Reader 2 and The Shadow have been banned for life, for telling lies.
Slowly, the level of the respondents on these pages is lifting.
Certain Housekeeping Matters (8)
Leave a comment ?
Table Talk: Bob Ellis on Film and Theatre
Published by Boban Services Pty Ltd. ACN: 001516945
About Me
Name:
Bob Ellis
Location:
Sydney,
Australia
You may be right, Bob; this blog attracts a better class of troll.
I ask you, where else do the trolls seek to cross-examine the sensible posters and the host, use invective when answers are not forthcoming, and get away with it?
Well, this time I tend to agree with Doug Quixote.
Of you bounced all posters who told lies, you’d be perpetually staring at a blank sheet.
…we better all be careful, we do not want to banned by Bob..
Oh dear. And I was under the impression I had twenty-four hours to defend myself (if I was so inclined).
“You have twenty-four hours, till 8 am tomorrow”…blah blah blah. You did write that this morning, did you not Bob?
Your latest lie of many Bob. But I fear not the last. Your blog relies on the lies you constantly tell.
Your defamatory comments about pollsters, claiming they deliberately falsify results for unknown reasons, with zero proof beyond your own imagination.
Your ridiculous over the top predictions about the end of Abbott and the Liberals. When was that suppoed to be again? All concerned still going strong despite your wet dreams.
And don’t get me started on your fantasies about Craig Thomson or Julian Assange. It’s quite morbid as to how you constantly predict Assange’s death with such utter certainty.
And of course your latest effort this morning, asserting false facts about my home life that you have no possible way of knowing.
But here you are banning me for daring to suggest that voters simply do not care about party fundraising sources, when faced actual issues that affect their day-to-day lives.
This simple observation (and a fair one I feel) is enough for you to brand me as a ‘liar’ and thus worthy of your wrath. The hypocricy on display here is truly something to behold.
I recently saw someone here describe your writing style as ‘satirical’. Personally though, I find it to be delusional and typical of one who has lost all touch with mainstream society, and indeed, reality at large.
It’s been an interesting month wallowing in this corner of the Leftist fringe. I did wonder what I would find, stepping out of the mainstream blogosphere, into this unexplored wilderness.
Some of the commenters here I have found to be quite sensible, regardless of the differing opinions we may have.
But you unfortunately Bob, do not fit this category.
So I leave you to your cosseted world of fantastical conspiracy theories, your sanity slowly slipping away as the gulf between events as they are and events as you wish them to be grows ever wider.
Perhaps I may drop back in briefly for a quiet chuckle at your expense in the(increasingly likely) event of Tony Abbott being elected PM at the next election.
But until such time, I gladly bid you adieu.
Your Last Post is worth answering.
If I had libelled O’Shannessy he would have sued me. He has replied to me before, correcting something I got wrong. He has not done so this time, suggesting I am right, and he has changed the rules of engagement to better the Liberals’ chances.
Abbott and Pyne are now in terminal trouble over Slipper and Pyne, probably, facing gaol.
Assange’s lawyer Jen Robinson heartily approves of my efforts, calling me in an email yesterday ‘wonderful’.
I am sorry I said you lived with your mother and was astounded you owned, at 27, a house of your own. Did she buy it for you?
It is a lie to say there is no Gillard Factor and a party’s leadership does not impact on its vote. I cite Menzies, Whitlam, Hawke, Howard, Keneally. Saying they made no difference to their party’s vote is not an opinion, it is a lie.
It was not a ‘fantastical conspiracy theory’ to say John Kennedy was killed by the Mafia and the CIA, both of whom he had threatened, nor that Craig Thomson was framed, nor that Peter Slipper was framed, nor that some Americans want Assange dead because Palin, Perry, McCain, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity said they did, nor that Rupert Murdoch fabricates lies against his political opponents, the House of Commons said he does. I have to the best of my belief given utterance to no other ‘conspiracy theories’ except on occasion that Brutus and Cassius had a hand in the stabbing of Julius Caesar, a no longer controversial hypothesis.
