HISTORY SANITIZED
Scott Bridges spent "literally thousands of hours... building, maintaining, moderating and writing" GrodsCorp but now won't even mention the site by name referring to it obliquely as a "certain website featuring an orange-and-blue theme and a pretzel mascot", and isn't about to link to it. But then there's really no point in linking since the entire Grods archive has been deleted. Why is Bridges so keen to distance himself from his blogging history?
Update: In deleting Grods Bridges has deprived the world of some really great writing -- trust me -- including this "Stone.Cold.Classic.". There is one good thing about Grods demise, however: Grodster Bridgit Gread has taken the opportunity to disappear.
Update II: Bridgit Gread emerges from obscurity to inform us that the "Grods archive is not 'deleted'; it is just not publicly viewable." Perhaps she'll tell us why Grods' outstanding five-plus-year-history is no longer "publicly viewable".
Labels: Grods, Scott Bridges
posted by Anonymous at 5:27 PM |
33 Comments:
Bridgit shouldn't you be cyberstalking someone?
C'mon Bridgit, you're obviously in the know: why is the Grods archive hidden from public view?
Toaf, anon @ 8.04pm sounds lonely and needy, in a clingy sort of way. Perhaps he wants me to be his mummy.
Just curious why a blogger would dump a five year labour of love and then distance himself by refusing to even refer to the dead blog by name. It's rather extreme behaviour but given some of Grods' posts and comments it's understandable.
Yes, Grodsters are reputed to be tenacious stalkers. No wonder he decided to dump the crew. And deleting the blog was much easier than purging the archive of troublesome posts. It's all clear now.
I like her comparison of Scott to a dog with a flea infestation. It is very apt.
Beck knows perfectly well that there were no 'troublesome' (i.e. defamatory) posts on Grods. If he has evidence to the contrary, let him share it, rather than beclowning himself with gutless insinuations.
Fishing expedition on your part, anon @9:53 and not a very subtle one at that.
If I meant "defamatory" I would have written "defamatory". I do think that at least one Grods post was removed and an apology tendered, however. But since the blog has been disappeared it's impossible to check. Bridgit has access to the archive; maybe she'll fill us in.
So, in other words, there's no evidence that any posts were removed, and there's no evidence that any were subject to legal complications. You merely think that some posts might have been 'troublesome'. Nice hypothesising, Einstein.
If at least some of them weren't troublesome why were they all removed?
I never said anything about a "conspiracy". Hey, maybe Bridges just thought it best to get rid of the "taking it up the arse" insults directed at right-wingers in just about every comment thread. I'd provides links but can't because, you know...
Unlike your own blog, Beck, where the calibre of discussion from the anonymous hordes and fake Iain Halls really hits new intellectual heights. Let's hope you never decide to send your blog into hiatus; the Australian blogosphere may never recover. Then again, you might also fancy an extended overseas trip (I hear Afghanistan is nice this time of year).
Good move, Beck. Don't want Anon @ 8.04pm posting his peurile rubbish unchecked.
Beck, why is it that the only two posts on your front page with "labels" attached are those about Bridges and Sear?
Bridgit, did you seriously use the term "monged"? What the hell? Are you so completely desensitised that you would use a term applied to profoundly intellectually disabled people as an insult? A term that has falled from use medically because of its racist connotations? How can you call yourself left-wing and progressive if you come out with such garbage. You seriously need a values-check.
Beck, why is it that the only two posts on your front page with "labels" attached are those about Bridges and Sear?
For ease of navigation, Toaf. You know how hard it can be finding the Sear and Bridges posts in amongst the Loewenstein posts.
Yes, Bridgit - I think that you were insensitive in that discussion also. Why did you need to write "he’s stupid to the point of possibly having some kind of disability", in other words, that he is retarded? I know you did not actually use the word, but what you wrote means exactly the same thing.
Bridgit,
For a start, you can't claim not to be in the wrong by pointing to an earlier example of someone complaining about you doing almost exactly the same thing. Well, you can, I guess, as you have done here, but you cannot expect to get very far with your argument.
Secondly, it is a bit hard to go over this ground when you (or rather your colleague) has taken down your the site where your intial comments were posted. As an aside, are you happy that most of your blogging career has gone down the memory hole?
Thirdly, this issue was thrashed out a week or two ago and you were shown to be in the wrong at the time.
But, nice effort to change the subject. "Look over there, where I did almost exactly the same thing!".
I'm not interested in your long-winded nonsense or your convoluted, rollercoaster logic, Lattecat. I'll leave you and your anonymous friends to join hands and chant I-hate-Grods.
She only posted here after the first update, numb nuts. You really are as stupid as you sound.
Beck is just a sad sack going through a middle age crisis and wanting attention, even if it comes from teh left. Him, Leon Bertrand and Iain Hall should organize their own weekend convention called "How to boost comments on your inane blog"
Good pick up Lattecat. Bridgit will be too shamed to come back after that. You should be working for A.S.I.O.
Is it just me, or is Lattecat a glass-jawed, prissy retard? He's probably the lovechild of Iain Hall and a pig.
It is you. :)
Cosmic. Have you heard of a strawman argument? You suggesting that I would take something literally is a straw man argument because at no point have I ever taken anything litterally that was meant metaphorically. For instance, I said Bridgit said Scott was "like" a dog. Not that Bridgit said that Scott was a dog.
Yep, about as classy as pseudonymous Grods commenters making butt-fuck jibes.
Yet you decide to keep all the anonymous abuse here?
Your point?
There wouldn't be any gay bashing on comments in this blog now would there?
Gee, looks like it really WAS his mum!
Grods was Scott's bastard child. It died as it live. Unloved, umwanted and unmissed.
Gee, can you detect any bitterness from these ex-grodsters at all?
Post a Comment
<< Home