Posted on May 7, 2007 - by Justin Hartman
Is David Bullard an utter wanker?
Hey, it looks like you're new here to my blog! You may want to consider subscribing to my RSS feed and you'll automatically get notified when I post a new blog entry. If web feeds aren't your thing then why not join my email list by clicking here. Thanks for stopping by.
If you haven’t read it already David Bullard, Sunday Times journalist and holier than thou author, has published an article today in the Sunday Times attacking the entire 70 million strong blogosphere.
My good friend Vincent Maher has hit hard at Bullard and rightly so and I support him and the entire blogosphere 100% in the demand of a public apology by the Sunday Times.
My quote on Vincent Maher’s blog:
I always had the utmost respect for Bullard but now I have to say - what an utter, mindless, self-serving wanker. That gun-shot wound has simply opened the moronic floodgates.
How the Sunday Times can endorse this rubbish and pay Bullard for writing such drivel is beyond me. Support the plight and join the facebook group.
The ultimate reason why this article has pissed me off is because Bullard is simply negating the entire blogosphere in one fell swoop and portraying a negative outlook to his readers who probably don’t even understand what blogging is. My entire effort on Afrigator the last month or so is meaningless since his readers now think we’re all axe murders.
If he bothered to do a little research he’d find out that blogging can be a more powerful tool for breaking news than normal traditional media but I guess none of that’s valid because it isn’t filtered by sub-editors, editors and publishers?
In closing I might add that possibly there is justification in “looking at legislation to gag legitimate publications” as Bullard so poignantly put it?
You can read more response to this at the following “would-be” serial-killer blogs:
I am the MD and co-founder of 
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
Love the title!
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
Love the title!
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
David Bullard causes a ‘blog site’ storm…
David Bullard’s rant in the Sunday Times caused a storm of protest from bloggers. See, for example:
Vincent Maher
Nic Haralambous
Uno De Waal
Marius Bock
Paul Jacobson
Eric Edelsein
Coda
Justin Hartman
Being a bit otherwise, I have a s…
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
David Bullard causes a 'blog site' storm…
David Bullard's rant in the Sunday Times caused a storm of protest from bloggers. See, for example:
Vincent Maher
Nic Haralambous
Uno De Waal
Marius Bock
Paul Jacobson
Eric Edelsein
Coda
Justin Hartman
Being a bit otherwise, I have a s…
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
[...] Justin Hartman [...]
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
[...] Haralambous Uno De Waal Marius Paul Jacobson Eric Edelsein Coda Justin Hartman Shaun Dewberry Mike [...]
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
[...] Justin Hartman [...]
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
[...] Uno de Waal Vincent Maher Eric Edelstein Stii Justin Hartman [...]
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
Yeah it’s the kind of title that could land you up with a 100k lawsuit
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
Yeah it's the kind of title that could land you up with a 100k lawsuit
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
[...] Justin Hartman http://justinhartman.com/2007/05/07/is-david-bullard-an-utter-wanker/ [...]
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
I agree that there are some blogs that that are dumb, but they are there for dumb people.
Crappy blog’s never lasts long…the more crap, the greater the chance that people won’t go back to it. This is the way the Internet cleans itself from stagnation and drivel.
If David thinks he should be the Blog-watchdog, then he is definately a wanker.
ard=shit
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
I agree that there are some blogs that that are dumb, but they are there for dumb people.
Crappy blog's never lasts long…the more crap, the greater the chance that people won't go back to it. This is the way the Internet cleans itself from stagnation and drivel.
If David thinks he should be the Blog-watchdog, then he is definately a wanker.
ard=shit
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
Justin, the difference between you and Bullard is as follows;
you - ‘in one fowl swoop’
Bullard - In one fell swoop
Meaning
Suddenly; in a single action.
Origin
This is one of those phrases that we may have picked up early in our learning of the language and probably worked out its meaning from the context we heard it in, without any clear understanding of what each word meant. Most native English speakers could say what it means but, if we look at it out of context, it doesn’t appear to make a great deal of sense. That lack of understanding of the words in the phrase is undoubtedly the reason that this is often misspelled - ‘at one fail swoop’ (or sometimes, stoop).
