Phillip Pullman

But it doesn’t say “Dear trans people”, it says, “Dear Trans rights movement”.

And the dickhead is at it again...this time using the lame "Not all trans people are like that" argument:

twitter.com/PhilipPullman/status/1545326646319894529

I like the reply asking if all white police kill innocent black men, and yet one such killing is enough to spark a movement.

Eliza Mondegreen on PP:

elizamondegreen.substack.com/p/uh-maybe-philip-pullman-should-talk

Here's what he wrote:

"I wish my critics could actually bother to read what I say. I didn't mention Bartosch's work. I said not a word about it. I'm not interested in it. I'm just curious about why anyone should believe Spiked-Online."

But Philip, we did read what you said. And it made no sense. Amanda Craig tweeted Jo Bartosch's article; she didn't say "Read Spiked". If you say that no one should believe anything in Spiked, you are, very obviously, saying you shouldn't believe Jo Bartosch. Why pretend that the meaning is anything other than that?

That's quite aside from the fact that Jo's piece is an opinion piece, not a news report, so it's not a question of "believing" it, it's a question of understanding the arguments.

Of course he is free not to like Spiked. But he seems not to understand (or pretends not to understand) that freelancers can and do write for many publications they are not particularly in sympathy with.

He seems to want to have his cake and eat it: to attack Jo because she writes for Spiked, while pretending that he has absolutely no opinion about Jo one way or the other. Why bother, frankly?

He really thinks we choose whether or not to believe people based on who they are rather than whether the information feels credible? I feel sadness at the idea of someone like Pullman succumbing to such an obvious fallacy.

'justified scepticism' - I get the impression PP has no idea what 'justified' means.

A gang of extreme left-wing zealots get sued for libel, flick a switch, and immediately re-emerge as a gang of extreme right-wing zealots

Lass is right! Seems I've missed some!

Okay. Right.

So this comment chain goes

1. Amanda Craig tweeted Jo Bartosch's article.

2. Philip Pullman makes the infamous comment: you believe spiked-online?

3. Then another twitter user named Rascal says: Philip, our family have long loved your work but you're losing credibility with every tweet. You've clearly taken a position with scant research. I suggest you do some, and stop heckling everything that's pro-female and anti-male rights movement

4. Philip Pullman replies: I expressed some justified scepticism about Spiked-Online. A gang of extreme left-wing zealots get sued for libel, flick a switch, and immediately re-emerge as a gang of extreme right-wing zealots - why should anyone trust anything they publish?

Philip Pullman, for example, is a twat.

I deleted my twitter account and Twitter is difficult to follow without one. I've used Dolphin mobile browser and it was the most useful to get the complete history of it all without being kicked off to log in.

It kicked off from a tweet by Amanda Craig. Sorry, I can't seem to link to the full story but it's worth persevering with. He's talking even more nonsense than what is quoted on here.

Hmm ... the path of least resistance would be to say nothing at all.

Not this pathetic squeaking of some vague 'now come on then, ladies, I don't think that sort of behaviour is very becoming' followed by weaselly 'I didn't mean you ladies, of course, why on earth would you say that you horrible presumptious harridens'

Sorry, posted too soon.

Philip Pullman: Think differently about Spiked-Online? I've expressed no view at all about Jo Bartosch's work.

S, Twitter user: For a supposedly intelligent person, that is an incredibly stupid answer 🙄

Philip Pullman: But I don't claim to be intelligent. I make no claims about myself at all.

Philip continues to draw artificial distinctions. You'd think it would be easy for him to admit that he can tell men and women apart!

In reply to a twitter user asking, If you're questioning the integrity of jo_bartosch & her article - why not step away & investigate the evidence for yourself? The thecassreview is a good place to start, by the time you've read through ThebWebberlys gmcuk tribunal, you may think differently.

It doesn't impact directly on them. So whatever their true opinions, they choose the path of least resistance.

I assume Scholastic are the providers of the book fairs in the UK, anyway. Sounds similar.

And one time, I put my eldest in charge of buying his own book while I dealt with my younger child's desire for an activity book, and the stallholder didn't have the 50p change for the pound coins my kid had handed over. And they tried to keep the 50p instead of asking him to wait until they did have the change.

I was in hearing range so I sorted that out, but what if my kid had been there without a parent, as some in his year were? He was absolutely not bold enough to insist on getting his change. Conducting the transaction himself was a big step.

