.. no prizes for guessing what with: BW.
-=*=-
No, not the "bath water," but Bob Wall. And the "baby's" no baby, but rather *THE TRUTH*.
It's no secret, but Bob was(!!?) one'a WD's 'bright lights' - but unfortunately for Bob, his light was an 'on the hill' sort, not so much Labor but nevertheless a bit 'leftish,' and very definitely 'seeker of truth.' In short he was a 'links Wizard,' digging up the dirt on 'the right,' not because he was a 'rightie hater' (hater wrong word; see following) but because most'a the dastardly deeds 'going down' (Ameri-speak; spit!) - are being done by 'rightie types' (aka Usrael; see following) and these 'rightie crims' being aided and abetted by 'rightie trolls' - speaking about in WD, that is. Note: we never hate people, just the nasty (criminal!) things that some do - like the US plus Israel, 'melded' by M-W's Israel Lobby into a composite termed USrael, mass-murdering as they so often do, actually to steal resources (oil, land, water), aka murdering for spoil. It's a crime! Of the Nuremberg variety. Looping.
Long story short: Bob's been suspended for three months, for, according to Roffey, in "a number of interactions," making "increasingly strident demands [of the moderators] in emails etc."
Wow!
Given that Bob's contributions were mainly bucket-loads'a truth, usually documenting the USrael-composite's filthy crimes as mentioned, you'd have'ta wonder what WD has against the truth? Or against Bob?
2008/03/17
throwing the baby out...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
The constant banning cycle at WD clearly suggests major management dysfunctionality.
It's a shame because, potentially, it could be such a good blog!
Cheers!
Agreed, David. Though Bob Wall seems to consistently offer no more than a series of links to people he agrees with, banning him seems silly. If people don't want to bother clicking his links or reading his posts then it's easy to ignore him. Same goes for their other bannings: no one forces you to respond to someone's post and, again, it's easy to ignore people you don't want to debate with. The whole banning/moderation thing seems a little silly to me.
David, your own blog hasn't fallen into abuse since you moved from Seeking Utopia (with moderated comments) to Dangerous Creation (with unmoderated comments). Webdiary wouldn't either, IMHO, as the...what would you call it?...."culture" of the blog is not one of abuse. The debates on WD would move quicker, be more interesting and encourage more participation from readers if they dropped the moderation - and the bannings.
Looks like Dylan would very much like WD to be Harry Heidelberg's Club Chaos.
I don't go much on 'Anonymous' comments; if you've got a name please use it, like "regards, xx" at the end. Moderation is switched on to avoid trolls - like KF.
Then, why should WD look like HH/DD's? That failed...
Correction: *my* moderation is switched on to avoid trolls.
WD uses moderation as a power-trip.
«Not necessity, not desire - no, the love of power is the demon of men. Let them have everything - health, food, a place to live, entertainment - they are and remain unhappy and low-spirited: for the demon waits and waits and will be satisfied.»
- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
It is even easier to make fourth rate propagandists run away, Dylan.
Anon, most blogs I read that take comments don't employ moderation. There are plenty that end up banning trolls and many that have a registration system of some sort but there aren't many that have the sort of comment registration, daily posting limits and moderation that Webdiary employs.
As for the 'Club Chaos' comparison, well, why not? When Harry's blog was up and running the comments came quickly, you could have an (almost) real time debate with another commenter and the 'conversation' moved along. From the perspective of a Webdiary commenter in a European time zone, there is a limited period where I can post comments on threads where I can assume that they will be posted within a half hour or so. What this means is that any time after about 2pm anything I post will be sitting in a line waiting for someone in Australia to wake up. It could be sitting there with ten other comments that say the same thing but - because they are waiting on moderation - I don't know this. The debate on Harry's site was a 24 hour a day thing. Webdiary has - at least for me - something like a 7 hour window each day where someone in Australia might be awake and moderating comments.
Webdiary could stand to learn a little from blogs like Harry's.
Why do you think 'that place' could be interesting, Dylan?
I mean after all, WYSIWYG:
1. A lying, religious bigot & self confessed child-abuser,
2. A Liberal apologist who still maintains, after as many as 1.3+mio Iraqis have been murdered (that's just since '03; could be over 2mio since '91) - pink-mist murdered on the way to the world's most massive theft, that "The price was worth it,"
3. A Zionist who thinks that the IDF's mass-murderers (60+ years' of slaughtering Palestinians for their land and water) are doing a great job,
4. An irrational anarcho-capitalist idiot who denies 'murder for oil' but can't disprove it (let's face it, no-one can),
5. A management whose tyrannical style is reminiscent of Stalin, who not only tolerate the above but encourage them - at the expense of honest posters,
6. Cowardly 'moderators' who haven't heard of (or ignore) Nuremberg, who not only implement the tyrants' orders, but chat with filthy trolls,
sooo, do tell... why would anyone in their right mind put a foot in that toxic-waste dump?
