Frangipani has a week to escape a life ban by providing arguments, or finding others to provide arguments, why she should stay on after falsely saying I like seeing people hanged and Murdoch deserves free speech and his employees do not, repeatedly and frantically.
Spleenblatt is banned, again, for life for offensive levity, on, this time, the American economy.
Bob Ellis’s Salad Dressing is banned again for life for being, I think, John Birmingham, who lied and lied and lied about me in his blog, saying I applauded rape and Strauss-Kahn was guilty of it when he wasn’t, and being, I think, a creepy Liberal voter in plausible disguise, with a Liberal brother in the Senate, if I’ve got that right, and a pussy-whipped lifestyle and smack ‘issues’. May he never have a day’s luck. He has cost me, thus far, the cunt, a fortune, and I don’t like him.
And so it goes.
Name:
Let spleenblatt stay.
“Offensive levity”: it’s hard to find it done well these days.
(Look to Frank’s nauseous attempts for confirmation)
Oh, and spleenblatt’s continued presence may afford you the opportunity to win back…the 10 grand you owe him.
spleenblatt, Old Tom Gin. Rack ‘em up!
Provide arguments for staying on? Why would I want to do that?
It’s fine for you to call me a fascist, but a banning offence if I point out that what you are demanding is much closer to the definition. It’s fine for you to express outrage at people who condemn people like Thomson without trial, but I’m banned if I point out that you do the same thing on a regular basis. And if you think that’s a lie, go back and read “A Death Deferred” and tell me you haven’t condemned Abbott et al for committing a criminal offence.
Oh, and it’s fine as well for you to call me a Murdochist, a Tea Party type, simply because I disagree with you. Here’s a newsflash: I’ve only voted for a conservative party once in my life, and that had to do with corruption issues, not policy. I will say, though, that you and your acolytes do a great job of driving middle of the road, small “l” liberals away from the ALP. If this is the level of intolerance I can expect from an ALP government, why on earth would I vote for them?
The fact is, I enjoy engaging with people who have interesting and fresh ideas; who are open to discussion and willing to test their own opinions; who are tolerant of differences and of different opinions; who possess ethics and integrity. That’s not you or your little band of disciples.
So, Ellis, you go find yourself another punching bag.
Yeah, goodbye …
Abbott is factually guilty, it’s in his biography. Thomson is innocent, the whore has not been found. I’ve accused no-one else of crimes they aren’t guilty of and have stood up for Slipper, Assange, Strauss-Kahn steadfastly and correctly. I’ve defended Abbott repeatedly when he was falsely or immoderately accused. And Turnbull. And Heffernan. And Beazley. And Faulkner. And Garrett. And Rann. And Rudd. And I know them personally.
You by contrast have said falsely I have called for the hanging of Abbott. It is a lie. And it is a condition of these pages that lies are not knowingly told of well-known people or other correspondents. It is, you might say, a hanging offence. But I have given you a week to explain yourself, or say sorry. And you have chosen self-immolation.
Well, so be it. If you had not been a foam-flecked Murdoch-worshipper I might not have thus proceeded. But you told a lie, what we used to call a wicked lie, and gave me an excuse.
Please behave better elsewhere.
And contemplate your sins.
Frangipani, I asked you a question this morning on another thread, “Rupert’s Biggest Lie” I think it was, and it appears you have not seen it.
Doesn’t matter.
I’ll ask it again.
Tell me 2 quick thing:
(i) What is the cause of your upset when you have been arguing for the primacy of the individual to represent as they wish?
As in,
“Why shouldn’t Murdoch steer and emphasise information? He has his views, and if he chooses to push them in the public arena, why on earth shouldn’t he? Why shouldn’t Fairfax or the Guardian or the Green Left Weekly do the same? This blog is about steering and emphasising information, or, often, misinformation. That’s what free speech and a free press is all about.”
(taken from our “36 Words” conversation)
and,
(ii) Do you see your obvious anxiety (I count 4 posts written after your goodbye) as contradicting, in any way, your arguments over the past 2 days?
Ta.
I think you should stay.
But the call, reasoned or capricious, is Bob’s to make.
A little like Rupert’s when he gave the OK for a Fox contributor, K.Rove, to declare on a Fox program, Hannity, that the Obama Administration had given Petrobras (Brazilian national oil company) a loan of about 2 billion.
It was a fabrication.
Explicit and repeated.
.
.
.
Like I said, Bob’s call.
I wonder what he’ll do - will he follow your argument/rationale over the past two days and cull you?
Or will he, ironically, deny his own freedom for a much greater social/moral one, and allow you to stay?
