Habit is a powerful thing. It has for nearly all of us the force of principle, for some of us the force of religion. Because of it, the Press Gallery continues to behave as if Tony Abbott will form a government soon, or, at the worst, by November 30th next year.
But Abbott cannot now win, or survive till Budget Night as the Coalition’s leader. When he said he ‘couldn’t guarantee’ surpluses in his first term he ensured this. And the Press Gallery, as always, is furlongs behind what is actually happening. As they were when I said Abbott by two votes, one disputed, and they said Hockey by twenty.
Because on Budget Night Wayne Swan will announce a surplus. This will show that Hockey and Abbott either cannot add, or cannot get through the Upper House a series of numbers that make any human sense. Swan’s numbers will be voted down in the Senate, of course, and no surplus will be posted, but he will have shown he can do numbers Abbott flinches from.
At the time of writing Labor according to Nielsen would score 47 percent two-party preferred; a meaningless figure since nine parties now sit in the House, and the nine-party preferred figure has never been posted or even, I think, imagined.
But it is fair to say that if Gillard were gone and Labor under a different chieftain that figure would rise to 50. Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Queenslanders, pregnant women, possessive husbands, teachers, unionists, homosexuals and pro-refugee Green-leaners would come back to Labor under any other leader and this amassing of new Labor votes Tony Abbott could not, I think, turn round.
This leaves Abbott losing anyway. But if another Prime Minister said forcibly that the Abbott-Hockey-Robb team cannot add, and said why, the Labor-leaning vote would go up to 52, and landslide back in. And these are the current probabilities. Labor cannot now lose if Abbott is the alternative.
If Turnbull were, it would be a contest. If Costello were brought back he might secure them government.
This is not too hard to imagine. Robb might stand down for him, pleading depression. Kevin Andrews could be booted out, and promised Washington. Or Nelson, or Greiner, or Peter Collins, or Hewson, could replace Bronwyn Bishop in Mackellar and be made by acclamation Opposition Leader. He might face Beazley, brought back from Washington, as the sitting Prime Minister. Or Bob Carr, or Peter Beattie, or Geoff Gallop, or John Faulkner, slotted into Garrett’s, Melham’s, or Rob McLelland’s vacated Sydney seat, and have a fight on his hands.
These are fluid times. But the one certain thing is that Abbott cannot now win, and the Liberal Party habit of sacking as leader a one-time loser will again reassert itself (it has the force of religion), and he will be gone by May Day.
Discuss.
Name:
hahaha
ah
ahaah
aahaha
ahh
h
Bob Ellis, you are a formidable riddler…..and I shall not contest the temper of your thesis.
Except to say that Gillard stays…
and duly fights the next election;
winning on her own, or losing on her own.
And that is….as it should be.
I will erase you and not print you again if you say ahahahahah just once more.
As Omar Sharif said in Lawrence of Arabia to a rival chieftain who contemtuously spat at his feet, ‘That! is not an argument.’
BobEllis, it is NOT proposed as an “argument” you churlish old bugger!
I am symbolising my merriment, my mirth, with this act of typographic promiscuity.
That it should cause you offense tells me you are in a sour mood……or that Affectation is your new mannerism
Remember, “conceit in weakest bodies strongest works”.
Tell me…what troubles you today?
How can I help?
Bob Ellis, I return quickly with a thought – I would strongly disagree with you and Omar and say that spitting at one’s feet fulfills the requirements of communication perfectly and is indeed a most powerful argument; lucid and direct – conveying intended meaning and sacrificing nothing to the vagaries of….interpretation.
And in the interests of philological economy – not a word wasted.
Cheers Old Man!
You appear to have gone mad, and I am sick of your levity.
You are sin-binned for a week.
I also find all the “ha ha’s” unamusing. A simple LOL would do as well. Check the medication.
Delighted to discuss.
I will buy you a bottle of your finest tipple if Tony Abbott is deposed of leader at any time between now and the 2013 Budget, which is mid may NEXT year. Deal or no deal?
Also, a minor matter, but there are not “nine parties” in the House. Of the independents or standalone members, only Katter and Bandt are affiliated to political parties. I expect Windsor, Oakeshott and Wilkie would be mightily chuffed to know they had supporters, let alone a ‘party’ behind them. All but Windsor will, I predict, lose their seats in 2013 and Windsor may not even contest.
The Green vote has been remarkably consistent at 12-15 %, it was thus under Beazley, Crean Beazley, Latham, Beazley, Rudd and Gillard. There is simply no evidence that deposing Gillard would see Greens shift back to Labor. They are in alliance governments in the ACT and Tasmania and have 10 MPs, which indicates a growing party, not one built on sand. On what basis would their voters move to Labor unless it changed its policies, in which case they would bleed at the other side as jobs are axed in logging, mining and other sectors.
I agree about Turnbull and Costello.
The comment about Robb’s depression is beneath you and unworthy. The man has a health issue and has recovered well from it. He deserves better that to suggest he quit because he’s a loon or cracking up.
As for Greiner, he of the tobacco lobby, an industry you rightly rubbish for bringing death to millions. Is this the man you want to lead the Liberals, a cigarette stooge? Really? Seriously? You’d like to see cancer man lead the Libs? Okay, it would be entertaining, but I’d prefer Abbott to that little fuck.
And as for the others – Carr and Beattie have ruled out Federal politics many times and Faulkner has indicated he may not contest the next election. What you are saying is that there is no one in the current Labor caucus who you believe can lead the party to victory. That’s a scathing assessment of their ranks.
A bottle from the top shelf says Gillard leads Labor in the next election and remains PM, even with Green support. Abbott leads Coalition to second loss and is replaced by Turnbull in early 2014 and goes on to be the next PM.
