Tracking interesting recent events (may be updated):
yymmdd WD-# Name/ID comment.
070724 1949 Justin Obodie arrives
070720 1951 Craig Warton arrives
070715 1936 Bob Wall's most recent post
070702 1918 David Davis: Shop at IGA in Coles,
070702 1918 David Davis: Yes NZ only has one house in Coles,
070702 1897 David Davis: It's a good one, Margo in Wedging the climate
070702 1897 David Davis: It was in the Age as well in Wedging ...
070628 1837 Geoff Pahoff arrives
070620 HH's Harry Heidelberg 'encourages' refo-invasion
070612 1901 Michael Park arrives
070612 1837 Eliot Ramsey arrives
070610 1884 C Parsons 'leaves' (ID disabled by DR)
070609 1901 David Davis 'drops in' - 7:41pm
070609 1901 Margo Kingston returns - 11:44am.
070607 1901 David Roffey announces implosion, Richard Tonkin resigns
070605 ---- Craig Rowley resigns
070605 1837 David Roffey closes 'meme' theme
070525 1678 Kathy Farrelly arrives
070520 1891 Paul Morrella arrives
Other 'last posts:'
070323 1837 Jay White
070322 1837 mike lyvers
070316 1837 Geoff Pahoff
070308 1847 Will Howard
070116 1799 Roslyn Ross
061112 1734 Hamish Alcorn on November 12, 2006 - 11:22am.
9 comments:
It seems that WD is completely ignoring the issue and those who are on its blacklist.
That's a strange way to solve a problem!
Cheers.
G'day Daniel,
I think there is some good news amongst the bad; at least they recognise that they do have a problem, this being a necessary step in the direction of a possible cure.
a) they've always claimed to need diversity, per se quite laudible as I said at 'webdiary and abuse.'
b) but they over-react; in coddling the right-wing nuts, they are far too often seen to cuddle-up to them; a revolting act (IMHO!)
c) unfortunately, they also seem to like 'playing G*d;' see this from Margo: " ... Since you don't respect my editing, please consider going elsewhere."
Note that her comment was attached to a published post, the 2nd on a theme; both published & so by definition not abusive.
She goes authoritarian, ostensibly to 'protect' some right-wing nut (who was deeply into unsubstantiated denigratory assertions), and in the process disables me, whilst simultaneously throwing 'free speech' out with the bathwater.
Not just BTW, this time-line has a sinister aspect, it documents the "Trojan horse" attack on WD by the refos from the cess-pit refuge that is Harry's blog. MK not only doesn't see it coming, she welcomes each returnee with her gushing-type embrace. Oh, well.
I think preventing a heart attack IS serious Phil.
Lighten up , your superior manner does you no credit.
It's only a blog for heavens sake.
Don't let WD take over your life.
My guess is you are retired, with a lot of time to spare.
Why not do some real good, like help out at a local charity.Much more productive, wouldn't you say.
Kathy said...
"Had a brief look at your blog Phil. All I can say is, "seek help before it's too late" old boy. Lol!
There is more to life than WD.If it hardly matters to you , then let it go. Before you have a heart attack mate!"
1. "seek help" - put your own descriptor to this. Mine is 'silly modern talk;' deliberately insulting, in that it implies one might need some sort'a help - but then, I'd have to ask, what are your qualifications? Further, free advice, especially unsought advice, is (IMHO!) far less than utterly worthless.
2. "old boy" - what would you know about anyone's age; what I am is merely an (ageless) cipher in cyberspace.
3. "Lol!" - more immaturity.
4. "let it go" - see (1) above.
5. "Before you have a heart attack" - are you a Dr? What makes you think I go apoplectic when confronted by stupidity, say? Ooops! Are you one'a 'them' Pahoff talked about? You know, the ones he sent to spy on me?
6. "mate" - no; you're no 'mate' of mine, nor cobber et al.: see (2) above.
7. "a local charity ... more productive, ..." Hmmm. Again, free advice. I don't suppose you'd accept this: I will choose what I do, and where/how I do it?
Now. You can try again: but please don't bother, unless you have something of real substance to contribute. i.e. something which might enlighten, or suggest a better way... something non-trivial; best, something positive.
