THE tank on my lawn (and how/when it got there) Comments

Carl Eve

Mon, 6 Jun 2011 21:19:28 +0000

Sometimes a bit of humility at the right time can be the best and bravest response. Holding my breath? National newspaper? ahem...

Dave W

Sun, 5 Jun 2011 11:59:19 +0000

So would I and I certainly would not just hang up when confronted. That's just rude no matter what I might feel about the matter under discussion. Given the email exchanges I would have made damn sure of my facts before I started to get all legal about it. But that's just me. Call me old fashioned. If the title "bloggerheads" was purely restricted to the print editions THE would have a good case to argue that it was unlikely to be confused with Tim's site given their readership profile. It's when they went on line with the same name that they crossed the line. Couple that with the apparent attitude of management and Tim deserves an apology at the very least.

ejh

Sun, 5 Jun 2011 05:57:53 +0000

What puzzles me, though, is that if I ran a paper and started a small column on an inside page, and after doing so somebody wrote to me saying "sorry about this, but I use that name already", I'd change the name. I mean what with it being so obscure and unimportant and all.

Dave W

Sun, 5 Jun 2011 04:31:42 +0000

Good points. I'd still hate to see you get sucked into a fight with a big publisher who will just out gun you with lawyers. Morally and legally (tort) you're in the right. I just think you need to pick your battles. All the best.

Gestr

Sat, 4 Jun 2011 13:52:27 +0000

Didn't get your asterisk comment - but no worries. People can pull me up on anything they like! Now go enjoy your weekend!

Tim_Ireland

Sat, 4 Jun 2011 12:30:51 +0000

its as if the tank has started to reverse away from you, and you've charged it.

Quite right. At this stage I have no idea if it's a permanent move, and even if it is, I want the crew to step out, swallow their pride, and fix the damn lawn.

Tim_Ireland

Sat, 4 Jun 2011 12:24:50 +0000

Thanks, Dave. I realise perspective is an issue here. I did try to discuss specifics with Phil Baty in an effort to widen his perspective. He hung up on me, too. I also recognise how the use of 'THE' may have seemed to them initially, which is why I did not take it to heart until Elmes switched it to 'The' at a peak in our dispute. As for what you may not have noticed, I can produce numerous people who: (a) saw it in/on the mag/site and at least immediately associated it with me (b) assumed Times Higher Education was still a Murdoch property (c) all of the above

Tim_Ireland

Sat, 4 Jun 2011 12:18:20 +0000

As usual, you're welcome to disagree, Gestr, and I appreciate the input*. I have no interest in running an echo chamber here. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I hoped that after all the stonewalling that had gone on that their lawyer would ate least have attempted to make contact on Friday afternoon. Further, THE have still repeatedly refused to even acknowledge the issue of their use of my name as theirs in print and my request for an apology at least for all of the difficulty they have put me through. Also, yes, they may choose to roll their tank back onto my lawn as a result of this post, but this would be a disastrous tactic; it would amount to their visibly using my name and/or otherwise having a go at me out of spite. (*That said, keeping the overall theme of your recent comments in mind, I fear at some stage I MAY have to pull you up short on any live discussion of tactics, especially while the tank is still in play.)

Dave W

Sat, 4 Jun 2011 11:33:49 +0000

Cards on table: I work in higher ed and read the Times Higher every week. I also read your blog regularly. I've no personal axe to grind. "THEBLOGGERHEADS" is a small column on the pages that covers senior staff movements and an obituary. It's not really a big deal in the context of the paper as a whole. Personal I never noticed the thing until your recent posts. So I can see where they're coming from when the say it's unlikely to be confused with your site. The change to "THEBLOGGERHEADS" is their idea of compromise as "THE" is the logo of the Times Higher which is recognised by the readership. They may well have done a quick Google and concluded that there was no risk of people confusing the 2 sites, hence the history in the logs. What they have not understood is the significance of the use of "bloggerheads" in the net community. They certainly will be unaware of your personal situation. To them you will just look like an uppity blogger throwing a strop. Perhaps if you were to explain in a less emotive context (tricky I know), with direction to your background posts, exactly why this matters so much they will engage in a less legalistic conversation? How about the online THEBLOGGERHEADS has a redirect for people who were looking for your site, an explanation in the column (don't ask for apology, they'll get defensive 'cos they don't think they're in the wrong) and as a "good will gesture" some recompense for your legal costs? You've got bigger battles to fight than this one. Let the tank quietly roll off your on the understanding that they won't park there again. If they come back with a bigger tank they deserve all they get and I'll chuck you a couple of bob to buy bullets with ;)

Gestr

Sat, 4 Jun 2011 10:27:38 +0000

Actually, I disagree with Hangbitch. I think that you're letter has the potential to be heavy-toned. Not massively, but its there. You're definitely not wrong to be angry, and its certainly very interesting (and disappointing) that you've found that indication that THE were just lying. But, I really don't get the motivation of sending this letter. You sent it at some point between 21.30 and 22.30. I'm almost 100% sure that the THE had taken down bloggerheads before that - or at least started to (something I assumed you would be aware of, apologies for not letting you know). If we take your tank and nail on a board analogy, its as if the tank has started to reverse away from you, and you've charged it. It would have been much better to see what THE were doing first, rather than antagonising them further. Although it would be irrational on the THE's part, it might have have the opposite effect to what your letter intended. Even if you hadn't checked the THE before you fired off your letter (deliberate imagery use), you still should have waited for their reply. I'm not criticising your actions for being overzealous in a malicious way, or as some sort of character flaw. I just think its bad tactics. You could easily have waited for a) business hours b) a reply. Given that you found this stuff at 9.30ish, and had written the letter within the hour and published it on your site, I do wonder if you give yourself enough composure time before writing these emails. Perhaps a good night's sleep, with the satisfaction that you'd potentially uncovered a lie, would have been more prudent.

hangbitch

Sat, 4 Jun 2011 10:13:17 +0000

Out and out bullying, and good on you for fighting it like this. Don't think your correspondence is heavy-toned at all.