Discuss.
You have more chance than Mr Ellis on this one.
Please learn to count. An Independent is a party of one. The parties evident in the Lower House therefore are: (1) Labor; (2) Liberal; (3) National; (4) Green; (5) Katter Australia; (6) Windsor Independent; (7) Oakeshott Independent; (8) Wilkie Independent; (9) Crook National Cross-bench Independent. In the Senate there is also (10) Liberal-National, and (11) DLP. Eleven parties out of which Newspoll selects a two-party preferred. How does it do this? It can’t.
It is a numerical beat-up whose purpose is to give the Liberal Party, which never scores more than 34 percent of the total vote, the look of a winner.
Discuss.
Why is referring to what Robb wrote a book about ‘beneath me’?
I am not saying no-one in the present Labor caucus could lead, only that the Party’s options are many. You know full well I have said Swan, Shorten, Smith, Combet, Kelly, Plibersek, Roxon, Faulkner and Clare could win more votes than Gillard and you are lying if you say, as you do here, that I did not.
What Liberal member do you work for?
Please explain.
1000 apologies. When you wrote that Turnbull or Costello could face a Labor leader like [Beazley, Carr, Gallop, Faulkner etc} I stupidly inferred that you thought one of these chaps would be best suited to be Labor leader/PM.
From that, I dumbly presumed you meant that there wasn’t some from within caucus who would make a better leader than Gillard and keep Labor in office.
Turns out I’m a fucking retard because that’s the complete opposite of what you said you meant.
And drat, you saw through my disguise. I’m the oldest Liberal staffer in 56 years and the fact that I’ve been a Labor voter since the 1972 Whitlam election hasn’t been uncovered until now, Sherlock.
I need a whisky …
The line in a certain movie goes “I’ll have what she’s having!”
Whatever it is you are having Bob, I don’t want it.
That any of the mentioned Labor stalwarts would come back to be acclaimed Prime Minister is delusional.
Abbott ought to be gone, but he seems still to be the darling of the media – like Kevin07, until Newspoll deserted him in early 2010.
If Rupert decides Abbott can’t win, it could turn very nasty indeed for poor Tony.
Peter Collins?? My old mate Ron Phillips might be amused about that one.
Do you know Peter Collins? Have you had one conversation with him? Have you read his book?
How dare you.
‘Amusement’ is no argument.
Like spitting.
Know him? Funny you should say that. I certainly saw enough of him as NSW Opposition Leader, and note that he was regarded so poorly that he was replaced by Kerry Chikarovski, who I do know personally. That she was also a dud as OL was a matter of some disappointment.
But as for Peter, I’ll take Ron’s estimation of his worth, if its all the same to you. I suppose you like him for his journalistic and literary interests, but they do not a leader make. (Hmm, reminds me of a certain A Abbott; does it you?)
Abbott’s “bring it on” sounded desperate. The ALP have to concentrate on Abbott having to answer questions about the Economy, not Robb nor Hockey.
Swan has to ask very specific technical questions of Abbott about the Economy, Costello has already stated that Economics was not Abbott’s strong suit.
If the world economy tanks, Abbott will be elected in a landslide, he will be our Hairshirt, we will wear him and scratch for our feckless ways.
Why would we elect him? After this?
Your question really bugged me and I perhaps can best answer it thus.
The Economy is not a real thing it is a ruse, especially for Politicians that believe they are the central powering motivation behind its success. The idea that the ALP saved Australia when the likes of US and the entirety of Europe is going down in flames is simply ridiculous. Good fortune or good luck or a compensating error has held the fate of Australia from suffering in the same way as pretty much the rest of the world. But I suspect the anitvenom has run its course and we will join our global community in the same pain relatively soon. (Rider: I could be completely wrong).Costello and Swann may really think they are or have been the best Treasurers in the World, but only a handful of Economists, outcasts of their own profession saw the GFC in advance with little access to the same resources of Government specialists, statistic gathering and bureaucratic manpower that Swann or Bernanke or Mervyn King had at their disposal.
To get Abbott on the detail is a strategy for diversionary reasons only, to win the small points. The non politically interested electorate know that the world is “fucked” and instinctively know that an up or down in the interest rates of 25 points is not going to save our bacon.
Unlike the Greeks or Italians we will wear our Austerity with Gallipolian pride and be chopped to bits on beaches and we will redirect our attacks upon eachother for our feckless behaviour, for our greed,for our dole bludging ways, for our wanting something for nothing and the Libs are the better party at orchestrating such pogroms. Of course for them it is about making the “hard decisions” whatever the fuck that means.
I believe the world Economy is in for years of pain, substantial unrelenting pain, Europe being just the start.
Australians believe we have avoided the trouble, but as you have rightly pointed out Global Economics is a racket, a ponzi scheme. If history is a guide it should happen before the next election just in time for the ALP to be blamed for it all, and we must therefore take the cure.
The reason the Libs cannot agree on an amount to save to bring about a surplus, is because they cannot agree on how deep they want to cut. I think Hockey wants to go hard, Robb wants to go harder, and Barnaby Joyce is making sure they cut to the bone. Abbott is against cutting too hard, too quick. Good Cop Bad Cop BS.
That will be the price they will extract from us for throwing them and keeping them out of office.
We will elect the Libs under Abbott because we must purge ourselves of our excess, can you think of a better ascetic candidate than a long distance cyclist, who has ruminated on the teachings of Hayek mile after mile, hour after hour, whose time has come as he slouches towards Canberra? We will admit our wanton ways and he will give us forgiveness right after a good scourging.