It’s a toughie alright.
As a Leftie, he’ll do the right thing and allow you to stay.
I’ve got spleenblatt’s 10 grand riding on it!
Of course it isn’t a contradiction. She’s calling for Ellis to play fair. She’s not calling for his freedom to be unfair to be taken away. She’s not calling for his blog to be shut down or removed from his control if he’s unfair.
I think frangipani should go. Staying doesn’t good promising in terms of personal enjoyment.
Whereas I think you, Hydra, should stay. You are obviously having a ball, albeit rather cruelly.
Yes, “Hydra” is appropriate and just think of the good that this blog has done. The self-gratification once confined to a private room - alone - has, thanks to the net been allowed to be shared with hundreds.
Man who hold glossy soiled copy of Naomi Wolf quotes should not speak of “private rooms” and “self gratification”.
Ah ha! l’Inconnu appears: Loyal Defender of All Things Morosophic.
I count three contradictions in your effort to explain (what I see as) frangipani’s contradiction.
Two of which sit oblivious and unassuming in your second sentence.
Good job!
.
.
Hydra?
Too explicit, even for you.
Especially when you’re more wrong that right.
And you chastise Helvi for such things?
Naughty l’Inconnu
From the myriad attributes of Gagool that make the analogy so fitting, you pick one of the least important. I don’t doubt you’re aware of them, and if you list three I’ll believe your claim to be able to count that far.
By comparison the Hydra analogy is admittedly crude - it was off the cuff. I can use one of the names under which you were banned if you prefer but I bear you no malice - and there I am giving you the first of the three.
I shall call your hand l’Inconnu.
Upon what configuration of low and easy cards do you stake so high a claim?
Remember, if I see a name unsurprising, your game is rendered forfeit.
Whilst I wait upon the receipt of your cards, I shall entertain you in the noble art of Numbers.
Listen carefully:
1
2
3
4
5
See dear l’Inconnu, I have exceeded your expectations by a factor unfathomed in your own computations!
Now, to your cards. Declare them.
Remember though…disappoint with a pair of 8’s and you’ll forfeit more than just this hand….surprise with a picture card - perhaps a jack or a queen - and I’ll take you beyond your wildest imaginings and into the world of…..double digits!
I await.
@fedallah - of course the call is Bob’s to make. I’ve never suggested otherwise. In fact, that’s been one of my points.
And I wouldn’t say I’m anxious - I’m just taking whatever opportunity might be left to “clear my name” of being a liar, a fascist, or a Murdochite since I’m none of the above.
Ultimately, though, whether I go is up to Bob; whether I stay is up to me. I find this a very hostile environment for dissent. Bob wants a reason not to ban me; I want a reason to return.
I like you Frangipani.
That’s reason enough for you to stay.
You need to take a leaf out of my book. Treat all Lefties kindly. They should be treated like little cuddly day old kittens. Just like kittens, try and remember that their eyes are yet to open.
Welcome back.
Frangipani,what is a Murdochite?
I hope someone here can help articulate all the sins of Rupert Murdoch in a long list as I’d like to read what evil he has committed.
So far from reading other Lefty blogger sites the Left hate him because of the following:
+ Homer Simpson cartoons on Fox! Yes. Really!
+ Bill O’Reilly spouts rubbish.
+ Glenn Beck sprouts crap.
+ Murdoch runs roughshod over cross-ownership rules.
+ He has been seen kowtowing to China ahead of freedom of the press.
+ He lowers lefty standards, Page 3 girl and salacious headlines to sell papers.
+ Bastard made too much money while Fairfax struggles printing stuff no one wants to read!
+ Sky News too successful.
+ UK phone hacking scandal. He had the temerity to defend Rebecca Brookes and other staff members despite shady past.
+ He’s just plain Evil and Lies all the time. (No examples given.)
+ Didn’t answer question to the satisfaction of Leftie lawyers and by doing so failed to incriminate himself. The evil mongrel bastard!
+ Fox News is too Right-Wing
+ Bastard has too much power and money!
+ Didn’t support Obama when everyone else did.
+ Newscorp take risks and breaks boundaries in order to get scoops!
Fancy that.
+ He controls his journalist through a Svengali telepathic total mind control grip. They do his bidding even if he doesn’t ask them to do anything at all! Such is his monstrous awesomeness and terrifying power from afar.
+ The bastard is now tweeting to all his zombie like employees in secret code for Global Right Wing Domination!
You couldn’t make this stuff up. (Lefties like it though. Its like nectar..)
