C.J.: Let me explain something to you. This is sort of my field. The people on these sites? They’re the cast of One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest. The muu-muu-wearing Parliament smoker? That’s Nurse Ratched. When Nurse Ratched is unhappy, the patients are unhappy. You? You’re McMurphy. You swoop in with your card games and fishing trips -

Josh: I didn’t swoop in, I came in the exact same way everyone else did.

C.J.: Well, now I’m telling you to open the wardroom window and climb on out before they give you a pre-frontal lobotomy and I have to smother you with a pillow.

Josh: You’re…?

C.J.: I’m Chief Bromden, yes, at this particular moment.

- The West Wing

…

The number of people agreeing with my positive column about positivity being unpopular has, of course, completely undermined my argument. But for possibly the first time ever, I don’t mind being wrong.

It seems I’m far from the only cynic who is tired of the anonymous bullshit that passes for criticism on blogs, microblogs and the like – and that can only be good for the future of discourse online.

HOWEVER, I want to be totally clear on one thing: despite the title of the column, I’m not asking for everyone to be nice all the time. That would be fucking awful, and some really bad things would go uncriticised. No, what I’m saying is that, before you post or comment online, you should mentally work through the following list of questions…

1. Do I lack the balls to express my opinions under my own name?
2. Is my post/comment a purely personal – as opposed to professional or ideological – attack on someone I’ve never met?
3. Have more than three out of my previous four posts/comments been broadly negative in tone?
4. Am I the kind of cowardly, pathetic cunt who would spit in someone’s face and then run away?

If you find yourself answering ‘yes’ to any of the above – particularly the first or fourth – then perhaps if would be better for all of us if, rather than posting, you scuttled off and slammed your fingers in a door.

Hope that clears things up.

Meanwhile, on the subject of people who should scuttle off and slam their fingers in a door, I was slightly astonished today to learn that there exists a site called Reblogging Nonsociety.

As far as I can tell, the sole purpose of the site is to repost everything that appears on Julia Allison et al’s Nonsociety site so that bitter little fucktards can add their bitchy comments. I wasn’t going to draw attention to it, until I noticed their analysis of my column, entitled Why Your Column Has No Credibility.

Er, because I frequently write it drunk?

Apparently not. I’ll quote…

When writing about Julia’s performance at DLD, he [that's me] says:

“It was an impressive performance both from Julia and from Loic, who showed how his company, Seesmic, uses video to make anonymous commenting almost impossible.”

Um, Paul? Did you watch the same panel we did?

Yeah, I did. Difference is I was actually in the room, liveblogging the thing, while you were sitting at home, masturb-hating. But that’s not what bothered me. I mean, whatever, right? No, what bothered me was this…

Also, we’re sick of people who use this excuse: “having read the vile abuse aimed at Sarah and Julia and countless other women who dare to showcase their abilities online…”

Um, no. We have nothing against women who showcase their abilities online. We are women. We like smart women who can do smart things on the Internet. Julia is not one of them. Jesus. We’re so tired of this bullshit.

Quel motherfucking irony. These weird lunatic Lemon-Lyman-Nurse-Ratched-Parliament-Chain-Smoking-Harpies attack Julia and Friends for damaging the image of women online. And yet, by doing so in such a pathetically catty way, all they achieve is the reinforcement of that hideous stereotype that the worst, most bitchy critics of successful women in the public eye are other women.

Now, now girls, don’t fight. Etc.

A much, much better female-POV critique of what I wrote comes from Cate Sevilla at Bitchbuzz who calls me out for criticising others who don’t give women a chance to succeed online, when I was such a little cunt about BB’s own launch.

As you’ll see in the comments on Cate’s post, I don’t agree with her characterisation of the review as a personal attack. I’d also argue that it was her, not me, who framed the review in gender terms by calling the site ‘Bitchbuzz’. But I will concede that the site has evolved into a pretty decent read, with some great writers. Perhaps she’ll forgive me if I encourage you to check it out for yourself.

Or perhaps she won’t. You know how women are.

(Oh, and whoever responded to my suggestion that I might set up a male version of BB by registering Butchbuzz.com – thank you. I think.)