my last re: Webdiary post ...

 .. and my part in its downfall?

-=*=-

The recent reappearance of Hamish Alcorn (aka the dialectic dilettante) marks an end-point (for me) of a Webdiary journey which began on or before Wednesday, December 11, 2002 09:15 (1st archived eml to Margo Kingston, titled "re: Never give up your disbelief.")

Near the end of that article, MK: "Remember - disbelieve. We are being lied to."

One of my early posts may still be seen on the web, it's in "Osama's back, suitably censored - Opinion WebDiary Archive 2003." Scan for 'peace plan.'

-=*=-

A very important Webdiary waypoint was this one, on March 29, 2006:

HA: "you have a race-based theory of domination..." which (apart from being untrue - aka an HA lie) provided the stimulus for the start of my research into the I/J/Z-plex. Then came M-W; any doubt disappeared. Another HA 'gem:' "the Left today ... guys, just f**k off" on August 24, 2006. As no BTW and IMHO as usual and of course, 'the Left' is usually right - in the sense of being correct, and 'the Right' is most often wrong. And now HA is 'back.' I have accumulated many 'enemies' in WD, skipping over the Jay White = Paul Morrella = lying fraud and troll[1] and C Parsons = Eliot Ramsey = lying fraud and troll suppositions as not requiring any further comment, two 'stand-outs' must get another mention. I have already cited Harry Heidelberg (aka David Davis) and Geoff Pahoff in my 'digging some dirt ... ,' but here're another couple'a quotes.

HH/DD:

«I just don't want to be a slave to my own blog and as you'd appreciate, I'd rather die than become involved with something like Webdiary again.

Literally, I would rather DIE than do that!!!»

[Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 23:40]

On Wednesday, 20 June 2007 at 11:15 Harr'äh encouraged his troops to decamp: "I am sure if anyone wants to participate on Webdiary..." - in other words, off you go, kiddies. And so they did, see my 'webdiary time-line.'

GP:

«May I once again congratulate the IAF ... Their mission was important beyond your imagination.

By their skill and courage the world is safer today.»

[Your Spin. Your Game. on September 22, 2007 - 5:04pm.]

Pahoff was talking about yet another illegal Israeli incursion into a sovereign neighbour-state. The now passing 60 years-long pillage and murder in ex-Palestine and surrounds continues; just who is 'safer?'

-=*=-

Q: Does any of this matter?

A: Well, both yes and no.

We have some real and pressing problems:

1. Information; the lack and bending thereof.

2. Criminality; the effects and our part therein.

3. Death-threats; specifically the greedastrophe®.

In reverse order the greedastrophe, aka CO2 induced run-away climate change will get us, unless we take *urgent* and *effective* action. A book by Monbiot, "Heat," says we (Aus, UK, US) must reduce our per person CO2 output by 94%. No joke.

The criminality is a) murder for oil, aka the illegal invasion turned brutal occupation of Iraq, looks like Iran could be next. Then b) the resource rip-offs in general; see Perkins' "Economic Hit Man." Finally c) the failure of the democracies in Aus, UK, US and Israel, all a-c summarised as the wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodle with dag, all in greater or lesser degree (mass-) murdering for spoil. These are the worst and most criminal of thugs.

The lack and bending of information is thanks to the mostly venal and corrupt MSM (incl. big bits'a the AusBC & SBS - boo! Hiss!) It is this lack and bending which seeks redress in Webdiary. I, for one, am smarter and more knowledgeable; but it appears that the sheople® are neither by very much, if any at all. Recall MK's 2002 lament:

"Remember - disbelieve. We are being lied to."

Dear reader, what's changed, 5 years on?

-=*end*=-

PS Some reference must be made to the Webdiary model. Not all opinions are valid or equal, nor all posters of equal merit. Their "Hail fellow well met!" patter is particularly galling when used on known baddies. Civil discourse with the Devil is probably impossible, and the mere association with criminals is dangerous. As the results show.

My blog is called "¡no more of the same!" for a good reason.

Ref(s):

[1] Oh, alright; one last *smack!* For JW/PM, the following key-words: specious, fallacious & ridiculous. Your pitiful attempts at denying my JW=PM evidence do not even rate as specious, your 'arguments' vis-à-vis inflation and M3 are only fallacious and your overall performance invites total ridicule. By the bagfuls. And thanks to an Anonymous posting referring me to an indymedia item, I now know how to treat trolls: a) identify then b) ignore. Their, their & bye!