Gah.

Explaining to the offspring that is.

I didn't bother telling the visitors what I thought of their stock.

I can't disagree. I put a lot of effort into encouraging a love of reading in my children and it was an uphill struggle. One of the tricks I used was making a big thing of spending their world book day vouchers at the bookshop, and I could go on and on about the techniques I used. One thing that I couldn't use, was the Scholastic Book Fair at the primary school. I'd tow the kids round to the school hall, money in hand, ready to throw it at the visitors from Scholastic.

Then I would spend twenty minutes explaining that I had brought money to spend on books, with words in, not giant novelty pencils, plastic clappers, or glorified colouring books with the Avengers on the cover.

The weightiest tome any of them ever chose voluntarily was Lightning Girl, a work of children's fiction by Alesha Dixon the pop star, "in collaboration with Katy Birchall", and I was genuinely overjoyed that it had been chosen over the dot-to-dot books.

I didn't even bother going last time.

Interesting article here on Scholastic and consumerism in children (from the Boston Globe, reprinted here):

forum.netmuslims.com/showthread.php?5700-Taking-consumerism-out-of-school-book-fairs

'For decades, Scholastic Book Fairs has been the biggest provider of school book fairs in the country. Especially in these days of tight public school budgets, school libraries have come to count on the Scholastic fund-raiser that turns back a percentage to the host school. School libraries nationwide earned $95 million from 120,000 Scholastic book fairs last year.

A small but growing number of schools are turning their backs on Scholastic nonetheless. These parents and educators say Scholastic carries too many books and other items featuring cartoon and movie characters that are thin on literary merit. They say the novelty pencils, calendars, posters, and other paraphernalia Scholastic offers is more about turning children x into consumers than it is about encouraging them to read.'

The conversation continues, as do Philip's attempts to draw invisible lines between the casting of nasturtiums on Jo Bartosch and casting nasturtiums on the platform that publishes her, as part of a conversation about her article.

Another twitter user observes: You said it in response to a jo_bartosch article though …

Philip Pullman: No, it wasn't in response to the article. It was an expression of surprise that anyone should believe Spiked-Online.

It's sometimes a very difficult website to use, Rightsraptor. Sometimes I absolutely hate it. But I have to stay on there so I can get screenshots.

PearlClutch I have horrible real life to get on with, but I am just longing to go through his publisher's back catalogue of titles, so I can make derogatory comments on his stablemates.

Thanks for the clarification Purgatory. I'm not on Twitter and missed some of the finer points of the exchange.

Thanks, this makes me feel better. Yes, I know that by borrowing from the library, I am still indirectly contributing to his royalties, but at least the amount that I am personally responsible for will be far less than if I directly bought the book myself. Just like paying a low fare to take the Tube shared with other passengers versus paying a high fare to take a taxi by myself. I will definitely borrow the 3rd volume first when it is released, and if I like it enough to want the trilogy available at home all the time, I will buy the set. But I will definitely wait until it is released in paperback as a set so it is cheaper! (I am not a fan of ebooks.)

On the other hand, I am eagerly awaiting the release of the remaining volumes of Jim Kay's illustrated editions of Harry Potter. I will gladly buy the full set in hardcover at full price, for myself and as a gift for others, and proudly give money to JKR!

How the fuck did he think the article came into being? He seems to have some kind of weird misunderstanding of what a website constitutes. "Of course I'm not casting aspersions on you, I'm just slagging off the name of your publisher and everything they publish."

Honestly, he just reveals himself to be an ever greater dipshit with every tweet.

But why would anyone listen to someone writing for Scholastic Point, anyway.

I wish writers wouldn’t do Twitter. Disaster.

Mr Pullman is struggling today. Sneering at an outlet was momentary fun but he doesn't have the courage to directly address an individual author. Now he's prevaricating all over the place.

Person on twitter: It would be polite to respond to jo_bartosch, Philip Pullman, since you have so publicly called her work into question.

Philip Pullman's reply:
I wish my critics could actually bother to read what I say. I didn't mention Bartosch's work. I said not a word about it. I'm not interested in it. I'm just curious about why anyone should believe Spiked-Online.

twitter.com/PhilipPullman/status/1543537946346799104?t=yCgD8kQYLGQKKau5oPA6JA&s=19

He seemed interested enough in it to ask a question earlier!