You say pathetic and I say...

I don't have comments enabled here ( I'm in fairly good company as it happens) for several reasons one of them being that this is just an old-fashioned pull-quote and link blog. I'm not part of the great conversation (which most of the time is far from great anyway) and I rarely comment on other blogs.
I did, however, want to comment on this post by Tim Ireland at Bloggerheads in which he said:

Cyberbullying

Now remember, children; Stop Cyberbullying Day is about standing up to bullies and standing up for their victims.

It is not designed as a propaganda device for bullies* who play the victim when someone stands up to them.

(*The same applies to the pathetic yes-men who follow those bullies around like sheep.)

The 'pathetic yes-men' comment links to 'An Englishman's Castle'. It seemed a rather gratuitous remark to me and I wondered whether there was something in Tim Ireland's relationship with The Englishman that I wasn't aware of that might justify it.
I was also concerned that, having posted some observations myself about the so-called blog war which were not supportive of Ireland but certainly not supportive of Staines and the others (like some others I just found the whole thing becoming tiresome) I wondered if I could end up getting the 'pathetic yes men' treatment or something similar.

I don't have a copy of the comment I sent. It was rather short and went something like this:

Is everyone who disagrees with you going to be referred to as 'pathetic'? I'm not trying to wind you up. I am asking in all seriousness so that I know where I stand. Because if that is the case it would seem like as good a definition of bullying as what you've been complaining of.

That is my best recollection and is certainly a pretty accurate account of the comment I sent.

I was asked to register and my Typekey registration appeared (with screen name MrP and password already filled in) so I pressed the submit button and waited). I can't remember the last time I used Typekey and, it transpires, the email address on my account is no more. That meant that without a valid email address the comment wouldn't be allowed which is perfectly understandable.

Not having comments here myself I'm not sure what the most appropriate action is when something like this happens. I would guess that the comment simply wouldn't get posted and that would be that. Perhaps the commenter would try again but, without an email address to contact him nothing could be done and that would be the end of it. But Tim Ireland decided to publish a message on his post to 'me' and this is what it says:

UPDATE: A message to 'Mike Power'... those who wish to publish comments on my main weblog are required to establish their identity by providing a valid email address when they do so. Those who use methods to bypass this requirement do not get published. Sorry.

PS - Even if you do (eventually) do this, I fail to see why I should afford you the courtesy of a reply, given that you have sought to abuse my hospitality on this website and do not allow comments on your own.

Now I can be quick to fly off the handle but even I couldn't match that. Think about it. I abused his hospitality. How so? I didn't get through the front door. And if I had intentionally withheld my email address for some reason why would I then go ahead and supply one?
And then there is: ...and do not allow comments on your own. Does that mean that not only does a prospective commenter need a valid email address but if he also has a blog that blog must permit comments itself in order for him to be allowed to post a comment? If that is the case there are a lot of top flight bloggers around who would be barred. It seems completely irrelevant to me.

Anyway, after sorting out Typekey I posted a second comment. I have no idea if it will see the light of day and by now it hardly matters anymore so I thought I'd post it here:

I registered using my typekey registration as required. It is possible that the email address is out of date. I wasn't asked for an email address before posting the comment. You seem rather quick to jump to conclusions about my motives. It seems I'm in a no-win situation here as it is likely that using your justification above, you will not even allow this comment.

If you would like email addresses: mikepower@gmail.com; mike@mikepower.net: anything @mikepower.org; powersite@mac.com is that sufficient?

I think you should afford me the courtesy of a reply because I posted a comment in good faith and I think it fair to allow readers the opportunity to see what I said rather than conclude, as some might, that I am yet another sockpuppet or whatever. If you choose not to that is up to you and it rather answers the question I originally asked anyway.

I have just checked and indeed it's an old comment url from way back which just shows shows infrequently I comment. However, as you know that I do not have comments on my blog (BTW, does that mean I'm not entitled to use the facility if other bloggers choose to use it?) you must be aware of at least one valid email address for me clearly shown on the top of the page. You could have emailed me while you were visiting and I could have cleared the matter up, as I have now done by updating my Typepad details. PS: I am Mike Power so I'm not sure what the quotation marks signify.

I'm not going to make any further comments about this. It is sad that a genuine mistake by one blogger should be immediately construed as nefarious by another and used as a reason for not responding to what was a straightforward and genuine enquiry.

Is that what it's all come to? What a shame.