their private records to.

Ah yes, nowt to do with mocking the fuckwits of various habitats here, just a cabal of Beeb insiders going public with our mockery. Just. Because. We CAN.

Incidentally I seem to have made such a stir among your Speak your Branes pals that they have felt it necessary to censor all but 1 of my comments, though not censoring their own replies

And yet I can read at least 4 of said numpty’s comments in this very thread.* Yay! I must’ve been covertly accepted into the conspiracy and had the SYB-SeeAll plugin invisibly installed.

*Meanwhile Mr Kettle refuses many posts from Ms Pot at home. Just say No!

…

…

No, never mind.

Well done Kelvin – you have indeed proven that I will not publish your obscene homesexual fantasies, as I said.

But that is my point, dearest pulsating Neil. You are making a value judgement on the content that is posted on your blog, and selecting only those posts which you deem of value. So while you rail against perceived censorship on here, you’re actually censoring comments on your own blog. Can you see why that would make you a hypocrite, as I said in my post that you judge worthless? The point of free speech, tumescent Neil, is that you support it regardless of whether you agree with it or not, whether it offends you or not.

Incidentally Strangely enough the person who first mentione the Branes site to me, Sectariat, said of may apparent censorship “it sounds like they’ve given you the same treatment they gave me”.

You know, if I were Secretariat I’d question how you can think you understand what I’m saying when you consistently spell my fucking name wrong even though it’s in the dictionary. And when I stopped doing that I’d explain that what I meant was, “I went to SYB to tell them they were nasty meanies and they relentlessly took the piss out of me until I ran away crying” which is, I believe, precisely what we’re in the process of doing to you.

Now whip ‘em off, I’m dying for a throating.

I guess you have entirely proven the standards to which the branes people aspire. Stan is looking better.

Incidentally Strangely enough the person who first mentione the Branes site to me, Sectariat, said of may apparent censorship “it sounds like they’ve given you the same treatment they gave me”. You can see it here http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/07/newnights_politics_pen.html

This would be a quite remarkable happenstance if there was no censorship.

I mean, it might be my choice of homosexual fellatio as a metaphor, but as Gobbler The Oral Sex Alsatian would agree, we wouldn’t censor such insightful political arguments here. I think it was Voltaire who said, “I disagree with your frenulum-licking technique but I will defend to the death your right to describe it in minute detail on my blog.”

Only to receive:

“Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval. ”

Irony. He must suffer the ineffectual, silent, inconsequential wrath of the pigfrottage. Or I’ll ignore him. One of those…

I’m only slightly sad as I think I spelled something wrong on the comment. Help me @Bit Special, what should I do? drowning myself in pineapple juice seems a worthy option.

So the policy of attacking the Middle East is media-approved? Must be some other BBC that lost its Director General and a chunk of its editorial independence over the Today show report where they questioned the authenticity of the dossier which was used as justification for war. Unless “questioning the reasons for going to war in a tone that strongly suggests it was made up to justify the political aims of the Neocons” is somehow now toeing the party line?

Also, can you clarify: “People who don’t make a point” – did you deliberately leave off “that agrees with mine” or was it a typo?