Bananaman and the evil twins G.J. Cole and Eleanor of Aquitaine have been extinguished. By electronic means I do not profess to understand they are now ex-parrots gone to meet their Maker and are no more; and Jim, alas, is on Death Row and if he again breaks bail he is banished, abolished and spifflicated forever too, like the Loaded Dog if he understands that reference. Tiny Dancer I will taunt for a week or two more and then exterminate like the vermin he is and White Knight and The Shadow, who seem to be the same person, are/is under consideration for like punishment and should begin to express remorse and grovel a bit
I have done this to people who prefer defamation to political argument, who say Labor should go while agreeing, or failing to disagree, with ninety-eight percent of their policies; who say I drink metho (why would I?) around the clock (why would I?) or I am an ‘ideologue’ (monarchist-protectionist-atheist-anti-Zionist-social-democrat-anti-abortionist-Green-Katterite-Whitlamist-Castroite, that well-known ideology), or Bob Brown is a Von Daniken cosmic loony or Bob Carr a failed premier or a bad foreign minister. These are not political arguments, they are lies.
And I do not print lies. Or liars. Any more.
So let it be written, so let it be done.
Or am I wrong?
Name:
If you are banning, as is right, people who prefer defamation to political argument, you should look closely at Marilyn.
I do not defame people, I research and tell the truth.
Like it is clear now today from the head of 4 Corners that their evil little spy is the coward being protected by the AFP while 108 people drowned to protect him.
And Kathy Jackson has proved to be a nutcase suffering paranoid delusions by trying to have everyone in the Federal court sacked so she can rule.
It’s clear from the work by the HSU who have supplied proof to Peter Wicks that she has been rorting on a grand scale, setting up other officials to take the fall and not doing any work for the members of the union going back to 1998 when she set up Jan Armstrong.
Maybe as Bob points out I swear too much but it is tiresome pointing facts out to the very same people day in and day out only to have them come back with the same stupid lies.
“I research….”
Just missed this bit?
FWA Report.
Page 231 para 115. Mr Thomson stated that credit cards were to be used for work related expenses. However, Mr Thomson said that no written document was given to staff about the matter. (Thomson PN 1128 – 1131)
Page 232 para 119. It was not until 19 March 2008, after Ms Jackson became National Secretary, that the National Executive endorsed protocols setting out financial governance procedures (HSUNO.018.0054). The document addresses the use of credit cards, the authority of persons holding particular positions to expend moneys, budget and reporting).
Note the ‘the National Executive endorsed protocols’ bit.
It seems that you, like Wicks and many others are prepared to excuse 95% of the looters and plunderers of HSU ,members money for the sake of the political skin of one Craig Thomson and while they are prepared to throw Williamson under the bus to help “our ALP Craig” you swallow everything told to you by the very stooges who backed him until the recent search warrant.
Talk about the thieves plea-bargaining. Sheesh!
The documents are VERY interesting and we must hope that the clean out is complete and extends to every union rorter in Australia. Maybe we can find out the truth about that $17,000 worth of frocks from the looted AWU money in the 90′s now eh?
Well, Marilyn, at least this is a rational response to my comment.
Could I suggest, without wishing to be too patronising, that you acquaint yourself with the usual and legal meanings of the word ‘defamation’, select some random posts of yours and try to make an objective judgment as to whether you have been defaming people. You may of course have factual proof of everything you say.
And also have a good look at the number of times that you, rather than engage in the debate, tell people to fuck off and that they are morons or fools or whatever other words you choose to adopt.
Bob is on a valiant mission to eradicate lies and misinformation.
He won’t have any of it tarnishing his blog.
I agree wholeheartedly.
That’s why Bob is twice the man of others here and will shortly be apologizing (very soonish) to Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan for calling him a “poofter basher” as he did on this blog several times.
Especially as Senator Heffernan’s good name has now been cleared by police investigating this matter.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-10/heffernan-cleared-over-claims-he-attacked-electorate-officer/4062552
Looking at the attendees named it sounds more like the Sgt Schultz defence;’I know nothing’.
Mum’s the word.
More names;
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/police-abandon-heffernan-assault-matter-20120610-203t5.html
I am. Believe me.
well done! As Fearne Cotton has pointed out over here re her coverage on Diamond Jubilee-themed sick bags (which she was probably told to do by her managers), comment easily turns to bullying on social media.
Small but significant point, JGC. It’s Bob’s blog, innit? Which implies, unless I’ve misunderstood the conventions of ownership, that his jurisdiction is total and that he can do as he pleases with the grazers who meander through these literary fields.