[cross-posted]

Jay White vs. justice_via_truth

 Subtitle: an ironic 'thanks' to JW/PM.

-=*=-

«My name is Jay. I have not entered into the argument because I do not like you or what you are about. I would not bother wasting too much of my time on you. You are below me. Apart from this I have had other pressing matters in my life.
Now go and make me some F**KING EGGS!»

[Jay White | Friday, September 21, 2007 at 22:36]

The allegation has been made that:

Jay White = Paul Morrella = lying fraud and troll.

At a rough guess, Jay White has "not entered into the argument because" the presented evidence that JW=PM is unassailable.

(Having dared to present evidence, I acknowledge an essential feature of the 'native' HH/DD habitués: evidence-less-ness is next to brainless-ness.)

-=*=-

«In Criminal procedure, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime needed to convince a jury in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant had to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the opportunity to commit the crime (opportunity). Ironically, motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction.»

[wiki/Means, motive, and opportunity]

-=*=-

1. Means: The means have been discussed in my 'WD ethics vs. Paul Morrella' post. Specifically, multiple examples of three different aspects of illiteracy common to the scribblings of both JW and PM are presented. And there's lots more where those came from. IMHO, the evidence *proves* that JW=PM[1].

2. Motive: was also there discussed, one 'strand' having been Jay White's abject failure[2] to defend his own stand against John Perkins' "Economic Hit Man" thesis[3]. Morrella appeared one week after I highlighted this particular failure of White's.

3. Opportunity: Easy-peasy. Webdiary requires only a) a realistic looking name and b) a functioning eml@. (These easy-peasy requirements are an invitation to fraud; how widespread is a matter for conjecture. See, for example, the somewhat parallel case of the C Parsons = Eliot Ramsey = lying fraud and troll supposition.)

-=*=-

Dear reader. I call myself a seeker of truth; it is my hope that by reporting malfeasance when I find it, more justice will be enabled. As such, I present my 'case' as outlined above and elsewhere, that:

Jay White = Paul Morrella = lying fraud and troll.

You can see my reports, you may decide.

-=*end*=-

PS Why an ironic 'thanks?' It is(was?) an item of faith in HH/DD's, that Webdiary is toxic. I'm now out'a there, partly thanks to JW=PM's efforts. Ironic thanks may take the form of a Bronx cheer.

PPS See this, Jay? "and the broad money supply (M3) is surging at 22 per cent." My comment: Haw!

Ref(s):

[1] The simplest explanation for the evidence showing the many and varied parallels between JW and PM is that JW is PM. By all means, suggest some alternative - i.e. some conspiracy theory, say. (The mind boggles.) But as we know, the alternative to any conspiracy is a f**k-up. And knowing Jay White, he'd be in a f**k-up every time.

[2] A confession of White's:

«I wrote a whole couple of posts ... answering his questions about that fraud book "economic hitman". Funny none of that was posted either. I wasted half an hour of my life putting it together. And I was not even abusive.»

[Jay White | Monday, March 19, 2007 at 11:09]

My comment: Haw again! Not abusive? Pull the other one. But typical Webdiary 'justice.'

[3] Perkins describes the role of an EHM as follows:

«Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.»

[wiki/Confessions of an Economic Hit Man]

Supposition: White's extreme allergy to the "Economic Hit Man" thesis may go a long way towards answering the perennial troll-Q: "What's in it for him?" (Haw the 3rd!)

[cross-posted]

evidence-free = brainless? (Harry Heidelberg)

I hesitate to call you a liar, Harr'äh ...

.. but the hesitation is 'quiet' short (haw!)

-=*=-

«What about taxes? We have had REAL reductions under this government. As far as I am concerned tax reform is equal to TAX CUTS. I don't give a f**king damn about the rest of it. I care about what i PAY and under this governmet I pay SIGNIFICANTLY less.»

[Harry Heidelberg Friday, September 21, 2007 at 06:51]

Since you introduce "don't give a f**king damn," the above quote shows that you know sweet f**k-all about the Liberals and their tax rip-offs.