I would be taking Gillard out to the stable on the farm like they did with Jed Bartlett, and fill her with all the numbers until she can recount them like the robot she is, and she should take on Abbott herself and slog it out macro and micro economic parameter for parameter. Because I fear that is what TA is doing now, and to ensure he remembers his minders have removed the saddle from his bicycle.
The Govt. should get in early and start interogating TA over the details of the Economy right now, they have already lost valuable time.
I have long maintained first Rudd, then Turnbull; probably within the first 100 days of a Rudd reign.
Turnbull, when he is in form -which is most of the time-, prosecutes an argument with precision and charm. Now if only he can control that jagged lightning, Bob.
Turnbull has his own problems, one of which cost him his leadership in 2010. If Rupert abandons Abbott, Mal could make a comeback, but Hockey, Morrison and others fancy themselves as leadership material too.
correction, 2009.
Quite right, DQ. There are many holding the view that a Turnbull return is impossible.
I can well see Morrison having a tilt. He is far more well rounded than his usual press excursions suggest. Hockey simply doesn’t do his homework and constantly muffs up his exams. I’m not sure I’m quite as conspiratorial when it come to Rupert’s fingerprints.
On a side note; Gillard has been improving her media skills. Last evening’s 7:30 was a much more assured performance. No laughing, solid, serious and in command. Won’t be enough, but a much better presentation.
You may be right about Morrison. My sources reveal that he is indeed far more rounded a character than he is given credit for : Abbott probably gave him the megaphone over the asylum seeker issue to shaft him, as Howard did with left leaning (“liberal” Liberals) ministers, eg Vanstone in Immigration.
Tony Abbott will be the next Prime Minister.
If he’s “the darling of the media”, then there’s no doubt at all.
He should take Miranda Devine’s advice, to keep writing his own speeches.
Kim Beazley would be great, but I see above that wishing for his return comes under “delusional”.
The question facing us devoted to the Labor Party though, Bob, is will Gillard still be there to witness Abbott’s downfall as you have predicted it?
Abbott gone by Mayday! May it be so.
Wassail!
This blog post and its attendant stream of breathless daydreaming should be preserved in amber, for the enjoyment of the more rational Australian.
I love the mischaracterisations of both Swan (in reality, the mouth breather is innumerate and clueless) and Abbott (Rhodes scholar with economics qualifications). Also, the febrile fantasy of one poster here that Turnbull will replace Tone, and is a quality candidate. That’s the classic ALP deceit, “I might consider voting Liberal if that decent Malcolm was in charge”, (pull the other one) while in reality knowing the man is electoral cancer. He’s an arrogant buffoon with a Manichean streak worse than the scorpion who hitched a ride on a frog’s back
And we take it you know him well, Smitty?
What a truly ugly writer you are, Smitty.
Did you get dropped on your head at birth perchance?
JG, I noted your contribution over at Damon Young’s article (said article was up and gone without me even noticing its existence).
The concept of religion for atheists is interesting. My view is that if if there was no such thing as religion, we would need to invent something to believe in; many people are incapable of being atheist. Atheism is a very adult concept and progression, and should not(cannot)be imposed on those who cannot deal with its concepts.
As Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses, and it appears that at least some of the masses cannot do without it.
Or you may disagree.
Doug, two quick things (in case bobEllis decides to cull me again):
(i) we all invent beliefs – all of us.
(ii) Marx was simply attempting to marginalise a market competitor. His product is no different.
So yes, I do indeed disagree.
Doug, a short list for your
Because it is semantic crap, perhaps?
I cannot erase two of Cole’s responses. I will strive to erase all the others till next Thursday as I said I would. Saying ahahahahaha is not an argument. It is graffiti.
Doug Quixote
All due respect to elders,
but that comment has Insufferable all over it.
And the Unruly One has his comments deleted!
They made us laugh.
But it’s not our table.
In what sense insufferable? Atheism is a choice made by those who know about religion, and those who have suffered through it and come out the other side.
Many an Archbishop of Canterbury has come to the sensible conclusion that there is no god, and perhaps a number of Popes as well. None have been brave enough to admit it.
I freely admit that many need the consolation of religion; they should have it. The difficulty arises when some of them think that everyone else should have it too; and not just any religion, but the particular brand they themselves profess and no other.
Insufferable, in a “God-I-see-another-let’shearitforatheism sermon” sense.
However, your reply was like a kindly teacher’s.
Patient, tolerant
Unexpected
“Elders”? And how old are you?
To JG : You have a field, do you? Bully for you. Watch out for the cowpats as you stumble around the oxymoronic dialectics and philological obfuscations and beware the programmatic specificity
that lurks dangerously near the jabberwocky.
Bring back JG. Censor Doug.
Aren’t you finding JG tedious? I certainly am. I am giving him a little of his own medicine.
Fallacy of fallacies saith the preacher; fallacy of fallacies, all is fallacy.
(Apologies to King Solomon.)
You have probably made a career out of semantic crap.
My prediction: Prime Minister Gillard will lead Labor to the next election…and win.
She will win based on the economy and the NBN.
You missed your vocation. There is no point in debate with god-botherers, especially those who seem to accept some sort of Roman Catholic/Marxist fusion (such as Eagleton) to tot up debating points.
As you well know a negative (“there is no god” – discuss) cannot be proved, and any logic based argument with a god-botherer ends with them scurrying behind “God told me so so there!” or “It says so in the Bible and that is God’s word, so there!”
Say it isn’t so and I say that you lie.
JG, “Fuck you” is spelt with a “c” in it.
I’ll take “dilettante” any day of the week if this is the area in which you specialise.
“Semantic crap” sums it up quite well.
And in final farewell, JG, Fuck You.
you are indicted under your own question Quixote….and it STILL stands,
Why is Eagleton”s list “semantic crap”?