Einstein was a famous exponent of ‘thought experiments’. Here’s one for you. If you had your own blog, would you accept the world’s scribblers bashing, arguing, criticizing, defaming and otherwise having a go at you on a daily and unremitting basis? Put up with it, would you? Accept it as a cost of the blog? Feel ok about it? Let the punters loose a la the little kiddies in Lord of the Flies, to do their worst?
Just asking. Please be careful how you reply.
Or fight back?
I cannot agree about Quixote. I disagree politically with just about everything he writes and he may be somewhat obsessed with who was the real Shakespeare. That said, he writes reasonably well, he argues rationally, and, at times, he is amusing.
There are many on this site, from all political perspectives, who write nothing but abuse and have no relationship whatsoever with rational argument.
And of course, there are those who have no adjectives or verbs in their vocabulary other than ‘fucking’ or ‘fuck”. I am not a prude but believe that there are more effective words in this large and beautiful language of ours.
I don’t see anything wrong with anybody expressing an opinion on this site that somebody should be banned. I myself have suggested that Marilyn should be banned.
Ellis controls the site and he is free to act on these suggestions or not.
I have no problem with Quixote, or you or any of the others whom you have mentioned. They all add to the variety of this blog. and have no problem with you.
Whoops, poor proof reading on my part. Delete last meaningless phrase in previous post.
I dunno. Maybe, he just does not like what he says or the way he writes. I don’t recollect reading anything by this poster that is objectionable but I have been overseas for three weeks.
As far as banning goes, I think everybody should stay except Marilyn.
Dobbing. Takes me back to school: it was definitely girly.
I always thought that John Howard would have been a dobber at school.
It’s Bob’s blog, innit? Of course.
And he has every right to do with it what he wishes. As is anyone else with their blogs. And if there was, as you imply, “the world’s scribblers bashing, arguing, criticizing, defaming and otherwise having a go at you on a daily and unremitting basis?” you are only half right (in the “bashing” and “defaming”) bit. If you want/invite argument (on anything) , then a blog owner shows by these decisions to what extent “argument” or “debate” is welcome. No more than that. The blog owner IS supreme and “argument” and “debate” are thus defined for all by those blog owner decisions.
If only we had a free speech clause to our constitution we would be far better off and would-be totalitarians would be forced to take their political censorship and put it in certain dark places.
There’s nothing you really can do. The attention Bob gives to the comments just draws out the crazies who find an astonishing courage they never knew they had, behind a screen with anonymity.
He should stop replying and posting articles of comments or ‘housekeeping’. It painfully drags down the dignity of a national treasure to daily see him brawling with internet loons, offering grand death threats and all the illusionary bs posture associated with Internet power that most of us got over by the end of the last millennium…
Read the comments, by all means Bob. Incorporate their objections or whatever indirectly in subsequent posts. But dont be naive enought to keep replying and banning, expecting civil, calm dialogue one day. The Internet is mad. Everyone projects their repressed rage onto it, giving them a demonic energy that no moderator could ever tame… Let them fight themselves and have the courage to resist publically engaging them.
I will think on these things.
You can add ‘Patrick Dignam’ to your list if you like. It has gone feral.
All I know is, Patrick Dignam sucks. Great name though, and if I ever wrote a novel I would call the lead character Patrick Dignam. It’s right up there with Judy Prisk in terms of impact. In fact, I would probably have a love affair between the two, in what would be a horror/thriller genre epic.
Saying it “sucks” is a very mild way of putting it, Reader1. It is probably a refugee from Catallaxy, if it is not in fact our old mate Cole, in a “Buck” persona.
In case anyone was wondering,
“Gowl :
Derogatory term for female genitalia often used in the south of Ireland to slag somebody or to emphasize irritation in relation to objects. ”
And I am insulting it?
Well Bob, as I have mentioned previously you have not actualy asked me to give you any policies that I disagreed with (although I subsequently provided 4 out of the goodness of my heart).
Secondly, I state categorically that I am not the White Knight and I’m sure you have ways of verifying this if you so choose.
Nevertheless, you will come to your own conclusions, and nothing will stop you from acting on those. Do as you will. I care not.
Because ‘Patrick Dignam’ is just another identity of ‘JG Cole’ the United States of Tara multi-headed hydra.
Readers may notice that it is the only identity to have emerged on this thread to argue the toss.
Now why is that?
Of course, duly tipped off it may send other alter egos to add to the apparent plurality.
Thank you Canguro and dawsonb for your support.
Bob decides who stays and who goes, but his difficulty is that a cunning troll can disguise itself, and this particular one will often appear sane for extended periods.
It is like trying to ban cockroaches from a dirty kitchen.
On this trainwreck, Ellis, how would you describe your “people skills”?
I will say that I am flattered to have been annexed to the Shadow though unfortunately we are not the same person – does everybody from the Right look the same to you Bob?