New blog design ideas wanted

I am thinking of having this blog redesigned. Any ideas, suggestions or improvements which could be made?

I think the width should be reduced to make reading easier, and maybe one of the side columns removed.

Do you find that the pages tend to load slowly?

Would extra features help, like receiving an email when someone else comments after you? What about the ability to vote on comments?

I think that the ability to share posts to Facebook and Twitter is now the done thing, so that should be happening.

Would having to type in a security code make you less likely to comment or would it just irritate you slightly?

You’ll no doubt be glad to know that adverts won’t be appearing, apart, perhaps, from ones for my own businesses, which I really should link to, if only for SEO purposes.

I know I need to put the blogroll back up. It disappeared some time ago of its own accord. I didn’t suddenly get grumpy with the rest of the blogosphere.

Do you like the masthead? For a bit of fun, I was thinking of adding a bit of graffiti now and then as the mood takes me!

Is there a blog or other website that you really like the look of?

Are long posts better than short posts?

I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on any or all of these things.


UPDATE 13.27PM: English Viking makes a good point for consideration – “Having a ‘reply’ button next to each comment is helpful in maintaining a coherent thread.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to New blog design ideas wanted

  1. English Viking says:

    Having a ‘reply’ button next to each comment is helpful in maintaining a coherent thread.

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    Thanks, English. It would be interesting to know which way is more favoured. Personally, I prefer one continuous thread as it is easier to see which comments are new, although in these occasional mega threads, your suggestion would probably be preferably.

  3. bjedwards says:

    Just take this silly blog down and strive to get yourself an education, Stewart.

  4. Stewart Cowan says:

    BJ, the point of this post was to get some ideas about what people wanted in terms of site functionality and layout.

    You are a context “denier”!

  5. bjedwards says:

    Stewart, you missed that there is no point to your blog. You can’t even support your own claims.

  6. English Viking says:


    ‘Stewart, you missed that there is no point to your blog. You can’t even support your own claims.’

    I’m suprised your neck can support your own head, your brain is so massive.

    BTW What does the ‘bj’ stand for in your tag? Big Jessie? Blatantly judgemental? Bigoted justifications? Boring jabberer?

    Something, ahem, else?

  7. bjedwards says:

    Don’t be upset, English Viking. Denialists like Stewart never can put up when challenged. Like Stewar, they just run away whining that everyone is conspiring against them.

  8. My guess is BJ is a man – but probably ‘not the most Viking’ of men (if you know what I mean) – and so I reckon BJ probably stands for Billie Jean.

    Stewart, did you notice your enemy detests your opinions so much that he would ideally like to see you silenced altogether? I know you won’t self-censor yourself to please your enemies, but it’s telling that you have enemies who don’t even want your opinions to be expressed in public.

    As an Englishman I’d like to feel culturally enriched when I visit this blog… just like I would if I actually visited Scotland. Let’s face it, [with the Barnett formula] Scotland is a (English taxpayer-funded) paradise, isn’t it?

    Have you thought of a tartan theme? Perhaps a few kilts and bagpipes dotted around the blog? And what about a nice photo of a William Wallace monument?

    P.S. BJ, I don’t know if you know, but there’s a big conspiracy arranging for this blog to rise up out of complete obscurity to become one of the most famous and influential British blogs in the world. (If you don’t believe me just ask Henry Kissinger.)

  9. The Kat says:

    I’m not so keen on the ‘reply’ button. It’s okay when there are only one or two replies, but if there are many they get skinnier and skinnier and also navigation becomes more complicated. I quite like it as it is.

    I would like to be able to quote from previous posts, though, without making a dog’s breakfast of it. I don’t find the HTML tags easy to follow. Perhaps a ‘preview’ facility would help.

    And how about an ‘ejector seat’ button for ignorant idiots who come on here just to tell you how ignorant you are?

  10. Stewart Cowan says:


    I don’t think I have ever called any visitor to this site a “troll” before, but I’m calling you one. I have risen to the “challenge” thousands of times, but what you don’t seem to realise is that you do not present a challenge because you do not even attempt to debate the issues that I present.

    Re. 9/11, you pretend there is no need to reject the official story, even though hundreds (or 000s) of pieces of evidence call out to the logical and savvy among us to question the Commission’s report.