The question won”t disappear because I have gone……..nor will disappear by your inability to answer it.
“Yet you continue to swerve” said J.G.Cole
I can picture you swerving all over the screen.
Doug Quixote, you’re brave to take him on – isn’t he something!
We, on night-shift, say thanks for the laugh.
Some people spend years of their lives trying to decide the meaning, the nuances, the answer to things like “How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?”- JG is probably one of them.
I won’t play his little games of semantics and semiotics; he can stew in his own juices forevermore so far as I care.
He probably imagines an eternity of doing the same shit, sitting at the right hand of God.
He is permitted to write again in these pages after midnight Wednesday 15th if he does not say ahahahahahahahaha. If he does, he is off them for two weeks, then four, then eight, and so on. Any bad language is permitted but this is not language, it’s brainless graffiti.
Fuck him; and, as you might say, the Rosinante he rode in on.
Never let it be said that he got near Rocinante! Bromance is acceptable these days, but bestiality is still taboo. Poor Rocinante is still shivering and shaking at the prospect!
The god-botherer would probably recite Eagleton’s list to the poor beast before cackling maniacally and then doing the dreadful deed.
It wasn’t “graffiti” Old Man…..
but you already know that.
Locate another reason.
And declare it here.
Are you Blue Rinse as well? Certainly looks like it.
The “debate” is over so far as I am concerned. My policy is not to argue with children, fools or the religious; “JG Cole”, “Totem Lesson II”, “Stagger Lee”, “Miss Penelope”, and probably a few other aliases for the said individual leave me in little doubt that he is a religious fool.
I am only sorry it took me so long to twig to his real nature.
Their was no debate because YOU refused to answer the question.
Dialogue shut down the moment you employed fallacy as a discursive tactic.
Your posts here are unoriginal and puerile…they contribute nothing beyond the mundane or the sycophantic.
Calling you out on this “semantic crap” business was long overdue.
Abu Chowdah, Right Cur that he was, described your character perfectly.
This is what happens Quixote when you feign knowledge.
You get caught out.
Not by me.
But by your own recourse to fallacy.
That you continue to labour under the impression that this is about “God-bothering” only confirms your delusion.
Remember the question?
Why is Eagleton’s list “semantic crap”?
There is no mention of God or of beetles or of bumper bars…there is no mention of anything OTHER than that which is before you.
Why is it “crap” Doug?
Why do you say that?
What leads you to such an assessment?
Share it.
Tell it.
A man unable to honour his own word….is no man at all.
“twig”?
No LOLs?? no Joh jokes?
No “read it and weep”? – done to death, Don Quixote, done to death.
You were right to fret over your originality deficiency.
If you feel this upsetting you, shuffle off
shuffle off to Bob Carr’s Thoughtlines – very soothing
JG Cole or whoever he or she may be wants to go into a lengthy discussion of Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”, Eagleton’s List and Eagleton’s reply to Dawkins which seems to place Eagleton as some sort of Roman Catholic who think Jesus Christ was something akin to the first Marxist.
Well, I am not interested : if you are, read Eagleton’s reply to “The God Delusion” at
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
and be sure you also read the replies below it, by AC Grayling and James Wood in particular. Wood’s view is quite close to my own.
If I do not not accept the premise on which theology is built, there is little to be gained in discussing its internal logic, or lack of it.
And certainly not with one as deranged as Eagleton or JG Cole. Got it?
Read it and weep. LOL
You might also read Martin Amis’s rebuttal, and note that Eagleton was forcibly “retired” from his ivory tower; it is a real can of worms.
Amis called Eagleton “an ideological relict . . . unable to get out of bed in the morning without the dual guidance of God and Karl Marx.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/amis-launches-scathing-response-to-accusations-of-islamophobia-396670.html
Enjoy the reading; keep an open mind.
J.G.Cole writes like a woman.
His/her drollery, intellect and nuance are a pleasure to read.
I”m with you and Blue Rinse F.I.
How fascinating. Cole’s tenacity, bordering on obsessive, is matched perfectly to DQ’s evasion.
I”ll bet you Cole is an academic. I’ve seen that bulldog mentality before. Once the teeth grip you can only escape by tearing off some of your own flesh.
It seems DQ is down to the bone!!
But hey! I”m in 4th year Law so I’m with Cole here.
DQ – answer the question. Avoidance only gives the impression of guilt. Or in your case, ignorance.
“Bordering on obsessive”? Only bordering – I would call it in the dead heart of obsessive.
Well he can stay there. I am under no obligation whatsoever to answer any question; and if you are indeed a law student you should have come across that fairly early on.
That being said, the answer is fairly self evident and I don’t see why I should act as a dictionary for the multiple personality disordered. Ideology appears vastly overloaded with meanings, and the end result is that it means nothing – ie it is so overloaded that it is semantic crap.
And believe it or not, some of us have lives outside this blog site and are not online around the clock.
Sorry DQ, wrong on all three counts; you are obligated, your explanation of “semantic”, as applied here, is incorrect, and you spend enough time here to suggest that your final paragraph is disingenuous.
If you need any further clarification on the first two of my corrections just drop me a line.
PS. Blue Rinse is not Cole, it’s a member of our tutorial group. Sorry to explode that little conspiracy theory
Do tell.
The fee for “do tell” is an apology to Blue Rinse, and by implication to Cole, for your amphetamine-like rush to judgement.
Your posts are still public (see your post below) and the impression given is patently wrong.
Prove that Cole and Blue Rinse are not the same person first. The computer says “no”.
