On April 27th, Warren Kinsella posted a lament about his non-relationship with Michael Ignatieff and a perceived hypocrisy regarding a possible Liberal shift on the idea of a merger between themselves & the NDP (see: "Tales from under the bus"). Kinsella included a gruesome picture, presumably of a corpse (?) under which he wrote: "Me, not exactly as pictured."
In the middle of a hard fought election campaign with the Liberals trying to unseat Stephen Harper, Warren's post struck me as unwarranted & ill-timed and, quite simply, as reeking of self-serving sour grapes.
In his post, Kinsella included a link to a year old Toronto Star article involving his oft disputed claim that he was privy to knowledge of merger talks between the two political parties in 2010 (a claim strongly denied by both Layton, Ignatieff, & their respective staff). It was a claim later characterized as "ridiculous". Hm, I was puzzled. Truth be told, in the middle of a federal election, I thought Warren was being a bit too petulant about his lot in life.
Further, I saw his post included a link to a DecisionsCanada.ca story posted that day by Althia Raj (posted 1:41pm est.), one speculating that, in fact, Ignatieff may have not ruled out a merger with NDP. A story that clearly fit with Warren's "look-at-me... see-I'm-right" narrative. However, in very short order after she posted said story (and hours before Kinsella posted its link) Althia Raj twittered: "Ignatieff came by to tell me that he is "not in this for a merger," or for a coalition, or union of the left. He is in it to win Lib govt"
Hm, ... did Kinsella choose to acknowledge this fact? No. Why? Because it didn't serve his personal purpose. Hm, ... did Kinsella choose to update his blog with the facts contained in Raj's updated story (wherein Ignatieff irrefutably rejected any merger talk)? Again no. Why? Because, again, it didn't fit Warren's narrative of 'Warren as victim' - of poor Warren being on par with an actual dead corpse in a real picture under a real bus.
So, I decided to leave a very short comment on his blog post that began: "Respectfully Warren" this election is not always about you (n.b. it included no profanity). He did not post it. So, I left a second, similar, comment. He did not post it. Finally, I posted a third and final comment:
Fat Arse says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. April 27, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Warren, once again with punk based attitude of respect... fact you barred both my original & my follow up comment tells me you are getting too thin skinned as time passes. Christos, it wasn't like I was slamming your integrity and/or calling into questioning your views. All I was doing was subtly asking you to take a step back and realize this election is not all about you and those who did you wrong. There are bigger issues at play here (especially in Winnipeg South) and if you're not man enough to hear a little chiding... cripes ... grow up the fuck up!
And I left it at that. I'd said my piece, even though I knew he would not publish it.
And so, I moved on.
Hours later, after supper, I then read this email from firstname.lastname@example.org that had been sent to me at 4:48CST:
I don't do my web site, for no pay, to take life tips from guys who lack the balls to use their own frigging name.
How odd? So my comments were disallowed because he does his "web site, for no pay" & refuses "to take life tips" (actually it was an observation- not a life tip) from a guy with no "frigging name". Okay, fair enough, it's his blog; he can do what he wants. Rules are rules. IF ONLY! See, if indeed Warren has a policy of not allowing bloggers with pseudonyms to post on his blog - fine. Problem is he doesn't. Fact is, Warren often and frequently allows those who don't use their real names to post comments (see comments on his site), ... err... just not those whose comments cut too close to the bone, to the truth about the man, a thin-skinned man, known as Warren Kinsella.