    If you want to talk about the actual physics surrounding the collapse of these three skyscrapers on 9/11 then carry on – try and explain it to fit in with the official story.

    If you are going to continuously try to give the impression that I am uninformed (never mind uneducated – what a joke that is) without a shred of evidence to back it up, I suggest you stop wasting both our time.

  11. Stewart Cowan says:


    Could be any of those.

  12. Stewart Cowan says:


    A few people seem to think I should be silenced, but that just encourages me to continue (so thanks, BJ).

    The new theme will definitely NOT resemble a shortbread tin (even though I do love shortbread).

    But thanks for the suggestion!

  13. Stewart Cowan says:

    The Kat,

    Or can I just call you “Kat”?

    There are definite problems with the ‘reply’ system. I also wonder if it stifles debate. The HTML to quote is

    and its closing version, which many people won’t know about.

    A preview facility is a very good idea.

    An ejector seat for anyone who calls anyone else a “denier” can also be arranged.

  14. Stewart Cowan says:

    Aha! I didn’t type in the closing HTML in that last comment so the blockquote wouldn’t work, but it did anyway.

    The word is “blockquote” with the wee arrows!

  15. robbo says:

    I agree with BJ. You constantly go on about all this evidence but provide none. Believe me, if you are right, I want to know about it so why not list the evidence you seem to think is so compelling?

  16. Stewart Cowan says:


    I do and I have. I don’t get anything in return from some people. Look at the collapse of Building 7 and tell me if it seems perfectly plausible.

  17. isitfoggy says:

    A “reply” button is a good idea, but for our dear friend Richard please install a “You’re gay” button for people he doesn’t agree with.

  18. bjedwards says:

    Poor Stewart and Richard. forgot that the burden of proof is on your shoulders to support your own claims. Getting upset and shooting the messenger about that salient fact only illustrates my points even more. You were easily to spot for what your are right from the beginning.

    Stewart has done nothing but make claims. He has consistently refused to provide any evidence for his claims. His claims on 9/11 and gay marriage amount to nothing but arguments from ignorance. Just read your own posts, Stewart, and point to your actual positive evidence that WTC7 was a “controlled demolition.”

    You see? You presented none, zero, zich, nada. Nor will you ever do so.


  19. bjedwards says:


    It’s always fun to expose the arrogance of ignorance of you phonies.

  20. Bunni says:

    I think your blog design is great, Stewart. 2 columns is nice.
    The changing graffitti idea is good, as ideas hit you.

    I think really really long posts can get boring. Do mid length ones, depending on the topics.
    The comment thing is good. Having replies to each comment are a nice feature, but not totally necessary. I like my “comment thingy” It also lets me block TROLLS and they never show up again. You seem to like answering their drivel, so it might be fun to keep yours ;-)

  21. Stewart Cowan says:


    You believe the government – known liars – well that’s up to you. We have demonstrated that “gay marriage” is detrimental to society. As for Building 7, if you cannot even admit to yourself that buildings only collapse that way due to controlled demolitions then discussing the physics with you would be a waste of my time because you have clearly made your mind up.

  22. Stewart Cowan says:

    Thank you, Bunni.

    I don’t really like replying to trolls, but I also don’t like banning people. I don’t think I have banned anyone before, but if BJ keeps being a pain on every thread, I may have to make an example of him!

  23. Leg-iron says:

    BJ – nooo, don’t ban him. Send him to my place. I can’t seem to keep a troll.

  24. bjedwards says:


    The “official story” was the first canard to be destroyed way back in late 2001 yet you still depend on it to support your 9/11 house of cards. You have to rely on that canard to claim that people only “believe” the “government”.

    Unfortunately, you can’t get away with it. The evidence of what happened on 9/11 never originated with, nor has ever been controlled by, the “government”. What we know about 9/11 came from thousands of different independent sources and lines of evidence that converged on conclusions of what happened and how it happened.

    This is why you cannot provide a stitch of positive evidence for your claims about 9/11 and can only make appeals to ignorance like you just did again above about WTC 7. It is also why you can’t “debate” about the subject matter.

    As far as your claim about “gay marriage” I have already presented evidence that refutes your claims but you ignored it.

