<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: AccountingWEB: profoundly unethical conduct</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/12/17/accountingweb-profoundly-unethical-conduct/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/12/17/accountingweb-profoundly-unethical-conduct/</link>
	<description>Richard Murphy on tax and corporate accountability</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:55:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tax Research LLP</title>
		<link>http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/12/17/accountingweb-profoundly-unethical-conduct/#comment-322137</link>
		<dc:creator>Tax Research LLP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:50:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/12/17/accountingweb-profoundly-unethical-conduct/#comment-322137</guid>
		<description>Daniel 

As Jason makes clear, there is also a moderation policy on AccountingWEB. 

A blog manager has a duty to moderate to remove offensive and untrue material. I also have reservations about posting comments form unidentifiable people. 

In addition, as my comment to you made clear, comments made that lack reasoned argument are not welcome here. AccountingWEB would be much better off if it applied the same rule. I know of many accountants who will not read it for precisely that reason.

But what I would never do is edit a comment in an underhand way. That is the conduct I objected to. 

Richard</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Daniel </p>
<p>As Jason makes clear, there is also a moderation policy on AccountingWEB. </p>
<p>A blog manager has a duty to moderate to remove offensive and untrue material. I also have reservations about posting comments form unidentifiable people. </p>
<p>In addition, as my comment to you made clear, comments made that lack reasoned argument are not welcome here. AccountingWEB would be much better off if it applied the same rule. I know of many accountants who will not read it for precisely that reason.</p>
<p>But what I would never do is edit a comment in an underhand way. That is the conduct I objected to. </p>
<p>Richard</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel H</title>
		<link>http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/12/17/accountingweb-profoundly-unethical-conduct/#comment-321362</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel H</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:28:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/12/17/accountingweb-profoundly-unethical-conduct/#comment-321362</guid>
		<description>Edited links v edited comments.

I am none too sure about your feuding with Accountingweb, as the thread has about 80 posts on it, but you certainly steamed in on the attack there. I don't know your history with them and I do not want to get involved in arguments about income shifting which are no my area. 
I laughed when I saw your comment here about "editing in an underhand fashion", I am reminded about your comment to me when I last tried to post a comment here:

"There is a moderation policy on the Tax Research blog.
 
Your comments do not meet the requirement for publication.
 
Criticism is welcome. But it must be constructive. Your comments are not constructive. I will not waste my readers time by allowing them to be posted. .
 
Regards
 
Richard"

As you can guess you did not like my comments in that instance. I have to think again, how can anybody take you seriously when you just do not publish all the comments and allow freedom of speech on your site?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Edited links v edited comments.</p>
<p>I am none too sure about your feuding with Accountingweb, as the thread has about 80 posts on it, but you certainly steamed in on the attack there. I don&#8217;t know your history with them and I do not want to get involved in arguments about income shifting which are no my area.<br />
I laughed when I saw your comment here about &#8220;editing in an underhand fashion&#8221;, I am reminded about your comment to me when I last tried to post a comment here:</p>
<p>&#8220;There is a moderation policy on the Tax Research blog.</p>
<p>Your comments do not meet the requirement for publication.</p>
<p>Criticism is welcome. But it must be constructive. Your comments are not constructive. I will not waste my readers time by allowing them to be posted. .</p>
<p>Regards</p>
<p>Richard&#8221;</p>
<p>As you can guess you did not like my comments in that instance. I have to think again, how can anybody take you seriously when you just do not publish all the comments and allow freedom of speech on your site?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Holden</title>
		<link>http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/12/17/accountingweb-profoundly-unethical-conduct/#comment-321150</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Holden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:48:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/12/17/accountingweb-profoundly-unethical-conduct/#comment-321150</guid>
		<description>It would appear you have upset someone (again) Richard. 

AWeb are under no obligation to post your link, however, I agree with you, I remember sometime ago (about 2 years) they deleted one of my postings that was offering help, because part of it was considered an advert, yet all it was, was a link to where the poster needed to go.

AWeb should do well to remember it is only where it is as long as it provides a useful forum, and should it decide to start deleting links that the editor does not like then such sensorship may well cause contributors to look elsewhere.

The interesting thing about AWeb is it is easy to replicate, I have always wondered why no one haas bothered, I wonder is there not the money in it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It would appear you have upset someone (again) Richard. </p>
<p>AWeb are under no obligation to post your link, however, I agree with you, I remember sometime ago (about 2 years) they deleted one of my postings that was offering help, because part of it was considered an advert, yet all it was, was a link to where the poster needed to go.</p>
<p>AWeb should do well to remember it is only where it is as long as it provides a useful forum, and should it decide to start deleting links that the editor does not like then such sensorship may well cause contributors to look elsewhere.</p>
<p>The interesting thing about AWeb is it is easy to replicate, I have always wondered why no one haas bothered, I wonder is there not the money in it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