«The Commonwealth's accounts purport to show that in 2000-01 its taxation receipts fell by 2.2 percentage points of GDP (from 23.5 per cent to 21.3 per cent), In truth, in that year, its taxation receipts (including the GST) rose by 1.6 percentage points, from 23.5 per cent of GDP to 25.1 per cent. Whereas in 1996-97 (the Coalition's first full year in office), Commonwealth tax receipts were 22.8 per cent of GDP, in 2006-07 they are estimated to have been 25.2 per cent (GST inclusive).

When the Treasurer now says that "the Government's medium-term fiscal strategy has a number of supplementary objectives, including not increasing the overall tax burden from 1996-97 levels", what he is in fact promising is not to increase the tax burden as now falsely presented from 1996-97 levels. In reality, Commonwealth taxes are already more than 2 per cent of GDP higher than 1996-97 levels.»

[John Stone The truth about tax]

Someone is lying, and it's not 'just' you, Harr'äh. You *personally* may be paying more or less tax (and who gives a flying f**k), but the gross figures show that the sheople are getting shafted with the wrong end of the tax-pineapple. Your 'side' are liars and thieves, Harr'äh; you going in to bat for them makes *you* a criminal by accessory ( 3 (often foll. by to) person who abets or is privy to an (esp. illegal) act... Hmmm?)

[Cross-posted Friday, September 21, 2007 at 08:03]

Take that, Harr'äh!

The following was designed to be posted here and is addressed to most/all of the denizens over there at Harr'äh's.

all hands to the pump

Subtitle: GP shows he's worth something (at last! - but it can't/won't last.)

Here is Will Howard's story: Catalyst: Ocean Acidification – The BIG global warming story - ABC TV Science.

-=*=-

Q: Why am I doing this?

A1: Because all those arse-holes over there are so disgustingly, psycophantically pro-Lib and so anti-Lab as to be pathological.

A2: Because the Libs, in addition to being filthy, lying, murdering criminals (Iraq), they will not lift a finger to stop the greedastrophe®, they *must* be dumped.

A3: Because they over there are such shits as to move en masse into WD in their foul attempts to prop-up those filthy criminal Libs.

A4: Because they over there are such shits to go so far as to loose the disgustingly undemocratic Jay White = Paul Morrella = fraud into WD.

A5: Because they over there are all such utter shits, full stop.

-=*=-

People of their ilk (i.e. most/all over at Harr'äh's) seem to think that they can survive the coming greedastrophe; to all of them my Q: is both a) just what's in it for them? (Yes, predicated that they're all some part of the rip-offs) - then, and far more importantly, how're they gunna survive, when it all comes crashing down? - Which, as Will Howard can see, is already happening? In short, what'a they got, that's gunna save their horrible, ugly little fat arses? Hmmm?

My tip: We'll all go together, when we go. But there is a difference; *they* over there at Harr'äh's are bearing some'a the blame, for not trying to stop the rot.

peace & justice via truth

Subtitle: lies, hate & hypocrisy

-=*=-

I hardly need to name names; those who have acted against me know who they are, and 'tattling' would bring little improvement. Sadly, it's unlikely that anything short of a revolution will bring significant improvement anyway, so I don't feel too bad about my own so-far futile - but well-meant - efforts. But one never knows; perhaps success is just around some corner, and perseverance may soon be rewarded. (Carpe diem! - thanks, Harvie.)

The actions of B, B & H brought me a new word: enemy. In the beginning, they (B, B & H) set out - so they Oh, so piously asserted - to liberate the tyrant-oppressed Iraqi people (sounded somewhat OK and sucked a lot in), but as the illegal invasion was morphed into a brutal occupation (a state of total domination being required to ensure the eventual theft/control of Iraq's oil), so the target-liberatees were being killed in ever increasing numbers, and rather than being accused of killing the objects of their own (but only feigned) good intentions, the people being pink-mist murdered were relabelled: enemies.

Since I champion peace & justice via truth, those opposing me must share one or more of pushing lies, hate & hypocrisy; so in an analogous way, the people acting against me have picked up the same taint: enemies.

They do this to themselves; I just wonder why. (Tip: What's in it for them?)

To support any form of injustice is immoral, aka a failure to distinguish between right and wrong. There is a single principle of morality, namely the "Golden Rule - Do unto others..." That, along with the "Silver Rule - Do no harm," are based on reflexive altruism, i.e. what's good for one's self is good for all. To claim this morality as the property of some religion is nothing short of bizarre. (Take that, one!)

