Jezerna Roza – an apology

‘Jezerna Roza’ once posted on the Herald, however the terms and conditions of that publication demand that people who leave comments do so under their real names. ‘Jezerna Roza’ is not a real name. It is therefore evident that ‘Jezerna Roza’ was misrepresenting herself, a point which she herself has conceded by her admission that ‘Jezerna Roza’ is not her real name. I understand she has admitted that she was banned from posting on the Herald for breaching the publication’s terms and conditions and misrepresenting her identity.

It is therefore disingenuous of ‘Jezerna Roza’ to complain in the comments section of the Guardian that others have speculated as to the nature of her misrepresentation, as I did in an article published several months ago – at a time when readership of this blog scarcely broke into double figures.

I can assure ‘Jezerna Roza’ that she is quite mistaken as to the intention behind the publication of the original blog piece. I would ask her to reflect upon the impossibility of embarking upon a vicious personal attack against an impersonal online ID and the fact that it is logically and legally impossible to defame an anonymous indvidual. My “modus operandi” was not, as she claims in the Guardian comments, to embark upon a vicious personal attack against her. I am afraid that I am in fact considerably more sleekit than that.

My “modus operandi” was to speculate on the limited amount of available information about ‘Jezerna Roza’s’ motives, and thus provoke her into revealing further information which would allow other below-the-line commentators to gain insight into the motivations behind her copious running commentary exclusively on articles about a small and distant country she clearly knows little about. This would then allow them decide for themselves whether ‘Jezerna Roza’ was a political sock puppet, or someone who apparently obsessively projects their own emotional issues resulting from the traumatic and violent breakup of Yugoslavia onto the very different circumstances of the Scottish independence debate.

‘Jezerna Roza’ not only took the bait, but also identified herself as the same individual using other online IDs such as ‘Albiesalba’. I have made no mention of those other online personas. The responsiblity for linking these IDs publicly to ‘Jezerna Roza’ lies solely with the individual concerned. If the online credibility of these other IDs has been compromised, ‘Jezerna Roza’ has only herself to thank for it.

However I would like to thank ‘Jezerna Roza’ for her description of me as “the Guru of Scottish Yes supporters”. I had thought that the aches in my knees were due to arthritis, I now discover it is in fact a product of typing blog posts while sitting in the lotus position. If I have attained the lofty heights of gurudom, it is in no small measure due to the sterling efforts of ‘Jezerna Roza’ in publicising this blog. I urge ‘Jezerna Roza’ to look up the meaning of the English idiom “to make a rod for one’s own back”.

Political sock-puppetry is morally reprehensible, however it is a perfectly sane and logical tactic, and is the only conceivable rational explanation for the motivations behind ‘Jezerna Roza’s’ comment history – which now runs into hundreds of thousands of words. But a sane and logical political sock puppet in the employ of a party would not have republished a link to a blog article exposing their sock puppetry, ensuring that the article gains a far greater readership than it otherwise would, and giving this blog considerable traffic from the pages of the Guardian – at a time when blog readership exceeds 110,000 page views monthly.

I am sorry that my attempts to seek rational and logical explanations for ‘Jezerna Roza’s’ online posting behaviour have distressed her. I now see that I was incorrect and thank her for pointing this out. But since the rational and logical explanations for ‘Jezerna Roza’s’ online posting behaviour have been ruled out, that leaves only irrational and illogical explanations.

I would not presume to lecture the inhabitants of Slovenia about the constitutional future of their country, even though I am considerably more knowledgeable about the history and culture of Slovenia than ‘Jezerna Roza’ is about Scotland. (A long time ago before I met my partner, I had a Slovene lover. Funnily enough all the Slovenes I ever met were wildly enthusiastic about Scottish independence. It saddens me greatly that the image of this remarkable and beautiful small country has been sullied in the Scottish media by the obsessive postings of ‘Jezerna Roza’. In my experience, she is not representative of Slovene opinion.)

If ‘Jezerna Roza’ does indeed have a valid contribution to make to the Scottish independence debate, then I urge her to do as I have done – to have the strength of her convictions and publish her views under her real name. Otherwise I will continue to be of the opinion that ‘Jezerna Roza’ is merely an unfortunate individual who is projecting her own post-Yugoslav traumas onto the future of Scotland, and from a position of emotionally charged ignorance is lecturing the inhabitants of a country she knows little about.

Failing that ‘Jezerna Roza’ should be dismissed without further consideration as an object of pity. I shall therefore return to skipping over her comments without reading them.



12 comments on “Jezerna Roza – an apology

  1. diabloandco says:

    You mean Jezerna still posts long drivel somewhere?

    Gee ! Ain’t I lucky I have missed her interminable contributions.