And prove that you are not Cole – he/she seems to have plenty of aliases and is not averse to using one to agree with another. By your own admission they are all part of your “study group”. Bible study, is it? Or philosophy of religion? Joel Hodge and all that?
Hmmm?
Prove that you aren’t an out and out fascist. People’s voices have different qualities to them for a reason.
That is fairly readily apparent from my posts over the last two years at the Drum Unhinged.
My request to Tom is entirely reasonable, and there is no reply.
Prove your not a wife basher. Do it.
Oh, and prove that you are capable of going beyond yourself enough to allow for a sense of uncertainty regarding the outside world, and the differing personalites and expressive style of others that arise out of their own unique individuality. Prove you are not a fascist in other words, you are not comfortable enough with ambiguity to ascertain with certainty that you are not. It’s possible that all these people speak true. It’s possible (and likely) but you don’t allow for that possiblility. You are happy to create your own cone of truth for whatever purpose it is you are trying to achieve.
DQ, this space of diminishing returns will not suffice.
Look below for my response.
PS: Nice post Reader1.
It is all rather pathetic when a god-botherer needs to pose as independent persons to gain agreement with his comments.
JG Cole has been caught red handed (or is that red fingered?) posing as “Blue Rinse”; perhaps that pseudonym is closer to the bone than our JG would care to admit.
Intellectual integrity is it? And I am called a soft touched struggling fool? Hilarious.
All very pathetic, is it not?
But perhaps I should take my own advice :
“Don’t argue with idiots; bystanders may not be able to tell the difference.” LOL
“butt scratcher, butt scratcher, BUTT SCRATCHER, Butt SCRatcher….”
You are an unfair piece of shit, Bob Ellis, and you and your dumb arse sycophantic bloke-cronies (THIN ICE, ALLTHUMBS) are worse than any bitch girl group in any elite private school in Sydney.
Spitting of course is a fucking argument. If you were being dragged away to be hanged and you spat at the feet of the King of Siam saying “I will not surrender”, it’s an argument. It’s a projection of will which is all that ever goes on. The left goes very wrong in failing to acknowledge this. If it were a case of our will versus theirs, the argument could be implemented a whole lot more cleanly.
JG knows a lot about a lot of stuff but she is hardly in the company of people who are liable to understand, thereby enabling her to let rip. It’s like Hawkins playing in a sandpit with toddlers who only want to nick his Tonka truck. Get her started on Foucault and then just step back. I dare you.
Reader1, You do me wrong, have I not also been told to fuck off, apologise, been threatened with banishment, told I am a fool, that all I have said is wrong, told not to tell lies?
I enjoy the comments of both JGC and DQ, I am a second to neither or holding the coats of one or the other. I am just in the group circle watching a girlie fight, which started, I think about statements made on another blog in regards to religion followed by the adolescent my god is bigger than your god and each side hoping to convince the other of the error of their ways, while trying to impress the bystanders. JGC obviously at a disadvantage because of the Ellis censorship. The honourable thing for DQ to have done would have been to withdraw until JGC was reinstated with equal rights.
I do not understand the Blog technology, but it seems that DQ was getting JGC’s responses despite the banning is that correct?
By all means let us explore and solve the discrepancies between Marx and the Catholic Church, Lord knows it has not been done before and with a little effort we can have it all cleared up before going home time.
I spit in your general direction.
It’s not all about you, oh sensitive one, the thin ice was meant as a caveat in your case but a conditional one apropos your most recent comment. This is politics. You are always picking sides by default.
You really think Bob is honestly standing on principle in regards to his spitting is not an argument stance? Do you think he would apply this principle so thoroughly if he were dealing with Doug or Tony Abbott? What if Julia Gillard were to come out unequivalently on the side of Bob in this case, would he stand alongside her to valiantly put forth the point?
If these things seem unlikely, what else could possibly be going here?
And I meant Stephen Hawking, not Hawkins. None of you lot have the lid on philosophical wisdom was the point I was making. It’s tiresome to write off the greatest intellectual endeavours humanity has produced as poncy shite.
The comments were up for long enough to make a response. I have not made any further comment on this thread since the appalling attempt by JG Cole to buttress his own posts by deception.
It is my intention never to address him/her directly ever again.
It was not the spitting at issue but the absurd series of “ha ha’s” after he was warned. Some of the now-deleted posts were truly pathetic to behold. It is over.
What has JG done? What is the crime?
Reader1 I do not consider the great themes as “poncy shite” I just do not consider them to be appopriately handled in a forum such as this, when the argument is quickly forgotten and reduced to he said she said. I’m sure, following up on some of the dicussion, the Amis vs Eagleton dispute would have been more elegantly,knowledgeably and wittily disputed than the recent offerings of JGC and DQ, Foucault aside, that were highly derivative, but we all suffer that curse.
My Peter Griffin quote is more in line with you’ve both been on the swings long enough, give the other kiddies a go, sort of quote.
I have a nominal “side”, ie Left Wing, the rest is silence. My favourite thinkers are the likes of Montaigne, Emerson, Thoreau and without wanting to sound “sycophantic” I like Ellis, he opens up a lot in my terms of thinking not always directly but as a sense; and to discover such a bloke on this continent as I did back in 1983 I have always been openly a fan since.
In regards to Bob’s motives, I have been warned once about attributing motive or judging him on personality as opposed to his deeds. Should he have done it probably not, but it is his blog, and name another with his reputation and output, position and standing, that gets down with his friends and enemies in such a direct way, pretty admirable I think.
It’s like real life not everyone you meet is going to be fair or fairminded, not have prejudices, dislike what and how you say things and tell you to fuck off for no apparent reason, much less be consistent in all those of the above in the first place.