-=*end*=-

PS My runs are 'on the board;' for example looking in my submit-archive, I count 8 "no killing," 43 "stop the killing," 59 "Blix" and 98 "no war" then finally 372 "murder for oil." In addition and NB: I have not contaminated any child-mind with lies, nor inculcated the fear of death/g*d into any such innocent and highly vulnerable person. (Take that, two!)

It is the US of A leading the immoral charge, with the Israel lobby pushing; these two combined give USrael. Then the current UK and Aus regimes are in it too; all together giving the wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodle with dag, all in greater or lesser degree (mass)murdering for spoil. These are the worst and most criminal of thugs.

We can actually see it happening on a daily basis; look no further than Iraq or the former Palestine.

These thugs can do what they do because they propagandise the sheople®, the sheople being demonstrably more interested in flat-screen TVs (say) than peace & justice via truth - why/how else could each of B, B & H have been re-elected? The handmaidens of the pushed-paradigm propaganda are the corrupt & venal majority in the MSM, the whole show being run for the benefit of a tiny fat-cat getting obscenely fatter minority: the kleptocracy®.

I don't think it goes too far to say that anyone not opposing these swine to the best of their ability are the true haters.

-=*=-

One last thing: humanity stands before a possible, becoming ever more probable CO2 caused climate-crash, aka the greedastrophe®. It will be no good, as we all drown or burn or both, to say "Der - I didn't think!"

The time for action is now; we must start as we mean to go on, and rid ourselves of the enemies of humanity. We have our voices and votes, say it out loud: "NO MORE WAR!" - and vote all the lying warmongers out.

Ref(s):

[1] lie2 —n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. —v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive.  give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [POD]

[2] hate —v. (-ting) 1 dislike intensely. 2 colloq. a dislike. b be reluctant (to do something) (I hate to disturb you; I hate fighting). —n. 1 hatred. 2 colloq. hated person or thing. [Old English]

hateful adj. arousing hatred. [POD]

[3] hypocrisy n. (pl. -ies) 1 false claim to virtue; insincerity, pretence. 2 instance of this. [Greek, = acting, feigning]

hypocrite n. person given to hypocrisy.  hypocritical adj. hypocritically adv. [POD]

[4] truth n. (pl. truths) 1 quality or state of being true. 2 what is true.  in truth literary truly, really. [Old English: related to *true]

truthful adj. 1 habitually speaking the truth. 2 (of a story etc.) true.  truthfully adv. truthfulness n. [POD]

[5] justice n. 1 justness, fairness. 2 authority exercised in the maintenance of right. 3 judicial proceedings (brought to justice; Court of Justice). 4 magistrate; judge.  do justice to 1 treat fairly. 2 appreciate properly. do oneself justice perform at one's best. with justice reasonably. [Latin justitia] [POD]

[6] peace n. 1 a quiet; tranquillity. b mental calm; serenity. 2 a (often attrib.) freedom from or the cessation of war (peace talks). b (esp. Peace) treaty of peace between States etc. at war. 3 freedom from civil disorder.  at peace 1 in a state of friendliness. 2 serene. 3 euphem. dead. hold one's peace keep silent. keep the peace prevent, or refrain from, strife. make one's peace (often foll. by with) re-establish friendly relations. make peace agree to end a war or quarrel. [Latin pax pac-] [POD]

[cross-posted]

webdiary impropriety?

 Subtitle: surely, it's a matter of fact.

-=*=-

The character-assassination of this writer continues apace over at Webdiary.

They appear to have little if any propriety at all.

From their own statement of ethics:

«1. If you don't want to use your real name, use a nom de plume and briefly explain, for publication, why you don't want to use your real name. Please send me your real name on a confidential basis if you choose to use a nom de plume. I will not publish attacks on other contributors unless your real name is used.»

[Webdiary Ethics]

The piece concludes with this:

«12. Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors.

Guidance Clause

Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.»

[ibid.]

Lay-dees an' gennel-men! I've had enough.

I claim that attacks mounted by the Paul Morrella ID and published by Webdiary are exposing me to "risk of substantial harm."

If Paul Morrella is not the real name of the poster deploying that ID - and there are what I consider to be incontrovertible grounds to think that it isn't, see WD ethics vs. Paul Morrella where I outline my proof that Paul Morrella is not 'Paul Morrella' at all, but is a fake-ID creature exhibiting defining hallmarks of Jay White (this deployment being considered a conscious and premeditated fraud), then that poster is forbidden by Webdiary Ethics from having "attacks on other contributors" published, something which began with Morrella's very first post, and continues, even after I've been banished, i.e. I may no longer defend myself on that site.