There is no indication I am ‘delusional’. I write speeches for significant politicians, Kamahl and Margaret Throsby who would not utter them if I were.
I am not in the ‘Leftist fringe’. I am a Monarchist, an anti-abortionist, a Katterite protectionist, a defender and patron of boat people and tall Tasmanian trees, an atheist, a prizewinning screenwriter, a prizewinning playwright, a prizewinning columnist, a biographer of Chifley, Hollows, Lord Florey, King O’Malley, Lord Olivier, Sir Noel Coward, Arthur Miller, Ernest Hemingway, the young Shakespeare, Captain Cook, Paul Howes, Bea Miles, Dame Pattie Menzies, Sir Henry Parkes, Les Murray and the right-wing Norman Lindsay, an early defender of Lindy Chamberlain and a co-writer with Sir James Killen of a film about Old Parliament House. ‘Wallowing in a corner of the Leftist fringe’, am I? How dare you.
How dare you.
Lies upon lies upon lies.
It has been very unpleasant to know you. You are an ill-equipped and purblind propagandist and a fool.
And you cannot even, it would seem, spell ‘hypocrisy’.
Goodbye forever.
Well, on that basis, the fact that you have not sued the many people on this site who have made derogatory statements about you must mean that those statements are correct.
Faulty argument from you, Bob.
I did not sue them, but I did reply to them.
O’Shannessy, thus far, this week, has done neither.
Now we see why you bounced him/her/it.
Frustrating, aren’t they?
You know what Paul. I just don’t read them unless they reply to me directly. Everyone is replying to Bob because it’s his blog. There’s only so much bullshit you can tolerate when the line between arguing a political point and bald faced antagonism is crossed.
I get the sense that there seem either to be a lot of trolls here or they’re given shorter shrift than elsewhere. I don’t see the sort of outright abuse and flaming of others that you occasionally get in the YouTube comments for example. But nor does it seem sanitised as if by the watchful eye of the ABC’s moderators. I find myself thus wondering what Bob sees that we don’t if anything. I wonder why anyone ever sits down to write comments that are so completely bilious as to disengage debate and communicate nothing expect perhaps a sense of their own inability to communicate with others.
There are a lot unhappy, lonely and frustrated people about, the blogging has become their life and they take all their anger re life’s disappointments to these blogs. When it gets too hot they move on, and sometimes come back under a new pseudonym.
Then you have the political trolls, the bullies, who just like the fighting, they almost fall off their perch if you happen to treat them nicely.
The last part in particular I find to be true.
As is often the case some people delight in the kind of argument that seems to all outsiders to be acrimonious whereas in fact they’re on the best of terms and could only be so strident because of that.
The definition of “troll” extends beyond the simple “flamer”.
It can traverse a variety of meanings, and as with most things this meaning resides with the individual.
I am well aware of your meaning, I have seen you toss it about many times.
Let me offer you mine: I see trolling as the steadfast refusal to argue a point, I see trolling as defending that refusal with the infantile rebuttal – “troll”, I see trolling as dropping a statement, a point, a position and washing your hands of it, I see trolling as the expression of uncritical attitudes, I see trolling as synonymous with sycophancy, I see trolling as the spreading of lies and propaganda, I see trolling as bullying.
Let me offer some examples:
You ask, for instance, for verification of one’s position on, say, DSK, in an effort to unravel an argument. No such proof is offered. That is trolling.
You propose a valid and valuable notion of “justice”. Another respondent dismisses that notion with a puerile platitude. That is trolling.
You ask for an elaboration of what could prove to be a most bountiful, intelligent conversation, and are met….with a cliché. That is trolling.
And it is trolling for this simple reason: It shuts down discussion. It reduces all possible avenues of interest, learning, and comprehension, to the level of a kindergarten cognition. It is, ultimately, a stark expression of disrespect for the contributions of others.
You see? One man’s flamer is another’s crayon chewer.