  25. Stewart Cowan says:


    You have given me an idea. What do you think of “adopt-a-troll”? Be aware that they are worse than spoiled teenagers and they demand constant attention and always think they are right and grown-ups are wrong. They will always call you names when you don’t agree with them. Most teenagers grow up, but trolls don’t seem to, so if you adopt one, you might be stuck with him for life.

  26. Stewart Cowan says:


    As we approach the tenth anniversary of the attacks, I intend to blog about them, so stay tuned and hopefully you will see that I have evidence coming out of my ears.

  27. bjedwards says:

    So after 10 years you still think you can refute the entire evidence, findings and conclusions of the largest and most comprehensive investigation in history.

    I already wrote about that, Stewart:

    It must be nice to live your life unburdened by reality.

  28. Bunni says:

    Adopt a troll, that’s a good idea, except you never can get rid of them, in which case THEN you block them. If you guys need trolls, here’s a great article that exposes LOADS of them, attacking
    bloggers ;-)

    Some of the stuff these cretins do to the bloggers listed in the article is REALLY BAD!
    Hence, why I keep my name as Bunni, and leave it at that.

  29. English Viking says:


    Blog design suggestion. Why not put your name up 27 times in the opening 2 pages of your blog?

    Richard seems to think it looks good on his.

  30. Stewart Cowan says:


    Are you for real?

    the largest and most comprehensive investigation in history.

    You clearly don’t know how much was deliberately omitted.

    And of course, you realise that the physical evidence, i.e. the buildings themselves, were shipped off to China as quickly as possible.

    Is that what you do with one of the biggest crimes scene in history?

  31. isitfoggy says:

    English Viking – I need to wipe the coffee off my laptop now. I like your style!

  32. Stewart Cowan says:

    Thanks for the link, Bunni. It was an interesting read and of course, made me think of certain visitors to this blog.

    I wonder how orchestrated they are? Is my wee blog really a threat to the socialists? I would like to think so – in some way or another.

    I made a conscious decision from the start to use my real name for various reasons.

    I’m sure more folk will wake up to what’s really going on when things get worse.

  33. bjedwards says:


    You’re just illustrating my point for me. You are completely incapable of bringing a single bit of positive evidence to the table to support your claims. Is it any wonder why you 9/11 Truthers have gone nowhere in ten whole years?

  34. English Viking says:


    Friday night mate, lay off the coffee and crack a cold one.

  35. English Viking says:


    My father’s last words were ‘Why is it foggy?’


  36. Stewart Cowan says:


    I’m not getting through to you, buddy. I asked you to admit that Building 7’s collapse looks peculiar. Answer me this – and if you don’t, then I will assume you have no interest in honest debate – have you seen, or do you know of, any skyscraper which has collapsed like a controlled demolition, but wasn’t?

    This is the question you are avoiding answering.

  37. bjedwards says:

    Sorry, Stewart, I addressed it several times. Your statement is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. Since you are not familiar with your own logical fallacies, now is a good time to look up the meaning.

    How long are you going to keep everybody waiting for your positive evidence of “controlled demolition?” Another 10 years?

    Remember, the burden of proof remains on your shoulders.

  38. English Viking says:


    Please don’t mod me. it makes me very aggressive.

  39. What Stewart has is a 9/11 conspiracy theory and he discusses his theory on his blog. He does not need to prove his theory – nor could he. What he does need to do is set forth his argument as to why his theory is possibly the true explanation of the event – and Stewart has set forth his reasoning for his assertion on this blog before. Essentially Stewart’s argument can be summarised as ‘Given that the building wasn’t hit by a plane – since it looked like a pre-planned controlled demolition it probably was.’ Personally I’m unconvinced, but I view Stewart’s conspiracy theory as being valid from a theoretical standpoint – and a theory does not have to be proven correct to be accepted as a worthwhile theory… that’s in the nature of what a theory is. Theories are not always correct (or completely correct) but their relative merits are not dependent on their being proven – just look at the theory of evolution. I don’t think that there was a 9/11 conspiracy along the lines of how Stewart theorises – but I do accept that Stewart’s challenge of ‘If it wasn’t a controlled demolition then what was it?’ is compelling.

    As for EV’s earlier remark, I see no good reason for re-naming Real Street as Carvath Street (although I hope that one day EV’s own road will be re-named after me just to annoy him).

  40. Stewart Cowan says:


    Firstly, I didn’t ‘mod’ you, the blog did – you know the rules and you know what happened last time – you spent weeks in the sin bin because I couldn’t work out how to reinstate you into club class, as it were.

