And another deleted comment on the same Guardian article, this time at 12.05 PM. This introduces an interesting recursive question: why can't I comment on the fact that I can't comment? Obviously, the rule is meant to prevent abusive commenters from perpetuating their abuse. However if the first comment was not in fact abusive, it just makes me look like a twat. Innit?
"I find it quite incredible that the rather rational comment I made earlier has been adjudged in breach of something or other. It goes without saying that it was hardly inflammatory, even if it questioned Taylor's (and the FA's) main narrative.
I find it quietly amusing that the only other comment, from hundreds, which was moderated was one in which I poked fun at those who believe Obama has no right to be president."
No comments:
Post a Comment