47 comments on “Blocked from following ‘Comment is Free’ on Twitter

  1. That’s fascinating, Adam. I see that there is a little superscription telling you that you have been blocked. I get the same screen but when I attempted to ‘follow’ I was told tbat I should try later.

    I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t want me when I always send them valuable tweets pointing out their mistakes. Don’t they want to know?

  2. I guess they’re unfamiliar with the wisdom of their former long time editor CP Scott, who, as you know, once said: “The voice of opponents no less than of friends have a right to be heard.”

  3. So I am not alone as when i got banned for commenting directly from comment is free I found i could post on CIF via my twitter account but not any more as AL-Guardian have decreed that I should also become a non-person on CIF via twitter too As the old saying goes “the truth hurts” and Al-Guardian is clearly hurt when people point out the truth of Al-Guardian’s pro hamas/islamic/palestinian/left wing fantasies

    • Given your hate-fuelled anti-Muslim rants on this website, it’s no surprise you got banned from CiF.

      But of course you get plenty of suport from the regulars here!

      • It is sad how “progressives” are so worried about the rights of the extremists, but throw away like garbage the rights of democratic people. How “liberal” are you?

        • a) Where am I “worried about the rights of the extremists”?
          b) Where do I “throw away like garbage the rights of democratic people”?

          It is sad how right-wingers just make stuff up to smear those who disagree with them.

        • And what makes you say I’m a “progressive”?

          I have no recollection of you on this website, Mr. new-poster – so how do you claim to know so much about me?

      • pretzelberg, why doesn’t comment is free block the perpetrators of Jew-hating rants there and elsewhere instead of encouraging them to write for it?

        After all, fair’s fair isn’t it?

        (Or perhaps not where the Al-Grauniad is concerned).

      • As oposed to the anti Jewish,Sikh,Christan,Hindu,Gay,women,Athiest and anyone else not muslim that we see hear and read about from the more obnoxious muslim nutjobs eh Herr pretzelberg that you and the likes of Al-Guardian, The BBC etc seem to forget about ??

        • Are you suggesting that the Manchester Guardian is a vehicle for some sort of Al Kyeeda sect?
          If so I shall cancel my subscription forthwith and dispatch a frosty letter to the Times of London!

      • Maybe Al-Jazeera could buy Al-Guardian if Al Guardian’s readership countinues to plummet and its losses continue to soar and its planned [upto 170] job losses happen

  4. Come on, Adam. You run a website called CiFWatch, after all! CiF exluding you from the Twitter feed (or whatever it’s called) is hardly headline news. Move on.

    • What a silly comment, Herr Pretzelberg. It is not only “headline news” but shocking headline news that a self-proclaimed major institution would be so lacking in integrity and ethics as to deliberately censor access, stifle debate, and ignore fact-checking.

      In fact, it sort of proves CiFWatch’s point that the Guardian is little more than a Pravda-style propaganda organ completely uninterested in truth, facts, or ethics.

      • Hilarious!

        Excluding an anti-Guardian activist – and one who has deliberatly distorted and misreported – hardly means that the G. “deliberately censors access, stifle debate, and ignores fact-checking”

        And what’s with the “Herr Pretzelberg”??

        • On the basis of Adam’s track record of factually-based analysis and reporting of CiF, I have to conclude that your definitions of “distorted” and “misreported” cannot in any way correspond to what either word actually means.

          • If you and your agreers weren’t so blinkered, you’d acknowledge that Adam’s track record re. the G. is an extremely biased, agenda-based one.

        • So, if it’s OK for Guardian to block “antiguardian” activist for “distorting, blah, blah, blah…” thanyou would be the first in line to applaud if Israel finally blocks Guardian from entering Israel and “reporting” from there, would you not?

      • the Guardian is little more than a Pravda-style propaganda organ

        Look at the G. homepage right now – and feel very silly indeed.

        What a hoot you are!

        • You make no sense. Do you understand the meaning of “freedom of speech”? As a collectivist, you obviously don’t. Spare us your rants.

        • “If you and your agreers weren’t so blinkered, you’d acknowledge that Adam’s track record re. the G. is an extremely biased, agenda-based one.”
          While I appreciate that you’ve moved on from all-or-nothing terminology to weasel words like “biased” and “agenda-based”, I have to say that once again you are not showing a lot of familiarity with simple English. Exposing bias does not make one biased, it makes one accurate. Having a clear idea of how to proceed with work is not agenda-based in a loaded perjorative term, it is a structure for activity.
          In effect, you are saying that Adam never takes the side of CiF when it shows its bias against Israel and that him doing this means that he has a plan for doing so. Since Adam has been shown repeatedly to be dead-on balls accurate in his criticisms of the material at CiF, and your complaints boil down to “Adam is mean at best and a criminal at worst for daring to tell the truth about this group I love so much”, I’m going to finish this by noting that your whining amounts to not wanting to hear the truth, pure and simple, and that no one including me will ever change your mind on this matter, so please keep being wrong and sounding stupid and G-d bless you.

      • If i were you I would give up reading the Guardian.
        I am reliably informed that it prints nothing but lies and distortions.
        Worst of all is the exorbitant price!

        • If I were you I wouldn’t post in here: it’s full of Zionists. Moreover, you need to go back to the asylum, remember?

    • But it SHOULD be big, bold news, pretzelberg, because in effect it proves every criticism ever made about the hypocrisy of Comment is Free, as well as the fact that it is run like an extreme communist mini-state which tries to obliterate any negative criticism of itself!

      • You must be joking. Adam Levick runs a website that tries to bring the Guardian into disrepute at every available occassion. It’s not as if he’s just some individual posting views on CiF.
        And it is laughable to take this case as evidence that the G. “tries to obliterate any negative criticism of itself”.

  5. I took a quick look at their twitter account – in the last two weeks (since December 16th) I counted 5 tweets that were not just themselves talking to themselves in dozens of tweets that were advertising some of their latest articles. Those five seemed to be from people using the account to try to get people to know that they wrote something for the Guardian.

    Not exactly anything worth “following”.

  6. A variation on Peter Hitchen’s original quote:

    “Guardian will defend to the death your right to agree with it. Disagree with it, and you’re banned”

  7. Come on. You had a good run. I recon they were pretty tolerant. If you had a significant number of comments not in line with your political you’d do the same. For the moment, the commenters are the same bunch of pigeons tweeting to the converted awaiting the occasional cat to ruffle their feathers.

    By the way folks. Is not spelling colour ‘color’ antisemitic? I assume it must be, because the site complains when I try to do so.

      • To Alex anything that happens is the fault of the Jews or the Israelis, or both. Tsunamis, rain storms or sites not accepting his own preferred version of English spelling. all are apparently grist to his trivial mill.

Comments are closed.