I agree with Daphne’s observations, except that it should not be a hassle to edit comments to remove “hehehehe”, dots, smilies, caps and exclamation marks. The paper should just adopt the policy of not accepting those comments.

Apparently the cases appear under the names “Il-Pulizija ta’ Malta kontra din il-persuna” and “Julia Farrugia kontra din l-istess persuna” (using Julia’s words).

The “journalists” present for the press conference did not even ask for the name of “din il-persuna.”

What’s with Maltese “journalists”?

What they forget to add (maybe because it undermines their claims) is that only 36.8 percent of their users are in Malta. Official audience stats are provided for all to see on Alexa.com

So if you’re not a keen poker player-watch your next move, or you’ll end up with no chips or balls.

The possibility of commenting is what makes the Maltatoday website popular (albeit popular with the wrong sort of people).

The Malta Independent site would also have many more hits if it allowed comments. It would risk having the site degenerate like Maltatoday and, to a lesser extent, The Times but a newspaper has to run this risk and they can always moderate the comments before uploading them.

[Daphne – None of the sites you mentioned need allow their comments-board to degenerate. It’s simple a matter of editing comments in the same way they edit their letters to the editor. There should be no distinction. Moderation is not enough. Comments which include things like ‘heheheheh’ or smilies or text-message language or lack proper punctuation reflect badly on the site. The internet versions of the London broadsheets quite clearly use a great deal of editing ratyher than just straightforward moderation. The comments tend to be properly written. Yes, it’s a hassle editing comments to remove the ‘hehehehe’ and the dots and smilies and the rest – tell me about it – but the end result is worth the time and effort. The Times would never dream of published a poorly spelled letter; they would sub it before publication. Similarly, they should sub their online comments. Malta Today’s online comments-board has become a bar for loonies.]

If it is a Redtouch phone and Labour would like to come clean by dissociating themselves from TYOM, then they should give the registered phone owner a little talking-to minn wara l-kwinti, because it’s not doing their party much good – maybe all they need is to stand in front of a mirror to do so.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110216/local/julia-farrugia-files-libel-case-against-daphne-caruana-galizia

I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that I’d know if someone instituted proceedings against me.

[Daphne – How? You have to be notified. I haven’t been notified.]

Thanks for finding the time to reply – this is part of what makes your blog popular. (1) Surely you can’t be right? There can’t be just one libel case against you? CSH and Julia farrugia are two and I seem to remember loads of others.

[Daphne – Is there a case against me by Julia Farrugia? I wouldn’t know. She didn’t mention any names in her video. Or did I miss the bit where she said “I am suing Daphne Caruana Galizia”? As for ‘surely you can’t be right’, I think I am more likely to know the facts than you are. ]

Same with Roger’s and Saviour’s wives, what you said is no news to me. Everyone knows it, but the sad thing is that they all walk around oblivious to the fact.

[Daphne – They can’t be blamed for their wives, even if they chose them, but they can certainly be blamed for targeting other people’s marriages, sexuality and romantic lives while thinking that whatever goes on in theirs, they are immune. What nerve, especially when you consider that though everyone has problems and difficulties, their own situations are quite extraordinary. I totally hate even mentioning these things, but I just couldn’t take it anymore: watching them mock others on these matters when I know what their own situation is like. They’re either hypocrites or completely deluded.]