
I can't remember why Robyn was really licking his lips (so to speak). This week's entry For the Friday Ark and Carnival of the Cats. More cat photos as ever at Plant porn and pussycats and at Yet to be named.
The title of this blog comes from a Gaelic expression -"putting on the poor mouth"-which means to exaggerate the direness of one's situation in order to gain time or favour from creditors.


When Tim O’ Reilly and Jimmy Wales came together to propose a set of guidelines that would filter out offensive and abusive comments from blogs, it is perhaps unsurprising that they were met by a torrent of abuse.
For example the media site 910am described it as "weapons of mass stupidity" and carried the health warning "do not read on a full stomach". What has gotten people’s goats is a draft set of rules on introducing the concept of civility to the blogosphere. They have posted a seven-point programme that would attempt to address abusive comments on the web, while preserving the free spirit of the medium. Point one of the code is that anyone signing up to it would commit themselves to a "civility enforced" standard to remove unacceptable comments from their blog.
Unacceptable is defined as content that is used to abuse, harass, stalk or threaten others; is libellous or misrepresentative; or infringes copyright, confidentiality or privacy rights. Anonymous postings are also to be removed, with every comment requiring a recognised email address, even if posts are made under pseudonyms.
To back up the code, they propose a "civility enforced" badge marking sites which subscribe to the guidelines, and an "anything goes" badge to denote those that do not. The proposed guidelines can be interactively amended by web users, until a final version is agreed.
Many blogs already do some or all of what is proposed but It is the first attempt to apply a common framework to the blogosphere (pop 71m and rising)
The draft guidelines have prompted wide debate with varying responses. Dan Gillmor of the Centre for Citizen Media, a group devoted to grassroots media attached to Berkeley's graduate school of journalism, rejects the need for a code of conduct. He says bloggers require only one simple rule: be civil. To define unacceptable behaviour is to create a monster, he says, as "Who'd be the judge of it? The government? Libel lawyers? Uh, oh."
This is the draft code of conduct is set out on Radar O' Relly and is basically thus
1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog.
2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.
3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.
4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.
5. We do not allow anonymous comments.
6. We ignore the trolls.
The site expands on these points. O’reilly and Wales also propose an "anything goes" badge for sites that want to warn possible commenters that they are entering a free-for-all zone. The text to accompany that badge might go something like this:
This is an open, uncensored forum. We are not responsible for the comments of any poster, and when discussions get heated, crude language, insults and other “off color" comments may be encountered. Participate in this site at your own risk.
To be honest, I can’t see why the code has been greeted with such a harsh reception given that many bloggers do some of these things already. All it does is codify civility! Anyone who has been on the receiving end of a web-psycho’s attentions would welcome the code, I’m sure.. or would we?
Personally I don’t violently disagree with what is proposed although I can’t see that it will make a lot of difference. If you have a blog you set your own rules as to what is acceptable (the Poor Mouth runs on the “my blog, my rules” basis”) . I don't need a code of conduct for that and I expect all but a tiny few who have commented here don't need it either.
Last year , a Turkish teenager made a video of himself lip-synching a song that blasted Turkey's university entrance system and put it on YouTube. Unfortunately the video did not go down well with the Turkish authorities. Deli, the band that released the song, faces charges of insulting state employees and will go on trial May 2 in Ankara. If convicted, the five musicians, along with their manager and a former band member, face up to 18 months in jail, although they could get off with a fine or a warning.
I'm not sure if this is the original video
The clip shows a teenager bopping around and making gestures against a blank backdrop while lip-synching the song. The minor, identified in media reports only by his first name, Hakan (or hako?) , will take the exam this year. Hiss video logged hundreds of thousands of hits and elevated the song to prominence among young Turks who dread the university exam, and many older Turks who viewed the experience as a trauma.
The song is called "ÖSYM," the Turkish acronym for The Student Selection and Placement Center, the state institution that decides which students go to university, based on a three-hour exam every June . The lyrics of are mild by western standards (Apparently the worst thing said is “shove that exam up your arse”) and despite claiming to enjoy the video Prof. Ünal YarımaÄŸan, chairman of the university placement system, asked lawyers to investigate anyway.
Deli will release its first album in April, and didn't include the song "ÖSYM" to avoid controversy. Bass guitarist Enis Çoban, who studied textile manufacturing, said there was more censorship in Turkey than in Europe or the United States, but less than in China or Iran. "Compared to dictatorships, Turkey is like heaven," Çoban said. "Turkey still has a lot missing, but we believe that it is on the right track to improve itself."
News source: Today's Zamam