objection_1837

Submitted on June 15, 2007 - 8:29am.

 Subtitle: substantiate or withdraw.

-=*=-

What exactly is this WD place anyway?

Is it a place where unsubstantiated personal attacks may be made? Seems like it, because Pau1 M0rrella has been allowed to make such; and more times than just this instance from yesterday:

The Sounds Of Liberty?!?!?

«And now Margo; the drum roll, and the final fling of desperation, for all those who venture into, what is the morass of internet propaganda: The character assignation. Phil (defender of the WD ethical realm) has never quite forgiven me, for correcting him, on what were, some dodgy statements. I could, and in fact, I did, point out that I do not appreciate being led on a merry-go-round of dodgy claims and sham links in an attempt to back up false statements.»

[Pau1 M0rrella on June 14, 2007 - 2:22pm]

Note: "for correcting him"

This statement, in context, is unsubstantiated, and IMHO non-substantiable - it is a false assertion.

Note: "sham links"

This statement, in context, is unsubstantiated, and IMHO non-substantiable - it is a false assertion.

Note: "attempt to back up false statements."

This statement, in context, is unsubstantiated, and IMHO non-substantiable - it is a false assertion.

-=*=-

To prove or disprove any assertion requires credible, checkable facts, no examples of which have been provided by this M0rrella fella. This person's motive(s) are IMHO questionable, for anyone wishing to investigate, here's his initial post and some subsequent traffic. IMHO, he attempts to impugn my integrity, as opposed to engaging in substantiated argument over any underlying facts.

-=*=-

enough!

«... Last chance guys. Debate the topic, not the man, or this thread will be closed.»

[Margo Kingston on June 14, 2007 - 3:03pm]

Sorry, Margo (but not too sorry), I cannot ignore the above deliberate slurs. And BTW, I'm not a 'guy,' you may call me a bloke - or a person; a man of the sheople® even - but never a 'guy,' OK?

You published the above unsubstantiated assertions; I'm taking this opportunity to point out that fact, and to request that the author be required to either substantiate or withdraw them.

Your blog; do what you want.

But before you decide, please recall that I see my main task as 'truth/justice/fairness-seeker.'

In this case - as in any other, except keeping in mind that this is WD, I'd like to see truth/justice prevail, and be seen to get a fair go.

A quick check of my records reveals possibly my first eml to you, Margo, on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 09:15 titled "re: Never give up your disbelief." (Root article still on the net, as the link shows.) Here's my eml start:

«G'day Margo,

One thing I haven't seen (doesn't mean doesn't exist) is analysis on the inclusion of E-Timor in the latest so-called "Osama" tape.»

[Phil Kendall to mkingston@smh.com.au]

My connection to WD grew from then, but my conception of it always was as a place of truth-seeking. Well? Yes or no, is it or isn't it?

If this 'substantiate or withdraw' request threatens this thread with closure, then rather than inflicting that punishment(?!), I would request you to please start another thread to feature this post.

Once more: your blog; do what you want.