Sent to spy on you? You took this seriously?
Man, Phil, you need to learn to recognise when someone is winding you up, mate.
It's a funny thing, Phil, the human penchant for saying that: if you present a view opposite or different to mine then you need help.
I had the same experience on WD from one of the ex-principals (?) who claimed to have some training in psychology.
Now I majored in psychology so I do have some knowledge of it, enough to know that, like religion, it consists of a number of conflicting theories and a whole lot of mumbo jumbo.
Phil, the world is full of experts. That's probably why it is so stuffed up!
Run your own race and watch out for 'experts'!
P.S. Does Kathy ride a Trojan Horse perchance?
Knew I was right. A cranky old retired boy, with no sense of humour, Lol! "Winding you up Phil"
Indeed! That anon is one smart cookie.
Leave you all to it then. Pat yourselves on the back for being so knowledgeable, so all knowing, so superior, and yawn, so boring.
You are being wound up, Phil. By a right bitch!
Mate, don't waste your time responding to her. That's just what she wants.
Instead, put your talent into your own blog. I'll help you if you want.
Take care.
G'day Kathy Farrelly, Anon E. Mouse.
Had dinner a guest; urrrp!
1st things 1st; Anon(Mk1), Q: "You took this seriously?"
A1: If Pahoff wasn't 'serious,' then he lied.
A2: But he threatened someone else; is he a) a multiple liar? Or b) not to be taken seriously - twice? Usually, the qualifier that goes with 'liar' is 'filthy.' And, of course, threat is the same as act, when it comes to assault. Sooo, lying or not, looks like Pahoff could be done for assault. Me? I'm easy; just a cipher in cyberspace.
Next, Kathy.
I did say, get serious. You've 'fluffed it' twice. Wanna try again? (Note: Three sterrrikes! - and you're out. Forever, daaarling.)
-=*=-
Now. Anon E. Mouse, Mk2.
Q: "What is criminal about the behaviour of ER, CP, PM or GP, Phil?"
A: Where shall I start?
If CP = ER (who can doubt it?) - then that's a violation of WD ethics. Note that MK applies the 'trust' model; if someone a) doesn't own up(?!) to a nom de plume and b) has a 'valid' eml@ - whatever that may mean; and note: one must have a valid eml@ in order to register - then MK will open her arms to that someone. (Other places, other standards: "Trust is good; checking is better.")
Comment: I term WD's ID-acceptance/personal attack model 'unsafe (internet) sex.' If you don't like the word 'sex,' feel free to substitute 'intercourse.' Or, if worst comes to worst (i.e. the applicant lies - Haw!) - then allowing such a troll to attack legitimate WD members - with largely unsubstantiated assertions - is a direct violation of self-professed ethics. By a) MK in accepting such swine (without proper checks), and b) the swine for lying anyway. Well, we all know that pigs will be pigs.
PM? What should I say, that I haven't said before? You could try 'liar - a lying troll, even,' say. Note that PM alleged 'abuse.' I'm not so sure on that; I 'crafted' that post quite carefully. (But even if so, IF abuse THEN he deserves every bit he gets. And a bit more. A whole lot more, in fact.)
GP has been recently mentioned in digging some dirt ... . Say no more.
OK. I'm supposing that Anon Mk2 has read all of that stuff (if not, why not?) And so far, nothing 'criminal?'
-=*=-
Now, we move to one'a Howard's specialities, 'the hypothetical.'
IF the US, UK and Aus (aka the Anglo/Christian CoW®, recently called Coalition of the Killing) invaded Iraq illegally (IMHO, they did) and IF some band of brigands invaded Palestine illegally (IMHO, they did, starting in '47 and never stopping) THEN, adding it all up with the Israel lobby that infests the US (when not the wider world), we get the wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodle with dag, all mass-murdering for spoil. (Phew! Thought I'd never get there...)
Ah! IF all'a the above, AND someone (anyone?) were to aid and abet (also give support and/or comfort to) the above crimes THEN they'd be equally guilty (under law) - as accessories.
Since mass-murdering for spoil is utterly and despicably the criminal worst, then accessory to any'o that...
Get my drift?
Post a Comment