As if that wasn't enough, the management of Webdiary - Roffey speaking for Kingston - now appear to this writer to verge on slander[1], libel[2] if not defamation[3] (wha'do I know?) themselves, insisting that I'm in some sort'a violation of their ethics or rules, since I insist on challenging the veracity of the Morrella-ID. (The situation appears so bad, going on so long, that one wonders if Webdiary is not proceeding from some sort'a prejudiced state; Morrella certainly exhibits one such.)

Well, naturally enough and obviously, I don't see the Morrella issue Webdiary's way. My raison d'être in blogging is justice via truth; one of either Paul Morrella or Jay White (or both) must be fake-IDs; any one of those combinations is in itself both an outright, premeditated lie, as well as being in full violation of Webdiary Ethics.

The truth of the matter is what I seek; if Margo Kingston wants to see that as a challenge to her authority[4] rather that my seeking for truth, then she can stick her authority where it fits best.

Installing Margo Kingston as the ultimate arbiter of the truth? How can that work, if she won't allow truth-seekers to seek - or when a lie is discovered, to speak?

-=*end*=-

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]

[2] libel —n. 1 Law a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation. b act of publishing this. 2 false and defamatory misrepresentation or statement. —v. (-ll-; US -l-) 1 defame by libellous statements. 2 Law publish a libel against.  libellous adj. [Latin libellus diminutive of liber book] [ibid.]

[3] defame v. (-ming) libel; slander; speak ill of.  defamation n. defamatory adj. [Latin fama report] [ibid.]

[4] authoritarian —adj. favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority. —n. authoritarian person. [ibid.]

‡WD, trolls & my rationale

Subtitle: when only the best will do

-=*=-

By extrapolation, I expect most people to strive to do their best. Objections to this thought immediately appear; and so we get the 1st caveat (from 'Bringing up Baby:') "Yes, but!" - it depends on the objective.

Cast of characters: WD, trolls and me.

1. My prime objective is to seek justice via truth.

2. WD's objectives are specified on their site, but include these three points:

2a. «Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent»

2b. «... banned several people from Webdiary when I am satisfied that they are not commenting in good faith, but rather to destroy the safety of the space for the civil debate I'm seeking to foster. ... invited people who believe I have breached the code to complain...»

2c. «Be truthful. Don't invent 'facts'. If you're caught out, expect to be corrected in Webdiary.»

3. Trolls' objectives are known largely only unto themselves, but by inspection obviously include disruption, diversion and if possible destruction, among other far-darker - possibly criminal - motives.

-=*=-

To cut a long story short, I'll divide the Morrella invasion into three parts; initial (up to MK's 1st intervention) middle (steadily declining productivity from me) and end (with me ejected from WD.)

1. The initial attack phase can be seen here. The threat was immediately recognised and responded to. BIG mistake. One of the 'tasks' for a troll is to 'hook' victims; had I but known... Some 'learning by doing' was done.

2. The mid-phase. As noted, this was a period of declining productivity for me, with steadily rising frustration. During this period Morrella skirmished with other posters; it wasn't 'just' me coming under attack from the vicious troll. But, 'nuff said.

The transition from initial to mid-phase was my 1st banning by MK. In total, I was banned a) from a thread, b) for a week (different poster, similar ethical clash) and finally c) forever. There were some email exchanges.

On 13Jun'07, I wrote:

«G'day Margo,

...you may wish for calm; the victims of the 'murder for spoil' parties can only dream - if not [be] already pink-misted *dead*.

Since you are our 'founder,' and establisher of the WD moral/ethic guidelines, you might care to review the 1st appearances of Paul Morrella, starting with 'Not all things are always'_1891.

Look closely at that 1st post, then my careful answers and finally the slurs that he then spreads.»

After no satisfactory reply, also on 13Jun'07, I wrote:

«Did you not look at Morrella?»

From Margo:

«No. That's the past, before I came back. I'm looking to the future. I'd like us to start afresh.»

But starting afresh with the troll was not an option for me.

3. The end-phase. I serendipitously observed this:

I Agree Gareth
... by Paul Morrella on August 29, 2007 - 11:32am.