So, what’s that ‘fell’? We use the word in a variety of ways: to chop, as in fell a tree; a moorland or mountain, like those in the northern UK; the past tense of fall, as ‘he fell over’. None of those seem to make sense in this phrase and indeed the ‘fell’ here is none of those. It’s an old word, in use by the 13th century, that’s now fallen out of use apart from in this phrase and as the common root of the term ‘felon’. The Oxford English Dictionary defines fell as meaning ‘fierce, savage; cruel, ruthless; dreadful, terrible’, which is pretty unambiguous.
Shakespeare either coined the phrase, or gave it circulation, in Macbeth, 1605:
MACDUFF: [on hearing that his family and servants have all been killed]
All my pretty ones?
Did you say all? O hell-kite! All?
What, all my pretty chickens and their dam
At one fell swoop?
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
Justin, the difference between you and Bullard is as follows;
you - 'in one fowl swoop'
Bullard - In one fell swoop
Meaning
Suddenly; in a single action.
Origin
This is one of those phrases that we may have picked up early in our learning of the language and probably worked out its meaning from the context we heard it in, without any clear understanding of what each word meant. Most native English speakers could say what it means but, if we look at it out of context, it doesn't appear to make a great deal of sense. That lack of understanding of the words in the phrase is undoubtedly the reason that this is often misspelled - 'at one fail swoop' (or sometimes, stoop).
So, what's that 'fell'? We use the word in a variety of ways: to chop, as in fell a tree; a moorland or mountain, like those in the northern UK; the past tense of fall, as 'he fell over'. None of those seem to make sense in this phrase and indeed the 'fell' here is none of those. It's an old word, in use by the 13th century, that's now fallen out of use apart from in this phrase and as the common root of the term 'felon'. The Oxford English Dictionary defines fell as meaning 'fierce, savage; cruel, ruthless; dreadful, terrible', which is pretty unambiguous.
Shakespeare either coined the phrase, or gave it circulation, in Macbeth, 1605:
MACDUFF: [on hearing that his family and servants have all been killed]
All my pretty ones?
Did you say all? O hell-kite! All?
What, all my pretty chickens and their dam
At one fell swoop?
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
Ha! Nice one mark.
This whole shebang reminds me of the NY Times cartoon:
Two dogs talking to each other: Dog 1 says -
I used to have a blog, but I decided to just go back to pointless, incessant barking.
WOOOOOOF!!
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
Ha! Nice one mark.
This whole shebang reminds me of the NY Times cartoon:
Two dogs talking to each other: Dog 1 says -
I used to have a blog, but I decided to just go back to pointless, incessant barking.
WOOOOOOF!!
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
Thanks for the facebook link
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
Thanks for the facebook link
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
[...] skills and one day rise to the hallowed domain of the pressroom, I know you all secretly long for it, now [...]
Visit My Website
May 7, 2007
Permalink
[...] Name calling has been flung about. Questions about his breakfast have been raised. Bloggers have been dubbed potential serial killers, sexually deprived, even adolescent. I would imagine somewhere in the world a pimple faced murderous porn surfing teen is reading this gleefully! Have we opened a can of worms? [...]
Visit My Website
May 8, 2007
Permalink
LOL!
Usually I love reading Bullard’s very cynical topics in the Sunday Times, but I must confess I thought he was having an off day!
Could his article be based on the fact that the Sunday Times has published a myriad of articles on blogging in the last two months?
More prominently, most of the articles in the last two months have all been pointing to the decline in blogging. The Sunday Times also focussed on Hollywood and celebs blogging - perhaps this is the dilemma! Professional bloggers with relevant, up to date blogs are being compared to the lousy, glitzy failure blogs of Hollywood and as Dave would put it - wannebe journalists!
Not fair and very biased!
Visit My Website
May 8, 2007
Permalink
LOL!
Usually I love reading Bullard's very cynical topics in the Sunday Times, but I must confess I thought he was having an off day!
Could his article be based on the fact that the Sunday Times has published a myriad of articles on blogging in the last two months?
More prominently, most of the articles in the last two months have all been pointing to the decline in blogging. The Sunday Times also focussed on Hollywood and celebs blogging - perhaps this is the dilemma! Professional bloggers with relevant, up to date blogs are being compared to the lousy, glitzy failure blogs of Hollywood and as Dave would put it - wannebe journalists!
Not fair and very biased!