+ Andrew Bolt is his creation and does his bidding mindlessly!
Thats about it.
What else have I missed?
Please educate me.
It would be pearls before swine Frank.
Pearls before swine.
Frangipani,
You certainly are a strange one!
You ask for “reasons yo stay”. then produce long apologia’s of your previous position,
as if you’d ever left left!!!
You defend Murdoch’s right to construct truth as he sees fit,
why then do you rail against Bob exercising that identical “privilege”?
Were I an argumentative person I would say that, in fact, you are a Murdochite!
You defend the right of (the) man to fashion “news” to the direct contradiction of an objective reality.
Fortunately for you I am not one prone to confrontation.
Murdoch engages in the workings of Power, not business. The business he does comes out of the Power he is able to wield.
You need to be clear as to the order of things here frangipani.
The transaction of Commerce, at this stage of his life, is a dull, fat, disease ridden whore, compared to the ever pert rosebud nipples of Power.
…it’s those almond, coffee, tan, auburn, chestnut, copper, Italian clay, ginger, blossom and light sienna coloured nipples…
…..those melon, bisque, camel,dark sand and bagel, burnt bamaboo and rosewood, wine and carmine, chestnut and rust coloured nipples that are of interest to Rupert (and myself, let it be said).
Wouldn’t you agree?
Nipples of all hues, so long as they are pert, Nick?
Fetching indeed.
Much more fetching than seeing a bloke wearing a bro to flatten his massive moobs.
I disagree with banning Frangipani. He/She argues with the same vigor we all do. On the Murdoch/ABC discussion, I totally disagree with her point of view but she showed great tenacity and willingness to engage and that has to be admired. He/She is obviously attracted to Table Talk for some depth in discussion and more the poorer we would all be without a coss-section of opinions.
I will think on these things.
Coss-section. Not to be confused with cross-section.
Me-Tooism is not a really intellectual (or even interesting) approach.
Frangipani has been a conscience for this blog’s posters - and includes the grovellers and crypto-fascists.
She can come back if she wants to.
But it seems she has flounced off.
I have never favoured hanging, in particular the hanging of personal friends, and she should I believe apologise for saying I am like that.
Bob Ellis: In Forty-four Words. Dec 12, 2012:
“Hard to see how conspiring in wartime to overthrow the second highest official in the land is not treason and Ashby, Abbott, Brough and Pyne are not guilty of it and liable under existing laws to be hanged for it.”
So, Bob, are you going to apologise to me?
Yeah. Sorry.
Well spotted.
Now you apologise to me.
For what? I told no lies. I owe you no apology.
Your decision, your error.
Banned for life.
For what it’s worth, I did not call for Abbott’s hanging, I noted that treason, which he seemed then guilty of, once attracted that penalty.
Goodbye forever.
What a fool you are.
The charge is dismissed.
How could Frangipani tell lies when women never lie?
Let the little Bouganvillea’s perfumes waft skywoods, like children’s Kookaburra in a Tall Gumtree orisons of the school courtyards of bygone times, when this was indeed, still Almighty God’s Own Nation..
Ellis didn’t call for Abbott’s execution?
Shame on you, Bob.
Suspended for life; upon probationary appeal.
You’re a harsh man, Bob Ellis. But fair, I think. Which makes me approach this renewed banning with a certain sense of humility.
Before I retreat once more to my collection of Acker Bilk LPs to contemplate my ignominy, I will leave you with just one more thought on this issue of fixing America.
Quite earnestly, I say to you - who cares about America ? America is a hopeless case, it is beyond repair. It will eventually collapse upon the weight of its own hubris and wilful ignorance and inconsistencies. Or not. It ain’t ever gonna be no Scandinavia, that’s for sure. You should be more concerned about fixing France, in fixing Europe, in finding ideas to rebuild those countries that have fought so hard against American cultural and economic hegemony for so long to maintain the fabric of social justice and cultural heritage and egalitarian economic growth that you are holding up as a model for the US.
Adieu.
Spleenblatt, no probs with you or Frangipani.
All right, Spleenblatt, come back.
I’m reading an FDR book at the moment, and pine for the years in which America nearly became a Sweden before the Supreme Court forbade it, and the Kennedy years when it might have before two of them were shot and another framed with murder.
It was a good America, almost, then.
And it’s one Obama dreams, or used to dream, of resurrecting, with his ‘audacity of hope’.
Come back, Spleenblatt. Nothing is forgiven, but you can have your say.
“And it is a condition of these pages that lies are not knowingly told of well-known people or other correspondents.”
As long as this rule is applied to everyone, it’s fine by me.