Let me offer this as another view toward this issue: notice that the only people who toss the term about are those being questioned on their argument’s, or lack thereof.
And notice that it’s the same people all the time.
Do you need more proof?
Gauge the responses.
The Failure of an Argument
(i) Any argument worthy of its name needs to do several things. The most important would be to clearly define the terms (under discussion) so that from the outset all principals are in accord with the premise or thesis. Without such definitions or interpretive, communicable, accords, the propensity for misunderstanding or ambiguity is not only huge, it can also utterly eradicates any likelihood, of a sensible, adult, discussion following.
The purpose for such rigour would appear obvious: the intention is to allow the argument to follow a simple dialectical course toward, not just an understanding or appreciation of the subject under discussion, but also allow for the logical/imaginative free play toward areas “yet” to be discussed or in advance of the subject at hand.
cont.
Patrick,
Much as definitions can be as varied as the number of people who supply them the matter at hand is not my definition but Bob’s.
If we’re to say that free speech is the lifeblood of democracy, and that bad speech should be answered with more and better speech then we must try to draw the line differently as you suggest. Perhaps rebuttal that is read by others apart from the respondents has value. But if it were your site and you were inclined not to provide people with the opportunity to disseminate deliberate and egregious distortions, untruths or downright lies in your name, then what would you do?
I think at some point it gets awfully hard to respond to everybody and you probably find yourself wanting to be the flame to so many moths and so few butterflies.
Which is just to say that people don’t have to be sycophantic to be polite and respectful in the way they engage. As Helvi rightly points out and I reflected upon above we can even be strident at times without being given to complete and utter intolerance.
My comment was to sympathise with the difficulty of moderating rather than support the banning. I’m highly disinclined to any form of censorship at the best of times, but I was at pains to say I took no interest in these people’s opinions then or now.
Perhaps your comments were best directed to Bob?
Hudson,
Look carefully Hudson, these people that are banned for “political” reasons, have told no “lies”. There is nothing (that I can see) explicitly disingenuous about their posts. They are simply expressing an opinion as worthy as anyone’s.
Especially Bob’s.
Why?
Because it is Bob himself who excites these sorts of polemics! That’s why we (they) are here. They come to joust. It seems a little precious of Bob, to say the least, to say quite surprising things and accept no rebuttal! That Hudson, is not a democracy nor is it a place of learning and engagement.
It is uni-vocal nightmare. It is just these sorts of engagements that solidify the antagonism between Right and Left. Rather than learn from Bob, who Eleanor referred to as our Australian Man of Letters, they leave bitter and disdainful; confirmed in their bias. And as a supporter of the left it is with exasperation that I look upon such encounters.
What it means Hudson, in substance, is that this blog is the Left version of Catallaxy.
A most unsavoury comparison.
(i) No, my post was to you. It was to provide you with a definition of “trolling” as I, and my circle of friends, see it. And it’s our definition because it cuts to something more important that juvenile flaming; it speaks to the way people communicate.
(ii)”but I was at pains to say I took no interest in these people’s opinions then or now.”
I believe this sentiment of yours to be an error of judgement. To know the “enemy” is to listen to their perspective; grievances, bitching, abuse, and most importantly, their legitimate critique.
Vanity often denies us a view of our own frailties.
Others are not so blind.
THAT is the value of Conversation.
And THAT is the reason why i say that “trolling”, my definition – the inability to engage critically – is far worse than any of your definitions.
One can avoid or dismiss a crayon chewer, effortlessly.
One cannot avoid however, the Questions.
Well whether I read every comment on a blog where I occasionally pass comment is as much a function of time as inclination. I’m not inclined to spend time on negativity. Which is just to say that depending on the blog and its author the negative comments may come from opposite directions.
Occasionally a debate can be enjoined that is worthwhile and indeed I am veteran of many. But not always and not in my view with some of the more stridently opposed inhabitants of the blogosphere.
If I cannot rely upon Bob’s good judgement then I think it can be said that words were exchanged between people who lacked the good manners to withdraw when it was made clear that their invective was unwelcome.
