Occasionally I come across comments made online which are done in bad faith and done by trolls: "poe" comments - ones that pose as being genuine efforts to encourage discussion but are actually exercises in wasting other people's time or attacking straw-men. Your responses initially came across as such by the information that you previously withheld and are only choosing to reveal now.

By the way, the only thing that led me to notice this blog-post was Google Alert for my name. Then, as you admit, you started crowing about how you think I'm 'shutting down discussion' - while writing three comments in response. By the way, on my RSS feed for @abcreligion, the 'joke' comment is absent, hence my saying it was removed.

You wrote:
"It's true that I recognise @abcreligion to be Scott Stephens (the editor of the portal)."

Then why didn't you write that? I certainly didn't know that and he has his own personal Twitter account! My argument stands.

"You're not going to get any sympathy for bad reviews from me. "

Wasn't asking for any sympathy, thanks. But were they FAIR reviews? And would you expect a publication that runs them to then make a history of dismissing the same enterprise via Twitter?

Finally, if ABC Religion is by Scott Stephens, then he is ultimately responsible for the content on that site - and (as you have now revealed) the same Twitter account. Stinks of wasting my (and yours, wow! Hope the Euro strengthens for your sake) taxpayer money on biased takes from what is a national broadcasting arm, whether (in your opinion) it is primarily "opinion columns" or not.

Finally:

"I saw one tweet from @abcreligion about #atheistcon, to @atheistcon, which was intended as a 'wee bit of humour'. If I recall correctly, you linked me to an older tweet where @abcreligion complained about the 'hysterical' nature of the census campaign, which was not about @atheistcon. "

The census campaign was by the AFA, who run The Global Atheist Convention. See the link?

I'm done here and I doubt I've changed your mind but the few readers you might have could take my views on board.

Since you previously (and have admitted) to taking passive-aggressive pot-shots at me on Twitter, I have hesitated to think that I would ever willingly discuss this with you in the future and will leave these comments as my last ones on the matter. Unfortunately, your overall attitude has demonstrated to me that you do not tend towards genuinely meant, good-willed discussion. Isn't that funny, considering you accuse me of not having a sense of humour?

(One part - the middle - appears to be stuck in moderation. Oh dear.)

[Last part!]

"Is there room for more interaction, and if so, how far, and how relaxed should that interaction be?"

Sure, I've already pointed out that they have done so. But at the point when a public service account (The ABC Religious Dept) has a history of making off-topic and put-downs about an event (http://blogs.radionational.net.au/atheistconvention/?p=853) - that's when you SHOULD expect someone to speak up and say something (as there is the right to do so - my tax dollars and that of others, you know!) that they just don't like it.

Perhaps that they'd prefer that @ABCReligion stick to being fair and even with the content they're producing? There's even an official "Complaints" form on the site, I've found, open to be used by the public. They could dismiss a complaint, sure. But I think I have that opportunity at hand for moments like these, as 'lacking in a sense of humour' as I might be.

[By the way - I wasn't the ONLY person who has made these complaints in the past via Twitter (nor am I now) - but you appeared to have singled me out. That's fine, I guess I'm the only one that interests you for some reason. Rather odd, considering that you don't even Follow me on Twitter!]

@ABCReligion is not @findo.

You are not (for example purposes only, note) http://twitter.com/Wagnerportal_BT.

If you were, I would expect if they wrote (on more than one occasion) comments akin to "What *both* tickets?" in response to you saying that your latest performance of Don Giovanni in a 2000+ capacity hall was sold out ... while they have extolled a different or rival production or have never made such jokes about other opera companies - that someone would have the decency to call on them for not being fair and failing to provide information that's of interest to the public.

If they posted such things as @AnnaSmith - then you'd probably call them a mean-spirited Twitter troll, perhaps? What would you call them? Is it really so funny then?

Thanks again for being so decent as to asking me to provide my extended (Three comments! More than you've ever got before, yes?) views on the matter and acting so even-handed with your request for elaboration on the situation. It's what I'd expect from someone who reveres being given evidence as you said casually on Twitter - even from a non-notable skeptic like myself.

That - in case you didn't realise - was a joke. Well, I kind of thought it was funny. Which I guess is the point you were trying to make in the first place, right?

[...continued]

Would you be making this blog-post or continuing to make asides on your Twitter about ME as being a 'skeptic who doesn't want you to check out the evidence' - if @ABCReligion were making what can be interpreted as rude comments about:

Claims about pederastic priests?
Muslim fundamentalist extremists? (may be ill-advised...)
The Catholic World Youth Day event?
A pro-Scientology rally?
The (whether present or not) religious beliefs of the Australian Prime Minister?
Holocaust denialists?
Serial killers?
How about ex-pat Australians and how they have dreadful taste in shoes?

or would you be politely pointing out that they're meant to be providing a service and not be posting their personal views and / or prejudices?

Perhaps that's why they deleted the 'joke' Tweet that you screenshot at the start of this blog-post?

Would you, if you knew of the Twitter account of (say) http://twitter.com/Wagnerportal_BT [only used as an example, they appear to be doing a fine job and this is not intended in any way to compare them to @ABCReligion except for illustrative purposes only] - expect them to make snide comments about your last
opera?

Would you notice if they did make inappropriate comments more than once (as @ABCReligion has done in the past, about @atheistcon) - and not only that, but made disrespectful comments about performances you've been involved in in general? While touting OTHER events you're not involved in, minus additional asides?