And may I add that by all means discuss issues as vigorously and in depth as you wish,but please, please abstain from ad hominems, too many c***s and f**k-offs does not endear this blog to possible new-comers, used humorously or affectionately, then even that’s OK.
PS. It’s Bob’s blog, it’s all up him.
“I just paint what I see.” Bullwinkle.
To be honest, Helvi, I didn’t note Frangipani using too many Cs and FUs, although quite a lot of Newspeak.
I never said that Frangipani used Cs and Fs, or Bs…
Please do not put words in my mouth, scroll past please. Thank you.
PS. again no probs with Spleenblatt or Frangipani.
Helvi, Bob seems to be a bit of “cunt” man, are you admonishing him for using the “c” word on his own blog?
Have you made him aware of your concerns he may be losing customers and gaining new ones?
Yes allthumbs, I have spoken against ad hominems and against using swear words when when not pleased with some poster or other,and as I say above when those words are used affectionately, playfully it’s fine.
The show The Thick Of It, consisted almost totally of swear words, it was humorous, as are Phill and Dali…
PS. I have been brought up not to criticize The Table host.
Freedom of expression… so it’s said.
Consider this…
… and if it’s good enough for the Dalai Lama, then … it’s hard to see what the fuss’s about.
Already too late I’m afraid. I haven’t noticed any contributions of late from the Morman Tabernacle Choir, PLC staff past or present, or for that matter board members of the Janet Albrechtsen Foundation for the Protection of Unattended Goats against Veterinary Surgeons Espousing Feminist Beliefs.
Mormans. Not to be confused with Mormons
I think this place is cool with neologisms and coinages, FW, plenty of fokes lovin’ the pley of langwidge.
If the fat hits, wear it…
Helvi, you should know that
“.. lies are not knowingly told of well-known people.. “,
to protect the guilty.
Paul….que?
Oh of course you shouldn’t ban frangipani, Bob Ellis. She isn’t a fascist and she didn’t tell lies about you.
She is a classic liberal, and her defence of Murdoch’s right to run his papers as he likes is a classic liberal position. She is wrong in my view to say that he has that right; but she is obviously 100% correct to say that handing that riight over the government would be no gain.
You are talking nonsense to say that he government represents the people. It doesn’t. You know that. We live in an oligarchy miltigated by some capacity for electoral protest.
frangipani did not accuse you of calling for people to be hanged, that was a hyperbolic figure of speech, obviously to everyone.
Murdoch is a nasty piece of work; death will soon break his personal power but his legacy needs to be destroyed. frangipani has articulated a classic liberal argument as to why that cannot be done. Many many people agree with her. She is better argued with than banned, if she does not learn something from the argument others of us still may.
Okay, she can stay.
Murdoch has twenty more years of mischief in him.
It would be good if he went to gaol.
@JeremyDixon – your comment got me thinking. Of course you’re pretty much spot on: I am a fairly classic liberal. I have been finding it odd so few people on this blog recognise that. I was going to argue that the lack of understanding speaks volumes for political education in this country (and maybe it does). But it then it occurred to me that there is no real tradition of liberalism in Australian political life.
Genuine liberalism hasn’t been more than a sideshow here for at least a half century: it’s the struggle between the forces of conservatism and the forces of labour that takes centre stage. So perhaps it’s no wonder that, since I don’t fit the dichotomy, I get accused by Bob and some of his supporters of being a right-winger, a fascist or whatever, while elsewhere I’ve been accused on of being a lefty. Hah! Don’t think anyone here would agree with that, and neither would I. But I’m no righty either. It just shows how ridiculous, indeed how shallow, these simple labels really are.
Anyway, as you realise, I came here to this blog to debate ideas. Mill was of the view that one could only find truth by testing what one believed to be true against contrary arguments. The famous collision of truth with error. So, I thought I’d try a little testing, or colliding, if you will.
But for the most part, that’s not what seems to happen here: abuse, insults, stereotyping, yes, but not a whole lot of actually debating the ideas. (And no, simply labelling your opponent as a fascist or a right-winger or an apologist for Murdoch does not constitute debating the point.) I guess I’d hoped for a degree of openness here that I haven’t found. It’s been all “Murdoch, Murdoch, Murdoch,” as though there were no underlying principles to be argued, no broader issues at stake than corralling one press baron.
Incidentally, I have never said the press shouldn’t be regulated in some manner. I just disagree with a lot of people here as to what ought to be regulated. And not a comment to date has convinced me that the government should be the regulator, or that it should use the ABC to get its message out. That’s where this whole debate started. So right now, my “truth” hasn’t even been challenged, never mind disproven.