A blog is always the worse for any intolerance shown in that regard, but equally baiting the host seems like asking for it.
Bob, both these chaps have been worthy combatants; they have engaged the arguments and forced you to both clarify and expand your own position. They fulfill, and will continue to fulfill, given the opportunity, the role of conversationalist, polemicist, interlocutor – dialogue, dualogue, trialogue.
Welcome them back and demonstrate to us all your love of discussion and polemic AND your disdain of sycophancy.
Welcome them back.
No, no, no, they have told many lies.
Do not pretend I do not know that you, too, have been banned for lying.
Please go away.
I have told no lies Bob.
Not a word, or syllable, or phoneme.
Don’t disrespect me with such scatter-gun twaddle.
If you wish for me to go away then simply cite a “lie”.
Do it.
Otherwise leave me be.
I agree PD, I find myself missing some of the banned posters. I don’t think it’s good for blog if it gets TOO tame…
Maybe it would a good idea to just delete the most offensive posts but give the commentators a chance to stay if they so wish.
Tame? This TAME?
I have been told I rape infants and dead koalas.
Give me a break.
I heard you’d machine-gunned a kinder class.
Yes, but they were all disabled Aborignies and expendable.
I was let off with a warning.
The amazing thing is you have benned me and I am the only one who knows you and has ever considered you a friend.
Cest la vie I guess.
I have now been told on authority that work is in progress to bring our mutual family home if that means anything to you.
I wonder though what the grubby bunch dining and wining in the gallery felt about the spray from Clive Palmer about their repulsive shove away bill passed today.
I don’t think Bob’s personal relationships with his posters end with you, Marilyn.
I Like Clive Palmer.
It was because you said, “there is no cause, the fascists always win”, that’s all. I went down a similar path once re Murdoch. I was only joking but I won’t be doing it again.
But one of the sites you linked to spoke about how Thomson’s supposed credit card slip had “211″ written on it in biro, which was the code when phoning the merchant company for authorisation and means “this card is not valid”. All this was observed and deduced by one amateur blogger, not Michelle Grattan.
Un-freaking-believable. You’ve done some good work, Marilyn. What is Clive Palmer up to?
. A Manifesto .
Freedom of speech requires that we do not interfere with another’s exercise of free speech; it does not require us to provide a platform for those opposed to our views, nor does it require us to sit and listen to absurdities and lies, nor does it require that we publish those who seek to oppose, criticise and belittle us.
I too tend to think that there’s a line to be drawn that is totally up to the host between tolerating a constructive clash of ideas and facilitating a destructive one.
Yesterday and elsewhere I tried and I suspect failed to make an impact on such a situation, and I came to the view that in some cases you have to accept that negotiations with brick walls can be fruitless.
Yep, don’t feed the astro turfing trolls.
I want to understand what makes them tick. Why can’t we psychoanalyse them instead of Assange? And I don’t mean by applying meaningless adjectives like “bully” or “insecure”. One of my favourite memories on this blog was forming a posse to round on allthumbs, pounding him into submission and forcing him to accept that LBJ killed JFK. No, I mean tracing back the chain of events – who are they, what are their circumstances, what groups do they belong to. Why do they do what they do? Are they indicative of larger trends? If we can’t get our heads around Patrick Dignam and place him in a wider context, how do we expect to take on the Swedish right wing junta? I’m doing my bit. I’m reading The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Clunky writing style but so far raises some interesting issues regarding the separation of power and place.
New evidence has come to light of recent past, a long lived white whale with a taste for blood after the disappearance of a captain and boat crew from Nantucket, was seen swimming of the coast of Hyannis Port. Some say it was a lone whale, some say it was a pod, some say it was dolphins up from Florida.
..maybe it wasn’t a white whale but a lone white male.
The emotional scars are too deep for me to pass comment Helvi. I still sometimes wake up screaming and at the foot of my bed see Albert Thomas winking at me, at me Helvi, at me!