«I will though say that if one had of started accepting ...»

[WD ethics vs. Paul Morrella]

Upon recognising the "had of" as the spoor of the perpetrator (perpe-traitor?) Jay White, it was only a trifle, a matter of less than a morning's work, to assemble the proof. Q: Now, what to do with it, in the face of "The Edict?" A: Go public, my only real - and ethical - choice. The material mirrored here was 'posted' to WD under the title "NFP WD ethics vs. Paul Morrella" on thread 1837 and copied to HH's. Note that NFP is a WD term meaning "Not For Publication." The rest is now history; all over but the 'paper work:' this epilogue.

-=*=-

Conclusion:

1. Naturally, I claim the 'high moral ground.' I have consistently striven to pursue my prime objective, i.e. justice via truth. It has been my contention all along, that Morrella was not "commenting in good faith." (2b) also says one may complain, (2c) says detected lies are to be exposed. The deployment of a fake-ID is both unethical and a lie. Basta! I stand on my record; some of my 'contested' posts are on this blog. Readers may decide.

2. Also naturally enough, WD claims the 'high moral ground.' But: in allowing the attacks of Morrella in the 1st instance, WD began it's own downward slide of ethics. WD's denying that Morrella might be a fake-name was a critical turning point. Morrella's presence meant both 'safety of the space' and 'civil debate' were endangered, when not outright excluded.

3. Readers may decide, on the morality or otherwise of White/Morrella.

-=*=-

Possible lessons: Having intercourse with criminal types can be dangerous; a) one may be drawn down to their level, and b) one may become contaminated. These dangers apply to both posters and forums.

Facit: Trolls should be ejected by management immediately upon detection; if suspected by posters they should be a) flagged as such then b) totally ignored. Posters should obviously be allowed to voice their suspicions. That's freedom, ain't it?

End: As things stand, the troll won. But not without assistance.

When trolls win, everybody else loses.

-=*end*=-

PS Updated from here.

David R: ... And Phil wasn't banned for asking questions on those, he was banned for continually and persistently questioning identity when Margo had specifically said that she had checked, was satisfied, and would not publish any further comment on the subject, and for repeatedly accusing Margo and other editors of hypocrisy and other misdemeanours for sticking to that ruling. You can only insult Margo so many times before she's had enough.

Comment: How curious.

From an earlier draft: What a curious statement. Extraordinary, really: "Any attempts ... will be deleted." Hmmm. Just how free, the speech in WD? However, in the light of the info presented here, the statements by DR/MK now require clarification/correction.

The draft was referring to DR's relay of MK's statement that PM=PM. Which I have shown to be false, i.e. by proving that JW=PM.

Kindly note: Roffey seems to be continually hiding behind his Mistress' skirts, and says in so many words, that I was banned for declaring that the Empress has no clothes.

And possibly into the bargain, I may have accused the sorceress' apprentices of being unable sort their arses from their elbows?

Dear reader, can you work out what's going on?

In clear text, isn't it time we get some truth?

(i.e. what WD really knows about PM?)

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] rationale n. fundamental reason, logical basis. [neuter of Latin rationalis: related to *rational] [POD]

The 'nasty' email Richard alluded to?

NFP on the beach (for FR & RT's eyes only)

Subtitle: [redacted].

Tuesday, September 04, 2007 08:38

-=*=-

I don't 'do' film. The last 'movie' (Ami-speak; spit!) that I went to voluntarily was "Fatal Attraction;" I was invited as part of a group. I and another walked out in the middle of the "murder in the bath" scene. I determined then, that Hollywood was (admittedly only partly) a risk to mental health. And no tiny risk. It formed for me what the Germans call an "Ah, ha!" moment; that the human mind was incapable of sorting fact from fantasy, when presented via audio/visual. And, of course, it is how the kleptocracy® program the sheople®; if only they, the sheople, could/would walk away from their mind-f**king boob-tubes!

(An aside, for the "It's only a movie!" self-deluders. The human audio/visual system evolved to trigger the "Fight or Flight" response. When confronted by a sabre-toothed tiger, there was no time for popcorn. It is, in fact, a recognised and integral part of 'the movie experience,' to trigger adrenal rushes.)

Anyway, to my point: the most effective APECalypse (thanks, JJ) protest, IMHO, would be to turn Sydders into the image as portrayed in the closing scenes of "On the Beach."