How does he know Frangipani is a woman?
Do you doubt it?
I don’t doubt it. Neither does my husband.
Birmingham is a smackhead?
Do you know that for certain Bob?
The last smackhead I had any ongoing relationship with was a colleague many years ago. He was a lovely guy, but hopelessly addicted to heroin, and not in control one little bit.
I have two or three memories; waking up early one morning with him sitting astride my bed and offering to sell various sundry possessions to me to raise cash for a hit,
being in a room with him and another mate of his, as they hunted for veins and blood trickled down their arms and legs from failed injection points,
attending his pre-planned birthday party only to find he was in the RAH after an OD,
and never saying goodbye, despite working and socialising with him for three years, after he did a runner to FNQ to escape his circumstances.
I had a number of friends and colleagues from those times who all suffered terribly through their becoming addicted to smack. I hate the stuff, for what it does to peoples’ lives.
It is a syringe of suffering.
I’ve seen it at work as a close relative of mine died of an accidental overdose some years back.
Its insidious river runs through some interesting professions.
A friend of my wife’s has been a Qantas hostie for years, works only first class, and gets to work each day.
He has shot up every day for at least a decade.
Of course, none of us can be certain of the sex of other anonymous bloggers; but there is strong evidence, from claims, admissions, and from the subject, content and style of the comments made.
Bob asked us to make a contribution of dialogue some months ago, and the double blind results were interesting. Bob knew and I knew just who was female and who male, just from that. Every thing you write reveals the real you to the perceptive reader. The anal retentive amongst us might even keep a dossier on the leading avatars!
I may not know where you live, but I know you : “by their fruits shall you know them”. This is wisdom.
“…and I’ll get you back eventually”, eh DQ?
No, that is not a threat.
What does Frangipani think will happen if she reads the detail of the Thomson and Ashby saga’s on IA? Is she afraid her pristine pure Canadian liberalism will be corrupted? I felt a little corrupted reading Ashby’s texts to his Liberal pals as well, just because it is so obvious the level of scheming that has gone on, but I’m Aussie, I’m illiberal and I can hack it.
And while on the subject, why wouldn’t Larissa Behrendt object to being called non-Aboriginal by a freaking Dutchman, especially when it affects other Euro-designated non-Aboriginals and their place in society as second-rate whities? Why is making a point via legal channels so much more freedom inhibiting than sueing the Dutch prick for billions for his outright lies? Would it have been cool with the freedom lovers if she had gone straight for the motza?
This freedom business is very complicated. What would Australians know after all, we have merely built a culture around releasing the shackles of our oppressors, our own former society. (Or at least some of us have made the attempt and gone to join the wild bush horses). Best to listen to the British Canadians and the Dutch. They know best and they are the most interesting people in the world, no matter how many times they repeat the same shallow, irrelevant and entirely out of context “points”.
Andrew Bolt is not ‘a freaking Dutchman’, he is born in Australia, in Adelaide 1959.Does that make him a freaking Aussie, or just another Australian.
I don’t believe that, I’d have to see his birth certificate. Australians come in many hues but I don’t recognise him on any level. Whatever the truth, he has patently failed to assimilate. Which if he’s been here from birth, just goes to show how not of this country he is.
Hmmm. Done a bit of further research and came up with -
“Note: this is intended to try to shed some light on Bolt’s background, as it turns out that there isn’t much on his past in the public record. The contents of this post have not been verified and are presented on a “this is what we think at the moment” basis. They certainly are not intended as conclusive at this time. Further details, and corrections of any errors in the above, would be appreciated”.
Hmmm.
Well, it’s true most of what he says sounds Dutch.
Helvi, we are not trying to link him to Gerard.
Paul, I know YOU are not trying to link him Gerard, but Reader1 and Gerard have a long history on Unleashed/Drum; If the poor bloke says anything good about Norway, Holland, France or Finland, Reader1 comes with outdated Google info trying to proof him wrong: and if he is even slightly critical of Australia, the the hell breaks loose…
WGAF about Bolt! I certainly don’t. He is a chancer who decided right wing demagoguery would pay better than other varieties.
I’m not interested in Bolt, just corrected R1, who says He is Dutch, He was born in Australia.
Reader 1 stop persecuting Gerard or you will upset Helvi and force me to approach Bob Ellis with a proposal that you be banned for life, for racism.
I’m not upset just trying to give you a picture of what’s happening here. Gerard is quite capable of defending himself.
Reader1′
The Donald Trump of Bob’s Blog.