    I occasionally post on the Herald site and have merrily by – passed comments by the lady(?) OBE and Bo somebody – it preserves a decent blood pressure .

    Once upon a time I by -passed Ingonken Jack in another publication thereby saving much time and sanity. Then I realised the actual publication was as bad as said fellow ,so I gave it up too!

  2. innerbearsdenurchin says:

    I always thought Jezerna Rosa was a certain MP / MSP, now fulltime shit stirring Lard with connections to the Internal Security Services who seem to have money to burn to keep the UK intact.

    His sidekick, now BBC presenter (part time) and MSP, used to shit stirr, unter tuttelage of the same Lard above.

    Incidentally, apparently, Derek Bateman blamed all his recent internet travails on the self same Lard. I am not sure if it was tongue in cheek though.

    • weegingerdug says:

      Naaa. I never thought Jezerna Roza was any such thing. But there wasn’t enough information in order to arrive at a sensible conclusion, so I published that speculative post deliberately in order to provoke the person into revealing further information. When you don’t know what someone’s motives are, you suggest they may be something else that appears plausible then sit back and see what happens. A real sock puppet would have ignored it. But Jezerna didn’t just take the bait, she made it into a banquet and plastered it all over the pages of the Guardian.

      You can’t actually employ the techniques of forensic linguistics on a corpus created by several people, such as a corpus of texts which is predominantly made up of bits cut and pasted from other sources. The only way to determine reliably which author is which and winnow out the portions written by the individual you’re interested in is with sophisticated linguistic analysis software I don’t have access to. And I didn’t actually read her entire collected works – which were copious then and are even more copious now. Whether Scotland is independent or not makes no great difference to Slovenes. It was the mismatch between the degree of involvement (and the time and effort put into creating such long and frequent posts) and Jezerna Roza’s claim to be a disinterested observer that intrigued me. There are some very strong emotions there without Scottish independence having any commensurate effect upon the poster.

      The thing about debates like the independence debate is that it’s going to attract random internet punters with bees in their bunnets. Only a tiny percentage of them will actually have a seat in the Lords. With the rest it’s just arsehattery from people with no vote, no influence, and who are using the indy debate as a means of airing their own emotional grievances about something else. Getting them to reveal that they’re random internet punters who can safely be ignored is why I posted that original piece. Certain other regular Unionist commentators on the Guardian make no secret out of the fact that they find arguing with Scottish independence supporters to be an amusing hobby – at least they’re honest about their motivations.

  3. Sheltie2014 says:

    I got attacked on a comment I made saying I had copied it from somewhere. Deluded and clutching at straws- obvious things may not be going well for folks on the BT side. I comment under a user name because I don’t want vulnerable people that I work with influenced by my views. Then I go into their homes and see the BBC spout out their rubbish- but I still have more ethics and class to use my position to influence them.

  4. innerbearsdenurchin says:

    Just read your original post and bingo at the end; Lothian!

    You forgot his football team?

    • weegingerdug says:

      Actually that was just a stylistic thing because I wanted place names that were alliterative. I know nothing about fitba, and care even less than I do about Jezerna Roza’s opinions on Scottish independence.

  5. Donna Houghton says:


    Sent from my iPhone


  6. One of the odd things about the independence debate is that so many people with scant knowledge of Scotland seem so anxious to have their say on it (including the most recent — Obama). A sizeable number post regularly which leaves me wondering why. Why make a beeline for the few Scottish articles in the Guardian when there’s a heap of articles in the rest of the paper to chose from?

    Not sure whether these posters feel Scottish independence will impact in some way on their lives, and so want a say, or whether there is an underlying wish to put us in our place and point out the errors and foolishness of our Yes support.

    Came across the rants of the person mentioned, but always skipped over them.

  7. scotsgeoff says:

    I stopped reading the Guardian, Scotsman and Herald online mainly because of the comments sections with certain Unionists constantly tying up debate. The articles themselves were usually trash too so I just don’t see the point.

    I have no desire to have an online argument with anyone who seems to think their opinion is irrefutable especially if they think I should be impressed by an O.B.E.

  8. Helena Brown says:

    I gave up so called newspapers and only now comment if someone posts a link, I did the other day on the book which some elderly gentleman had written about health post NHS in England. I like scotgeoff above have locked horns with the OBE, now I would not give him the satisfaction. I still poke Grahmski on Derek Bateman but would not cross the street to urinate on him if he was on fire. I have no idea why people who do not live here, or have never been here feel the need to comment, we recognise them as soon as they open their mouths.

  9. partialtrust says:

    Slightly related, but I’ve no doubt the Brits are or will be getting up to this sort of thing the closer we get to the 18th:

    Sadly cryptome is down just now but the wayback machine copy is pretty much verbatim as originally published.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s