Well... you do seem to mention him a lot You're up to 250 name checks now! It doesn't seem entirely out of the ordinary to be interested to know what people are saying about you, especially on one of the preeminent London political blogs
"It doesn't seem entirely out of the ordinary to be interested to know what people are saying about you"No, but it does seem a little unusual to then leave comments about yourself pretending to be someone you're not.Also the 250 figure is the total mentions on the blog as a whole including front page/individual post repetitions and all commenters. The total number of posts with him as a partial subject is a much less obsessive 24.
Maybe Mr. Gilligan is actually quite a mild mannered man - he has to read your blog to whip him into is rabid writing style that the Standard so handsomely pays him for.
Hey, I had a comment from "Rob" immediately after the Gillipost went up, accusing me of being with the terrorists or something because I used the word "Jihad".It's Andy, right?
I'm immensely flattered to loom so large in your lives. A bit worried about your lives, though...One of the standard tests newspaper marketing departments do to assess the impact of their columnists is to chart how many mentions they get in other media, including blogs. I do visit your charming site from time to time, and I've always found it a real haven of common sense and factual accuracy. But I suspect that most of the 78 Associates Newspapers searches on my name that you've found are automated ones from our marketing people carrying out the sort of sampling exercise I mentioned. Please continue your admirable practice of never letting a day go past without mentioning my name. It will have a real, if modest, impact on my next bonus.
How nice of you to come as yourself this time Andrew. Does your marketing department stay up until three in the morning then? Also it's funny how these 'automated' searches seem to have begun ever since you started leaving anonymous comments here. It must have something to do with that sampling exercise you mention.
"Alex" - I didn't accuse you of being with the terrorists at all. I merely queried the sensitivity of pointlessly shoe-horning a word commonly associated with Islamist terror into a discussion about buses. You seemed to be moaning you weren't getting credit for your witty little term - you're welcome to it IMO.
"Does your marketing department stay up until three in the morning then?"At least one of his self-praising sock-puppetting exercises was at 3am."I'm immensely flattered to loom so large in your lives"However obsessed we get, we will not get anywhere near the level of obsession you have for yourself. Still, while you're here, are you really the Anonymous prat a few weeks back who took me to task for posting *under my own first name*? Have you a credibility death-wish, or something? Are the words 'shameless hypocrisy' just a random collection of syllables? Along with 'psychological projection', of course.Also, you owe us all an apology for your behaviour. I'm all for rehabilitation of offenders, but recognising the nature of the crime and accepting that you've transgressed the boundaries civilised society sets itself is the essential first step. We're waiting.
"It's Andy, right?"No, he's pukka.
Hahahaha! Is it my imagination, or did Andrew Gilligan, just play the obligatory 'stalker' card?So far this ticks all the boxes.Has anyone browsed through the history of A.G.'s Wikipedia entry yet? History teaches us that we can expect to see a few footprints there, too.(Rob: A quick word. Not having a go at you. Using a registered profile might help to avoid any confusion in future when sock-puppeting gits are about and will reduce the chances of people dismissing your input/opinion out of hand.)
Yes the 'stalker' card was well and truly dealt. No great surprise there then.Incidentally I have no reason to believe that Rob is anything other than an independent critical reader. He has been criticising my posts and pointing out errors in my arguments pretty much ever since I started this blog and he is very welcome to continue doing so.
Awww.. thanks. Group hug?
This is getting heated.Let's not lay into Gilligan too much. He's one of the best comedy writers in the country.Plus, he doesn't like "whingeing". Or "nitpicking".
Rob- "Awww.. thanks. Group hug?"I'm willing if you are.ACO - "Let's not lay into Gilligan too much. He's one of the best comedy writers in the country."Yes let's not discourage the man too much. He has given us great value here so far.
Gilligan is humiliated. It is a pure, unadulterated pleasure. Does this make me a bad person?
Has anyone forwarded this and the other recent posts about Gilligan to the organisers of the Paul Foot award? It was dreadful that this odious man was included in the shortlist. Were he to win it would be a travesty to the memory of Paul Foot.
It's certainly something they should be aware of - when I get a chance to finish this week's Eye I'll see what can be done.I'm also investigating the PCC and Standard to see if there's anyone worth notifying there, although I'm a bit loathe to involve the PCC since the blogosphere and the Standard's own comments people seem to providing an adequate level of slapdown (and the PCC are useless).It's a shame Ken Livingstone is in Hong Kong this weekend, otherwise I'd see if LBC wanted Adam or me on for a chat. That would *really* wind Gilligan up, but he chose to put my name in the wider public domain just as he chose to sockpuppet badly, and he needs to take his medicine.
"One of the standard tests newspaper marketing departments do to assess the impact of their columnists is to chart how many mentions they get in other media, including blogs."Oh, aye? And they leave previews of your columns as well?Ben
Of course what Andrew Gilligan has done here is respond to a secondary point - his claim of automation - whilst not dealing with the substantive point in the main original post. If Andrew wants to address that, it would liven the weekend up no end.
Yes, it is something that will be familiar to anyone who has read his responses to this post at Liberal Conspiracy.I can confirm that the *ahem* marketing team are still coming along for a regular read, but as yet Andrew Gilligan has not responded to the substantive point, which is that he has been leaving favourable comments about himself, and attacking his critics under an assumed identity.We await with interest...
Quite a funny one in there from the sock meister which belies motivation (posting as himself):"leaked emails in which the Transport Commissioner, Peter Hendy (RIP) discusses how to use TfL resources to “refute Boris’s transport ideas.”I'm guessing as Boris has chosen to keep Hendy on he's the best thing since sliced bread?
"leaked emails in which the Transport Commissioner, Peter Hendy (RIP) discusses how to use TfL resources to “refute Boris’s transport ideas.”This was actually an attempt to use facts to refute *Gilligan's* bendy myths - there's a press release doing just that from around the time, complaining directly about Gilligan's propagandising. Of course, not only has Hendy stayed on, but he's on the judging panel for the new Routemaster. That's gotta *hurt*, Gilly.
"Gilly"Woa, careful there, Gilly might not get picked up by the Evening Standard's automatic bonus calculation system...
That would be silly. I wonder if it gives him cash every time it finds the words 'unrepentent', 'shitebag' and 'hypocrite'.
'andrew' claims kennite is his partner...http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2008/nov/03/gilligan
Post a Comment