-=*end*=-

G'day Fiona, Richard.

Can you explain why not one single person from WD has responded to my "NFP WD ethics vs. Paul Morrella?"

I draw your attention to this bit of so-called WD ethics: "Be truthful. Don't invent 'facts'. If you're caught out, expect to be corrected in Webdiary."

JW/PM, as CP/ER are blots on the world, but are not just 'tolerated' by WD, they are encouraged - seems to me. To the point of MK assisting PM's attacks on me, say. So much for a 'safe environment.'

False IDs are lies forbidden by WD rules, and the wicked and deliberate distracting that these two get up to are the worst that could happen to any so-called 'debate.' (And I point out the 'accessory' construction, "person who abets or is privy to an (esp. illegal) act." [POD]) So, 'prey-tell,' why no response?

[planned for cross-posting]

WD ethics vs. Paul Morrella

Submitted on September 2, 2007 - 2:19pm.

 Subtitle: the Paul Morrella cipher is a deliberate, premeditated fraud.

-=*=-

I have concluded that Paul Morrella is not 'Paul Morrella' at all, but is a fake-ID creature by Jay White.

Time-line:

1. My post 'one way or another - Parsons et al.'
... on May 13, 2007 - 5:17pm.

Quote:

«... Jay exited because he too, claimed to have been 'censored;' although management at the time informed him that the level of abuse in his posts (attempting to 'explain' his disapproval of Perkins' "Hit Man" thesis) was unacceptable. (Why? That is, why couldn't Jay post his explanation in non-abusive terms? Why not, indeed.»

2. Not all things are always as they may seem
... by Paul Morrella on May 20, 2007 - 9:09am.

Note the time-difference; 7 days.

Morrella denied 'murder for oil' by 'simple' assertion, but never provided sufficient (if any) evidence to substantiate his claim(s). So the tone was set.

Quote from Morrella's 1st post:

« ... and I paraphrase: "the time for arguing the theft of Iraq's oil is over". Certainly, it is not over, if every person must accept this is as the unquestioned truth.»

Quote from Morrella's 2nd post:

«... you ask me to "exclude oil theft" as a motivation. It is not possible for me to comply with this request; at this time.»

Note the immediate cop-out.

-=*=-

Intermezzo: Yes, I have an axe to grind. PM attacked from the very 1st post, later even admitting to premeditation and gave reasons. I could possibly have handled all that - but my defence efforts were hindered by direct interventions from WD, especially MK.

«Paul Morrella: "No, the current cycle began, when you so rudely attempted to pick on people, whose only crime was to express their freedom, and write something you did not agree 100% with. That the 'facts' used where less than obvious (mostly just plain wrong), only showed you up, for the bully you are."»

No further comment on this except to highlight that it clearly reveals the intention to attack the person.

-=*=-

3. Skip a few days of many other unsubstantiated assertions, slander by innuendo and other such niceties - involving several other posters; i.e. Bob Wall (gone absent), Ian McPherson (gone absent), Craig Rowley et al.

«David R: Remorseless ridicule of people's ideas is allowed ... While we're on the subject, Margo has this to add: "I am satisfied that Paul Morella is Paul Morella. There will be no further discussion of this matter on Webdiary. Any attempts to do so will be deleted." She has also ruled that any comments casting doubt on the identity of other Webdiarists will not be published.»

The statement that PM=PM can no longer stand, for my evidence that JW=PM see Appendix.

-=*=-

Comment: By deploying the 'Paul Morrella' fake-ID, Jay White has perpetrated a fraud[3] on WD, certainly on the WD audience and possibly also on the WD management. (See 'David R' statement above, implicating both Margo Kingston and David Roffey.)

-=*=-

I expect a timely remedy[4] both for and against this foul fraud.

-=*end*=-

PS The proof offered is only a part of what could be discussed. Reactions from referees include some incredulity; it is thought that JW has had/is getting help. (Team Jay, anyone? Hello, GE?) The fact that the troll prefers unsubstantiated assertions to presenting any sort'a proof and the propounding of naked opinion on a take-it-or-leave-it basis are both redolent of the HH-refo modus operandi, where JW now whiles away most of his blogging-hours. Then the recent absence of PM from WD coincides with a similar absence of JW from HH's. PM's 'returning' post, 'The Collapse That Never Was' fits well to JW's known proclivity for stocks and share trading. Note that the latest go-around, this time with Craig Rowley, has Craig complaining about endless PM clichés. And so it goes, but I really couldn't give a rat's about chasing this troll around anymore.