I don’t know about Abbott, Gillard and Ellis, I’m still trying to erase the images raised this morning when I read about Howard and Goward, do you think he left his hearing aid in?
Excellent post allthumbs. At the risk of being called sycophantic, I totally agree with your view of Ellis, a man of intellect and true writing talent, who shoots from the hip (or is that from the lip?) and wears his heart on his sleeve. That he is prepared to host such a site and to engage with those of us who care to contribute is a wonder to behold.
Thank you Bob Ellis. May your shadow never grow less.
I’ve never heard of Eagleton and could never enjoy the books of Amis’ father. Nietzsche and Foucault underpin all modern thought and never get any credit for it. The reason I think JG is a woman is because she actually expects others to enter into things with a sense of honest fair play and a genuine quest for understanding. We women make that mistake every time, it’s in our conditioning.
We could discuss all these things if we wanted to. The only thing stopping it is Bob and Doug’s unwillingness to venture forth from the shoals of the ways of this world that suit them very nicely, thank you very much. It’s in no way honourable so stop working you nether regions up into a lather.
I always knew that Howard was a hoary slut. Imagine going Pru Goward. Yech.
I love Nietzsche and have read a lot, most of it in fact. But there is an elusive element to him, no let me put that in another way, just when I think I have him, he is gone and I cannot nail him down. I am self-educated with all the attendant shortcomings that brings with it, and although I cannot follow him without erring, he opens up in me a another way of thinking.
And Zarathustra is the one of the best/worst books I have ever read. And wasn’t it Friedrich who said “rudd is dead”.
Zarathustra was flat out the worst. As he himself said, that was his yea saying period, closely followed on the heels by BGE, his nay-saying effort which was the closest any human being has flown to the sun. His “elusiveness” is a perfect mirror, every clever clod who opines on him reveals everything about themselves.
While not a scholar, I’ve always felt myself to be singularly capable of getting the vibe or the gist of Nietzsche. I read him and loved him, lived a strange ten years and then picked him up again. That second time I came close to weeping with gratitude. It’s the same thing that happened to Foucault. He had nothing to write about, nothing to say until he picked up Nietzsche on a beach on the Riviera. For the second time, ten years after the first.
That’s just a coincidence but who’s to say I’m not a Nietzsche expert. There is no single authority on the man in existence.
Nietzsche’s statement that God is Dead and what flows from it is critical to the understanding of the western world.
It seems to me that he is saying that the secularisation of the west and developments in science (eg evolution, astronomy, biology, physics) has removed one of the linch pins of western civilisation, the God of Abraham, and Christianity (and the west) is floundering because of it.
“If God as the suprasensory ground and goal of all reality is dead, if the suprasensory world of the Ideas has suffered the loss of its obligatory and above it its vitalizing and upbuilding power, then nothing more remains to which man can cling and by which he can orient himself.”
As a result, he posits the idea of the Ubermensch, a much misunderstood concept.
Man must go beyond religion (and the basic level of humanity) and “become what you are” as he put it. We are work in progress, it seems.
The Will to Power is an interesting concept too, that self preservation is a consequence, and not an end, of exerting our strength on the outside world. Not sure I agree with that one; our baser instincts do a fine job of self preservation.
Interesting too is that he is content to leave morality (religion?) to those who need it, leaving the would-be Ubermensch to get on with it. Thus morality, per se, is not bad; it is good for the masses, and should be left to them. Whereas Exceptional People should follow their own “inner law.” I might add that “Exceptional People” rarely need encouragement to do so.
Enough food for thought?
ya see, ya see now, I’m not sure what you are getting at here. FN was in the process of trying to turn Philosophy on its head with a particular obsessive rigour. He was of the opinion that Zarathustra was the well spring of that overturning, a gift, an eternal gift (maybe that was the Syph talking), but I find it hard to believe he was offering as something as wishy washy as abstract painting in philosophy form, for people to make of it what they will.
I am willing to be guided on this.
He was saying what he was saying, it’s just that the context for saying it was extremely broad. He thought it all through in a way that would make yours and my brain bleed. He wanted to be understood but he didn’t want to limit himself. Things may go a bit hazy here and there with all the acronyms and homilies and the seeping in of the personality, but a hell of a lot of editing went into that haziness.
He took the piss out of every European based psychological attitude in Beyond Good and Evil. Mercilessly.
Nietzsche wasn’t announcing the death of God, he was saying that God had been dead for a while and no one had noticed.
But it is a better headline, is it not?
In Doug’s defence, it is very confusing because all of those definitions are perfectly serviceable, each no more or no less than any other and yet the word gets bandied about so lightly. The English language can be a right bastard. Bahasa Indonesia has heaps of righteous concepts that are instantly understandable. Like a word for rubber time. I’ve never bothered to learn it but there was an English guy called Dave who was teaching himself and would show up to the Simple Cafe every day with new phrases. I wish I could remember some of them, they were so funny because they were so delightful. Often involving chickens.
An Indonesian during that same period asked us what “paradox” meant. Now, I would say that it is a concept that contains mutually dependant opposites but at the time all I could say was “contradiction” which Dave didn’t feel was right.
In Doug’s defense?!?!?!”
He questioned not their “serviceability”….. He called them ” “semantic crap”.
and I want to know why?
I have been unable to remove all of J.G. Cole’s dozens of interventions but I warn him/her that five more defiances of the umpire’s rules will result in a lifetime ban, and the technology to enforce it. The reason is that he/she scares off saner contributors with his/her grapeshot layout and crazy baseless laughter.
I am not kidding.
He/she is warned.
Who is the sane contributor? Name one.
Poor old JG is still chucking a wobbly.
You may as well ban him/her for good, Bob Ellis, he seems thoroughly deranged.
I’m considering it.