    Secondly, when I blog so much about deteriorating standards in British life, how would it look if the comments were full of effing and jeffing?

    If it makes you “very aggressive” you might want to remember the scripture, “Be ye therefore slow to anger”.

    Or just play by the blog rules like everyone else!

    Obviously, I understand your frustration, but do we allow our elite ‘masters’ to turn us into something foul like them?

  41. Stewart Cowan says:


    That’s a good post, generally. My argument that 9/11 was an inside job involves far more evidence than just the collapse pictures of WTC7. I just think that this is a good starting point for those who have thus far believed the official version of events.

    I hope you become famous in Norway!

  42. Thinker says:

    has everybody looked at you tube film footage, and seen the footage, I believe that there are websites with experts who have voiced their opinions about the situation, one can make up their own mind from the evidence presented

  43. Thinker says:

    Stewart keep the blog simple

  44. Stewart Cowan says:

    Many architects and engineers have expressed their concerns, Thinker. I see that Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth have a 10th Anniversary video.

  45. Thinker says:

    you see one of the pieces of evidence that would make me think something was wrong, was the way the steel girders had been cut at an angle as seen in the photos at ground zero. plus the fact they fell in a small space with minimal damage to the surrounding area, considering the tonnage that fell.
    when you consider that the planes were traveling at speed, then why did part of the building not topple over, just a thought!

  46. bjedwards says:

    Richard wrote,

    “Essentially Stewart’s argument can be summarised as ‘Given that the building wasn’t hit by a plane – since it looked like a pre-planned controlled demolition it probably was.’”

    That’s the standard 9/11 Truther claim, never supported with evidence. It is no different than stating, “We see the Sun rising, going across the sky and setting, therefore the Sun probably orbits the earth.”

    As a 9/1 Denier, Stewart, by necessity must:

    1) Ignore that there is not a stitch of evidence of explosives, either physical evidence, or necessary effects from explosives.
    2) Ignore the monumental and complete evidence of the whole events that demonstrates no explosives were needed.
    3) Ignore the fact that neither WTC 1, WTC 2, nor WTC 7 look anything like building demolitions. (It took 8 years for 9/11 Deniers to admit that no building in history was ever demolished for the top down.)
    4) Ignore the fact that neither he nor anyone else has ever presented a stitch of positive evidence.

    I could go on, but evidence never matters to denialists like Stewart. And he knows it.

  47. English Viking says:


    OK, I’m sorry.


    Good grief, I would have to move!

  48. Stewart Cowan says:


    Yes, the buildings should have toppled to some extent, which is further evidence that they were deliberately demolished.

  49. Stewart Cowan says:


    As a 9/1 Denier, Stewart, by necessity must:

    I don’t think you realise how utterly stupid you look by saying “9/11 denier”. You can’t even spell it right now!

    1) Ignore that there is not a stitch of evidence of explosives, either physical evidence, or necessary effects from explosives.

    There’s the evidence of thermite used to bring down the Twin Towers. NIST didn’t rule out explosives being used in Building 7. But you think you have all the answers: what a joke.

    2) Ignore the monumental and complete evidence of the whole events that demonstrates no explosives were needed.

    This makes no sense at all. This proves that you have made up your mind and no amount of evidence will persuade you otherwise. YOU ARE THE “DENIER”!!

    3) Ignore the fact that neither WTC 1, WTC 2, nor WTC 7 look anything like building demolitions. (It took 8 years for 9/11 Deniers to admit that no building in history was ever demolished for the top down.)

    How many buildings have been demolished with thermite? WTC7 clearly looks like a controlled demolition, as many architects and demolition experts agree, but again, you know better.

    What are your qualifications, by the way?

    4) Ignore the fact that neither he nor anyone else has ever presented a stitch of positive evidence.

    So thousands of experts are wrong? Possibly, but these people are presumably far more experienced and knowledgeable than you are.

    You really should tell us why we should believe you, especially when all you seem to have at your disposal are cheap psychological tricks.

    I could go on, but evidence never matters to denialists like Stewart. And he knows it.

    I’m sure you could go on denying the evidence of your own eyes.

  50. Stewart Cowan says:


    Apology accepted.

    Did you agree that the collapse of WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>