I think Oliver Kamm is probably right about Neil Clark. I also happen to think he – Olly – is an intellectuals intellectual. Y’know, the sort that says ‘well I was right’, when the entire planet is turned into an illuminated parking lot . And he, probably, would be intellectually correct. Fuck that.

That is not a person I want to engage with. He is frankly, this generations Dr Strangelove. Whereas Neil Clark is this generations idiot on a stick. Sorry, neither of you are getting my vote.

So far, the lack of a response from Oliver Kamm, who might well be a person to be frit of, suggests that he is only up for hitting rich folk. Oh, err? what a tit?

This post will be repeated until either he gets his shit together, or Sunny thinks it’s not, err, funny.

Whist you think Oliver Kamm is mad, re your Gimlet comments, I know he is playing games.

Olly, on the nuclear option? Explain yourself, or favour the intellectual position that you seem to do. What is most annoying about you is that maybe, just maybe, Hiroshima or Nagasaki were justified, but you are playing the game that consequent actions are A-OK. No, they are not, and you are a complete utter apolologist for that .

Try explaining yourself here. I doubt your apologism will get much truck.

The apologist for Serbian war criminals and election candidate for the national socialist “British People’s Alliance” refers to me as a “nerdy warmongering cyber-bully”, and those who agree with me above as my “blackshirted chums”. How ironic. Clark has never been known for the eloquence of his prose, and as for the “nerdy” tag, I assume this is due to me being a science journalist by trade. How original.

Neil Clark: not nice, and very, very dim.

To bad. I think the topic of political correctness is an interesting one. RS did little to advance the debate.

If you want the full story, here it is as I see it.

All that aside, he won fair and square, so deserves the congratulations of everyone. It says a lot about the British political class and its hangers on that you won’t do that.

It also helps explain why Neil won: ordinary people like his style.

However, don’t assume that liberals in general and Liberal Democrats in particular are automatically part of ‘the Left’. I suspect most Party members think that the ‘left-right’ spectrum is a bit vacuous and we should boycott it.

Does anyone know anything about this award? I’m intrigued as to how and why Clark won. Is it for the design of his site? Or is it for the strength of his arguments? (sarcasm alert)

As an aside, there’s probably an interesting post to be done about this kind of award.
Are there many of them?
What is the point of them?
How may people actually vote?
How easily manipulated are they?

I hadn’t read the CiF article – I’m not really a regular on the CiF site.

Clark isn’t someone I know a great deal about. OK, I should have googled him, but I was late starting the review today, and it was a last minute addition.

I was merely reacting to some news in the blogosphere. The 2007 Weblog Awards are worthy of mention, and the fact that such a clearly controversial character won it, makes this increasingly so.

Clark is a well-know “idiot” – to use Sunny’s term.

I assume you saw the results of this poll, looked at Clarks’ site, saw his “anti-war, anti-neocon” strapline and looked no further.

An understandable mistake perhaps, but my suggestion now would be to remove any reference to him or at least to draw readers’ attention to (say) the CiF article calling for the murder of the translators.