See above.
Mr Ellis, you’re throwing out someone that quotes Steven’s and offers textual advice?
Tough crowd.
Yep.
To DQ, So my delay in responding to you equals “guilt”, does it?
Just back from a conference in Melbourne and you shall be my very first order of business! How’s that DQ??
In light of where we are, you are asking for “proofs” is not only ridiculous but impossible. Therefore, you will understand my slight chuckle at your absurd request.
All I can offer is this: the participants are four post grad students (and supervisor) undertaking a joint dissertation on Indeterminacy: Language and the Critique of Application. The participants are all PhD candidates in law, psychology, linguistics and cultural theory.
This blog is one of 11 other public/media interface sites chosen for examination.
One of our primary aims is to locate areas of textual/ communicative conflict and outline both the primary and supplementary models of intercourse.
Eschewing jargon I would say to you, as I do to my father, that we are trying to locate the rupture points in language; where, why and how they occur. That is as simply as I can put it.
1. This particular forum was no different to countless others we are examining – it offered the standard chain of claim – counterclaim – evasion and conflict.
Then something quite extraordinary happened; Mr. Ellis’ removal of Cole’s posts (albeit on an unrelated matter) presented us with something quite fascinating and for us, altogether new; an argument between protagonists, one of which was “removed” from the conversation after only a limited access time!
You can surely appreciate our delight at this unexpected turn of events DQ. Mr Ellis’ action presented us with a glimpse of conflict in abstentia!
The full implications, questions, and possibilities are yet to be determined; however, several basic outlines can already be discerned.
Regarding your other matters: to be perfectly frank DQ it really does not concern me whether you think I am Cole, or whether you think Blue Rinse is Cole or whether the whole world is Cole! What matters to us are the reasons you argue-debate-converse the way you do. That being the case our interest in you is not personal, it is academic; critical and abstract. You are a case study, one of 23.
It’s all grist for my mill, if you like
Grist for Blue Rinse’s mill is the argumentative strategies you employed – her specialty? You guessed it DQ, fallacies! 7 in all, 4 of which you used extensively throughout you posts that, whilst by no means a record, is certainly very concerning. Simply by way of quick example look at your last post to me, the one I am responding to right now, I mean to say DQ, how many fallacies does it take to construct a sentence?!?
The remaining two members of our team you have met on this blog and elsewhere. “Katherine” will be looking into what you termed “Cole’s dead heart of obsession”. She smilingly counters by stating that it was in fact you, you DQ, that won that particular prize. After all, Cole is gone without having heard any answer to his/her question. Congratulations DQ! you win the Joseph Conrad Award!!
Finally, “John” will be debating the social responsibility of blogging. His thesis concerns the social/communicative contract that exists, or does not exist, between bloggers.
So, there are my cards DQ, on the table, so to speak.
Familiar, as I am, with your rhetorical strategies I can safely say you will now do one of two things,
Refute all that I say – employing one (or more) of your primary material and/or informal fallacies, or, avoid the issue altogether.
To conclude I would like to borrow something that you have borrowed, once again quite extensively, from Mr Ellis,
Prove me wrong!
Like I said DQ, all grist for the mill
Hello Reader 1, glad to see someone else sticking around for this.
“Fascism” is the least of DQ’s problems!
Very funny indeed. So it is all an experiment is it – like the mice in Hitchikers’ Guide to the Galaxy, seeking the answer to life the universe and everything.
The answer is 42.
I gave my answer to Cole’s question in case you did not notice : it was always fairly obvious,
“Ideology appears vastly overloaded with meanings, and the end result is that it means nothing – ie it is so overloaded that it is semantic crap.”
I can define ideology for you in one sentence :
ideology is the perception of all events and actions through the prism of one’s own set of values, and the imposition of solutions to all perceived problems in accordance therewith.
If that is close to the bone as regards your own study group, I am not surprised.
All that being said, fuck off.
I’ll send around the blackshirts shortly.
So can we all agree once and for all that the Hudson Godfrey technique of accusing others of ideology while positing himself as the embodied nexus of objectivity is fallacious? Because it really pisses me off when he does that.
That is pretty funny, Tom. I expect the Doug Quixote thesis will turn out to be a dense tome.
Come back, JG. Bob feels awful about what happened and anyway, I think you’re back in the clear. The cutoff point was Wednesday.
To Reader1,
The technique you mention in your first sentence is, according to our findings, the single most prevalent and persistently immovable rationalising technique found in these discussions. I contend that the Power principle that lies at the heart of such strategies, highlighted by the presence of a disorganizing tendency; asymmetrical narrative construct, the presence of multiple logical errors (fallacy), the inclusion of extraneous matters and the extraordinary, often comical, lengths one goes to in distancing themselves from their own words, is the root cause of such rationalizing. Another expression is the simultaneous capacity to augment and fragment both their own and their protagonist’s narrative.
Unfortunately the penetrative function of logic; the ability to argue specifically, is greatly diminished.
With all of the evidence so far gathered, and with more arriving each time he writes, it is my strong conviction that DQ’s posts exhibit all of these tendencies. As a group we have collated 14 areas of specific concern.
His post of February 16, 2012 at 5:17 pm was very interesting in that it contained an explicit contradiction in its core, and the question ultimately will be, was it conscious or unconscious (I will argue the latter). This contradiction is so profound Reader1 that it is a perfect example of what it is we are trying to uncover with our dissertation. Look at it. Just look at it. See the way it references itself without drawing attention to itself? See the way it appears oblivious to its expressed meaning? See the way that the post, in its totality, loses all meaning and becomes an unstable jumble of words: centreless, illogical, and purposeless? DQ’s intention has imploded under the weight of its own fictive structure.