Visit My Website
May 10, 2007
Permalink
I will acknowledge that blogging allows people to share views and opinions on various on various topics that interest them, and these people arent all neccessarily the type that David Bullard described in his article. But I agree with him fully that blogging does not allow for proper accountability of authorship, that most blogs contain utter nonsence and that a large proportion are being typed by ‘nerds’ and other forms of antisocial people. He is a professional journalist and I agree to a leage extent with his point of view. Case in point; just look at the title of this blog.
Visit My Website
May 10, 2007
Permalink
I will acknowledge that blogging allows people to share views and opinions on various on various topics that interest them, and these people arent all neccessarily the type that David Bullard described in his article. But I agree with him fully that blogging does not allow for proper accountability of authorship, that most blogs contain utter nonsence and that a large proportion are being typed by 'nerds' and other forms of antisocial people. He is a professional journalist and I agree to a leage extent with his point of view. Case in point; just look at the title of this blog.
Visit My Website
May 10, 2007
Permalink
Oresti: Not sure what your point is really? The fact that I put a title like this post makes me nothing more than the serial-killer, pimply nerd, sex deprived loser that David Bullard speaks of? Personally I think that the fact that I am prepared to call him what he is and associate my name with this a bigger step but that’s just my personal opinion.
Visit My Website
May 10, 2007
Permalink
Oresti: Not sure what your point is really? The fact that I put a title like this post makes me nothing more than the serial-killer, pimply nerd, sex deprived loser that David Bullard speaks of? Personally I think that the fact that I am prepared to call him what he is and associate my name with this a bigger step but that's just my personal opinion.
Visit My Website
May 11, 2007
Permalink
It is not a bigger step to put your name on such a comment. The point is that you cannot compare blogging to professional journalisim, it is like comparing day and night. David Bullard and journalists like him are qualified professionals who are paid, with good reason, to right columns. He has a strong opinion and I respect that, along with any other writing that he does because of his proffesional position. I will concede that not all people who are involved in blogging fit his discription, as i have previously mentioned, but he is right in saying that most blogs contain nonsence from people who think they can write a column but they are actually amateurs and poor writers with nothing better to do with their time. Theris no need for him to appologise. He is expressing his opinion which is a valid one.
Visit My Website
May 11, 2007
Permalink
It is not a bigger step to put your name on such a comment. The point is that you cannot compare blogging to professional journalisim, it is like comparing day and night. David Bullard and journalists like him are qualified professionals who are paid, with good reason, to right columns. He has a strong opinion and I respect that, along with any other writing that he does because of his proffesional position. I will concede that not all people who are involved in blogging fit his discription, as i have previously mentioned, but he is right in saying that most blogs contain nonsence from people who think they can write a column but they are actually amateurs and poor writers with nothing better to do with their time. Theris no need for him to appologise. He is expressing his opinion which is a valid one.
Visit My Website
May 11, 2007
Permalink
It is not a bigger step to put your name on such a comment. The point is that you cannot compare blogging to professional journalisim, it is like comparing day and night. David Bullard and journalists like him are qualified professionals who are paid, with good reason, to right columns. He has a strong opinion and I respect that, along with any other writing that he does because of his proffesional position. I will concede that not all people who are involved in blogging fit his discription, as i have previously mentioned, but he is right in saying that most blogs contain nonsence from people who think they can write a column but they are actually amateurs and poor writers with nothing better to do with their time. Theris no need for him to appologise. He is expressing his opinion which is a valid one.
Visit My Website
May 11, 2007
Permalink
It is not a bigger step to put your name on such a comment. The point is that you cannot compare blogging to professional journalisim, it is like comparing day and night. David Bullard and journalists like him are qualified professionals who are paid, with good reason, to right columns. He has a strong opinion and I respect that, along with any other writing that he does because of his proffesional position. I will concede that not all people who are involved in blogging fit his discription, as i have previously mentioned, but he is right in saying that most blogs contain nonsence from people who think they can write a column but they are actually amateurs and poor writers with nothing better to do with their time. Theris no need for him to appologise. He is expressing his opinion which is a valid one.
Visit My Website
July 5, 2007
Permalink
[...] and I simply can not forget about David Bullard either. After calling him a wanker I’m now going to be working with the enemy which should provide some interesting encounters [...]
Visit My Website
August 16, 2007
Permalink
[...] Menu, Lights, Decor, Floral, Hartman Tags: General, Justin Hartman Bullog Auction [...]
Visit My Website
August 16, 2007
Permalink
[...] calling David a wanker one would imagine the man would never want to talk to me again however he has been a true gentleman [...]