Of course, 'baritones' and 'atheists' are different categories - I have no idea about your faith and it's irrelevant to me, quite frankly - but if it was (a hypothetical) @AnnaSmith chatting in their own time, it's different to when she's posting comments as an employee of @JoesPizzaShack.

"Is it different from an RSS feed, and if so, in what way?"

I would say that it involves human being/s rather than a direct automated feed; they are selecting and writing what appears. From what I can tell, the account in question has contacted people for interviews in the past and seems to do it quite respectfully - and they also provide interesting links to other sites. That's why I've followed @ABCReligion in the past; I am personally dismayed that it has sunk to the depths of using their platform to air what appears to be personal prejudices against atheists, the same way bloggers on their website did when they last reported on the Atheist Convention.

What they shouldn't be doing, IMHO (and as they have done in the past, as I've said) - is provide negative commentary about individuals and groups, without the explicit endorsement of their company - or at least a disclaimer about when it's the "Official Voice Of The ABC" or (the hypothetical) @AnnaSmith.

[...and once more, unto the breach! Continued!]

First half of comments follows:

Now that you've opened it up to a mode that allows more than 140 characters on Twitter (which is limited and certainly not conducive to proper conversation - thanks, by the way, for telling me that you wanted to discuss this further in a civil manner and provide a link to me... oh, that's right you didn't...

...But you do say you want to give a *right of response to ABC Religion*. How funny).

What follows is my personal take on it, and mine alone. Down to work:

"What is the nature of a Twitter account which represents a particular portal of a publicly funded news service?"

Ever heard of the disclaimer of "The views and opinions expressed on this ***** are those of. ***** and not of *******"? You sometimes get it on DVD commentary about films; you certainly get it about online content.

Firstly, in my opinion when a person has a job which involves branding themselves as *say* the representative on Twitter of @JoesPizzaShack, you're going to think of them as _representing the business_.

It should, in my opinion, be professional in interactions and in knowing one's role as being an entity - certainly since you (in all likelihood) represent a number of people with that brand.

When that brand is the _national broadcasting network_ that my tax dollars (not *yours*, over in Germany!) pays for - "Our Aunty" as the locals consider it - you can understand why seeing them as providing a online service that is accurate, fair, informative and useful is vital. How many followers do they have?

5,035.

It's arguably different from, say, your personal account - in your case, that's @findo.

[1,092 followers, in case you haven't checked recently]

In doing this Twitter account job, they've not identified themselves as an individual; rather they represent (as one would as @JoesPizzaShack - tweeting about menus, perhaps events, et al) a company. The Religion site of ABC - http://www.abc.net.au/religion.

One would hope you get paid for Tweeting about an entire department as a career - perhaps it's lumped under the heading of 'Webmaster', or 'Social Networking' - along with maintaining the official website, a Facebook account, et al.? I'm not sure. You could always ask them? I would suggest that you do, but they've... not identified themselves as an *individual* with an individual email account. Funny that!

The ABC Religion site probably has a budget set aside; the @ABCReligion Twitter account job-holder has already mentioned in passing on the @ABCReligion Twitter account that they 'share an office' with someone who is presenting at the convention, funnily enough again.

So, when you deign to let your blog-post be open to a response from "@ABCReligion" - you are making the mistake of treating them as an individual. NOT a corporate entity Twitter account. That's your error; they should be representing http://www.abc.net.au/religion and treat the job as such - fallacy of false equivalence?

[...to be continued]

Firstly, before I write a lengthy response - you may notice that @ABCReligion have deleted the first Tweet you mentioned: http://twitter.com/#!/abcreligion/status/17946168...

Thanks for providing the screenshot. Perhaps if they do respond, they can explain why?

Hello again - really need to talk to you if you are keen on doing something - there's a big project that is happening internationally that could very well use your help. :) Thanks, K.

Holy hell.

Where did you come from? Do you do commissions? You're awesome! :D

Hi, I have a site at www.podblack.com and I have a podcast at www.tokenskeptic.org and contribute to the SkepticZone.tv podcast. I'm wondering if it's possible to do something in the future regarding a forthcoming project I have in mind, if you're not too overwhelmingly busy. Thanks and 'wow'! :)

I have had someone viciously and rudely attack me on my site comments because: I pointed out that tickets were on sale and I was still politely waiting for information as to whether a co-presenter and I would be able to present.

They not only lied in their 'anon' message, pretending that they didn't know exactly who the organisers were - they then promptly forwarded their spitefulness to the organisers of the Amazing Meeting to make sure that their belief that both myself and a co-presenter were 'undeserving' of any time was broadcast to as many as possible. Considering the content of my blogpost urged open communication - very much as Sean has done here - well, you make your own mind up about what kind of person they really shown themselves to be... particularly to the co-presenter who had no chance to defend themselves.

On the comments of my blogpost, several others pointed out that in comparison to many people, both myself and the co-presenter had contributed a lot of time, money and effort into skeptical projects, and (ironically!) even volunteered for TAM-events backstage, so we were in no way ignorant to knowing how much work goes into making such an event happen!

There were even a few who said 'yes, I have ALSO applied to present - but unlike you, I have not even got a message back saying "your email was received" - so you are better off already, Kylie!'. To those, I urged them to try contacting the organisers again.

Considering how many people are getting grumpy - I'd like to point out that unquestioning support of the 'how dare you say ANYTHING about the TAMOz or QUESTION any of the organisation' has its dangers too. I say that it's possible and has been shown - that people can be 'a dick' both ways, BastardSheep. :/

Nice. :)