I find it quite incredible and tremendously fascinating
His corollary post of February 16, 2012 at 10:32 pm is a little different in its intentions. It seeks to dominate via abuse and ridicule. Its ultimate impotence however is inbuilt and the importance he places on the pompous, for example, “Tom is on very thin ice”, is undercut by its very own pretension and structure as gesture. I mean to say Reader1, what would DQ’s hope be with such a “threat”? What argumentative advantage does he hope to secure with such a schoolmamish intimidation or warning?
Like I said – fascinating.
But this is more Blue Rinse and Katherine’s area Reader1. I am concerned with the space in which “strategy” and “tactics” develop.
I too wish Cole would return Reader. I don’t like our chances though.
I’m afraid we are stuck with the logical errors of the DQ’s of this world.
But as long as they keep writing I have grist for my mill
That is so cool. I daresay the impotence line won’t go down all that well though. And I still prefer Doug to Hudson, who I suspect is a little bit Liberal voting or has been at some time in the past. He is also, like Abbott, a pedophile defender. You can’t say that about our Doug, (even if he never did deny being a wife beater).
Mind you, it wasn’t the Cubans. It was LBJ. Blue Rinse at least needs to make reference to that for contextual reasons.
I tend to reply according to the tone of the comment – thus a polite comment will earn a polite reply.
An argumentative comment may earn something stronger, and blithering idiots get what they deserve.
I am all in favour of polite discourse, but call me a ‘fool’ or some other derogatory term – ‘disingenuous’ perhaps – and all bets are off. The intelligent idiot identified as Tom is on very thin ice. So far I am highly amused at his antics and that of his putative study group; mice are such cute furry little rodents and no doubt they need the funding lest they run out of cheese.
Little do they suspect our surveillance of dissident groups hiding in the ivory towers. Who guards the guards, eh?
As for JG, it is time he had a new alias. May I suggest Boudicca (Boadicea) or perhaps Mata Hari? I think Bozo the Clown is taken.
And by the way Doug Quixote is a construct, a character just as much as Dame Edna Everage, Norman Gunston or Ali G.
Should make for interesting analysis – right up there with a psychoanalysis of Rin Tin Tin or Skippy.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
You’ve just given them a hell of a lot more ammo, Doug.
Tom – send us a link when you are done. I would love to read it.
Our chapters are starting to write themselves Reader1!
It keeps me amused. Tom clearly likes imaginary friends and to pretend to his little “study group”. If it exists at all, bible study is more like it. The pretence to pseudo-science is preposterous. But amusing.
DQ – Do you want to see “preposterous” and “amusing”?
Check this howler out!
First you assert the indeterminate nature of the term “ideology”:
“Ideology appears vastly overloaded with meanings, and the end result is that it means nothing”,
You then ascribe that indeterminacy with a value: “…it is semantic crap.”
Doug Quixote:February 16, 2012 at 5:17 pm
You follow that declaration with your own definition of the word:
“I can define ideology for you in one sentence:
ideology is the perception of all events and actions through the prism of one’s own set of values, and the imposition of solutions to all perceived problems in accordance therewith.”
So? What are we to make of this logical gob stopper?
Is the term ideology “semantic crap”?
Should we therefore assume that your own definition is “semantic crap”?
Or, is your definition the only valid one?
Sorry DQ
Surely you can see the absurdity of your stated position.
Perhaps that’s what you find so “amusing”.
I know I do!
Please keep writing!
You may learn something about yourself
PS. Congratulations!Your post contained only 4 errors.
Well done. You are improving!
See? You are learning something.
I am here all day DQ – classes from 11 till 4. After that I’m free.
Please drop me another line if you care for a quick tut. on displacement, compound error, and the transformative aspects of the Will to Power in narrative constructions.
And again, please keep writing!
My discussion with Cole was to the effect that Eagleton’s List reduces ideology to semantic crap. Somewhere this was shortened to ideology is semantic crap, and perhaps it is if Eagleton’s List is any guide to its meaning.
You demanded that I answer Cole’s question, and when I did, that was attacked as well.
There appears to be a contradiction, but once again it is only apparent.
You tie youself up in knots with your insistence on jargon. Perhaps that is what you should study : the use and abuse of jargon in academic writing.
This is the last time I will respond to you. Best of luck with the studies.
Fictions are immensely difficult to collapse DQ. That is why, even at this late stage, and even knowing your words are being scrutinised, you cannot resist the tendency.
The statements/assertions in this final post of yours are, unsurprisingly, a fabrication. Any close reading of the exchange between yourself and Cole will verify that. However, “close readings” are not (really) given in the blogging world, are they? This is why such loose, inexact, and fallacious argumentation runs rampant.
Which is why, I intend to argue, people continue to argue fallaciously – their words remain, largely, unchecked.
This is the core of our work DQ. This is THE point of the investigation: the collapse of communication.
You are simply a vehicle; and a typical one at that.
I too will sign off from our fruitful conversation with a quote from Cole, a wonderfully poignant reminder of what prompted me to become involved in this argument in the first place:
“The question won’t disappear because I have gone……..nor will it disappear by your inability to answer it.”
Thank you for your final sentence.
Who knows? We may meet again
Any of this you could have said from the beginning. Bringing it up now at the last is in itself evasive.
What is the definition of jargon?
It is my guess that DQ didn’t dare raise these “explanations” with Cole for fear of being cut off at the knees!
They deserve nothing less.
I’m still reeling at the “it is only apparent” rationalisation!
Jargon?
Jargon is language used by those who, like DQ, construct fallacies; shingle speech fallacy.
Come on Reader1 – you appear a most sensible gal – tell me I’m wrong