As before; this troll contributes as good as nothing to debate, far more to its hindrance.

PPS By rights, this story could go to some independent arbitrator - MEAA, perhaps, since WD Editorial Policy skites about the Media Alliance Code of Ethics for Journalists. On the other hand, "ethical journalists" is an oxymoron, given the near 60 years of dis-information we have been served up - by the AusBC, say - and that's just in my lifetime.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] deceit n. 1 deception, esp. by concealing the truth. 2 dishonest trick. [Latin capio take] [POD]

deceitful adj. using deceit.  deceitfully adv. deceitfulness n. [ibid.]

deceive v. (-ving) 1 make (a person) believe what is false; purposely mislead. 2 be unfaithful to, esp. sexually. 3 use deceit.  deceive oneself persist in a mistaken belief.  deceiver n. [ibid.]

[2] dastardly adj. cowardly, despicable.  dastardliness n. [origin uncertain] [ibid.]

[3] fraud n. 1 criminal deception. 2 dishonest artifice or trick. 3 person or thing that is not what it claims to be. [Latin fraus fraud-] [ibid.]

[4] remedy noun (pl. -ies)
1 a medicine or treatment for a disease or injury: herbal remedies for aches and pains.
n a means of counteracting or eliminating something undesirable: shopping became a remedy for personal problems.
n a means of legal reparation: compensation is available as a remedy against governmental institutions. [Oxford Pop-up]

-=*=-

Appendix; some evidence:

Case A: the erroneous use of "had of" in place of the correct "had've."

'target#1:'

1. Details Craig?
Submitted by Paul Morrella on September 1, 2007 - 5:45am.

« ... and had of acted accordingly, ...»

2. I Agree Gareth
Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 29, 2007 - 11:32am.

«I will though say that if one had of started accepting ...»

3. Hi Scott
Submitted by Paul Morrella on June 30, 2007 - 8:29pm.

«If you had of as a child, applied for a Rolls Royce, ...»

'target#2:'

4. The ICC is neither here nor there in this instance
Submitted by Jay White on March 1, 2007 - 4:09am.

«However, if Milosevic had of survived and ...»

5. wrong on so many levels
Submitted by Jay White on February 23, 2007 - 3:01am.

«Imagine if the US had of been successful in giving the Shah these weapons?»

6. It seems the Iranian economy is whatever you want it to be
Submitted by Jay White on February 7, 2007 - 2:23am.

«... I would have questioned the result was if Kerry had of won.»

-=*=-

Case B: the erroneous use of "ones" in place of the correct "one's."

'target#1:'

1. They Always Fall Back On The "Morals"
Submitted by Paul Morrella on July 28, 2007 - 8:16am.

«Rather than pretend to ones self, ...»

2. Destroying Economic Growth Destroys The Poor
Submitted by Paul Morrella on July 3, 2007 - 1:49pm.

«It is the fear of losing ones place ...»

'target#2:'

3. Bit of this and that along with world domination
Submitted by Jay White on March 8, 2007 - 6:19am.

«And by guarding ones interest does not mean to steal.»

4. The only US born "black flag" operation carried guitars
Submitted by Jay White on December 19, 2006 - 2:13pm.

«... no other option outside of changing ones entire outlook.»

-=*=-

Case C: the erroneous use of "quiet" in place of the correct "quite."

'target#1:'

1. I Too Like Disappointing
Submitted by Paul Morrella on August 10, 2007 - 12:22am.

«Quiet similar in fact, to the current Iranian leadership.»

2. Part 2
Submitted by Paul Morrella on July 31, 2007 - 6:00pm.

«and I have never quiet understood it.»

'target#2:'

3. Lobbying will always be with us
Submitted by Jay White on March 6, 2007 - 12:23pm.

«The thing is most lobby groups are quiet legitimate ...»

4. Projection is common propaganda
Submitted by Jay White on February 2, 2007 - 9:26am.

«And is now quiet fondly remembered.»

-=*=-

Facit: One case on its own, not much at all - but multiples over all three? So much coincidence is neither possible nor credible - IMHO, as usual and of course. But all the same, QED.