slander by innuendo_1891

Submitted by phil kendall on May 24, 2007 - 9:25am

 Subtitle: "Outside, matey!"

-=*=-

Of course, I could completely ignore Pau1 M0rrella's apparently vicious slurs, but there's a principle involved; so now is as good a time as any to 'make a stand.' (Q: What's 20cm long with an arrow stuck through it? A: Custer's last ...)

The other day Jenny Hume wrote:

Phil Kendall has issue with what he sees as moral relativism. But it is interesting, is it not, that when non believers want to justify their atheism, ...

When I raised objection to her associating my name with "non believers want to justify", Jenny said any relatedness between the sentence containing my name and the word 'justify' was accidental - i.e. not meant; her words:

Phil Kendall, Oh for heaven's sake calm down. Scurrilous, allegation, undermining your work, proproganda, pushing a barrow. Spare me the dramatics. But if we want to talk about barrows, your own gets a pretty good go around here.

Yeah, right Jenny, I believe you; thousands wouldn't. Note the lack of attention to detail ("proproganda"), the overall haughty tone, then the attempt to lay the red herring: "But if we want to talk about barrows, your own gets a pretty good go around here."

I've said it before in this exchange but it's always worth a repeat: this is an opinion forum, as opposed to a Darlinghurst courtroom.

I have the highest regard for WD - after all, daaarlings, why else would I contribute here?

Then: whatever I say is either a report of what I've seen somewhere; in the (venal!) MSM in particular or the blogosphere in general (I'd never qualify for membership in a typing pool, however much I'd like to be surrounded by lovelies - ooops! Married...) - so pretty-well anything I relay to this forum is 'copy_n_pasted' from some source, or is my own 'single digit' opinion.

So. Any person, either in our wide-brown or anywhere else, is welcome - encouraged - to challenge anything I report - after all, I am a declared seeker of truth; my opinions are my own but may be contested in fair discussion.

Note that after Jenny's tirade, she then deliberately closed discussion on any possibly more important themes in my post; Jenny: "I do not intend to engage further on this issue with you Phil." And so she avoids, amongst other themes, my assertion: "In this sense, the attempted recruitment of minors [into some religion using fear of death, say] is exactly as Dawkins charged: child abuse."

-=*=-

Now we come back to Pau1 M0rrella.

What's your problem, Pau1?

You asked a question, I and two others posted in response, discussing various aspects of the theme as it developed, and posing questions to you in return. The entire 'package' to-date can be seen (should open in a new 'window') here: Doing the Pau1 M0rrella 'oleaginous twist.'

I formally take exception to your remarks, Mr M0rrella, specifically these two (among your more general slurs): a) that [I] "might like to start by telling some" and b) [any] "attempted deception."

Note that as well as zero substantive responses to requests for more detail on his allegations (say: "the theories are in fact mutually exclusive"), Mr M0rrella now makes toadally® undocumented (as IMHO unfounded), allegations directed at me.

Kindly justify your slanders[1]; chapter and verse, Mr M0rrella, or totally withdraw them - plus a public apology. No 'please' required.

It's your word against my reports, Mr M0rrella, you have made the allegations, time to put up or shut up; prove your (IHMO filthy, slimy) allegations, or it's "Outside, matey!" Well, of course it's a joke (pacifist). There's nothing one can actually do about such scurrilousness except expose it to the light of reason, fairness and decency.

-=*end*=-

PS Does it matter? Should I care? Well, obviously. Those who defend the current 'pushed paradigm' do so for reasons of their own; I've suggested either a) ideology (IMHO of the blind and mistaken type) or b) there's 'something it it for them;' better said, as in the case of the MSM, say: venality and corruption. In plain Aussie-English, (b) could be paraphrased as "Of course they're on the take, mate!"

I have directly challenged various people 'in here,' two come immediately to mind. Both Will Howard and Ian MacDougall have been asked to prove it ain't 'murder for oil,' both point-blank refused. In addition, in more general terms, I've posed my 'domestic siege' analogy; why was it necessary to completely destroy Iraq to depose Saddam, and continue the horrendous destruction, including now perhaps millions of hapless dead Iraqis, looong after Saddam was deposed and eventually lynched? Now we have Mr M0rrella showing up, demanding that I prove that the US intends oil-theft (Haw! What else?) I have put up various reports, see the record. Mr M0rrella has refused all (reasonable!) requests for detail. As Faux-News might put it: I report, dear readers, you decide. Tip: "Follow the money!"

PPS So, let's have it please: as I said to Pau1 above, "time to put up or shut up;" a specific invitation to all, to challenge any report in all of my posts.

PPPS Why this from Mr M0rrella, why now? Could it be that I've been just that bit too effective in my reporting? Hmmm...

PPPPS The final question; the biggie: do we (the sheople of our great and lovely wide-brown) really wish to live in a world dominated by lies, cheating, theft and mass-murder? Truly - apart from you'n yours, natch: in a world without love?

Ref(s):

[1] slander —n. 1 false and damaging utterance about a person. 2 uttering of this. —v. utter slander about.  slanderous adj. [French esclandre: related to *scandal] [POD]