Phil, you are going to have to spell it out for me because I can't quite grasp exactly who you are talking about here.
A child abuser? I must've missed that comment.
Look, Webdiary is not always interesting. A lot of the discussion on there seems repetitive and merely collections of 'talking points' from whatever side of an issue people are coming from. But - like I said - it's easy to ignore them. But there are some really interesting comments and posts on there from time to time and I think that's why I stop in from time to time.
G'day Dylan,
What part of 'cesspit' don't you understand?
WD concentrates on opinion, although opinion is like arseholes; everyone has one. (Not my cliché!) And as "Love does not butter the Pumpkin," so opinion is singularly useless, if it ignores underlying facts - or comes from liars, as it sooo often does in WD.
Facts must be distinguished from lies; WD does nothing in this field.
Propaganda must be identified & neutralised, again WD does nothing in this field.
Does nothing in these fields, that is, but actively encourages some liars and trolls, aka propagandists.
AFAIK Phil you weren't banned from WD, were you? I was under the impression you left of your own accord (I imagine for the sorts of things you are mentioning). Why not be the voice to debate the commentators you disgaree with?
Be the dissenting voice that "neutralises" those you think are on the wrong course.
(And thanks, BTW, for engaging my comments here with good nature.)
G'day Dylan,
sorry to 'disappoint,' but I was, in fact, 'ejected.' (Essentially, for resisting MK's authority, with 'pike;' where pike was a troll. Not so sadly for me, but to great jubilation for some.)
If y'wanna know why, just scroll backwards through this blog, started *exactly because* of problems vis-à-vis WD.
As far as the «the dissenting voice that "neutralises,"» far better'n me have tried it - and failed.
In a nutshell, WD claims to be a 'safe-space' for debate. Not my experience, mate; far from it.
One could live with differing opinions; spice of life'n all that. But when some lie, not 'just' lie but use lies to attack an 'honest seeker of truth,' (or deploy lies/propaganda in support USrael crimes, say) - that's when it "hoerts auf," mate. (BTW: My negative reference to USrael is supported also by previous posts on this blog.) Back at WD, all appeals to 'higher authority' failed, but I have to add one thing: I do not suffer fools, neither gladly, nor in any other way. I think we're in a crisis, and "Jolly Hockey-sticks WD in-group welcome, all others piss-off" is not just harmless/foolish, but criminal.
In plain text: running an 'open' blog is one thing, but running a biased, *discriminatory* one a total other thing, especially when the bias *empowers* liars.
My mistake, Phil. Shows how much attention I pay to the politics of the blog, I guess.
G'day Dylan,
pardon me (or not; it's a 'free' country) - if I say I suspect a bit'a disingenuousness[1]? Major parts of my side of the story can be read on this blog, but I'm only a small part of the whole. I could quote from various actors at various times, but the effort - well, it'd hardly be worth it. Just this one, MK: "i'm not up on all the history on this, and don't want to be." Those are the words of a dishonest broker, smack in the middle of the attack on me by a filthy, lying troll. Boo hoo? No, but no 'safe-space' either - ganz im Gegenteil.
For WD's side, you'll have to ask them; they run an inscrutable closed-shop (did I mention tyranny?)
But for any 3rd side, you can find out more - that is, if you don't already know - from the various DD/HH crew that were running their own interference. See my time-line for some tips. You know where these remnants herd.
More WYSIWYG: WD ejecting Bob is a disaster (for honesty), the latest in a line. I don't hold much store in coincidence; one only needs to see who's 'out,' and who's 'in' - and who's telling lies.
You've said it yourself; moderation is a drag and banning - when used to suppress honest voices - is a crime. That's where WD is today.
There's always a motive, so what's in it for WD?
[1] disingenuous
adjective not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
DERIVATIVES
disingenuously adverb
disingenuousness noun.
Phil, are you against banning or merely against the banning of people you agree with? If its the latter then you dont really want free and open discussion, what you desire is free and open agreement with you. In which case, if the moderators did what you liked you would support them. From reading the comment on WD it appears that Bob was trying to do just the same thing.
I dont like moderation on WD as I think it is a very flawed model especially if the moderators are commenting on the threads they are also moderating.
I dont think Bob should be banned, nor Elliot Ramsey or even you for that matter.
G'day Phil, thanks for your support.
I see you have a couple of people commenting on the matter - and the usual tactics are being employed by the usual suspects. "Disingenuous", yes. I thought your banning would have been well known, and, if not, there is the recourse, as you pointed out, to a little research. At least Dylan did not do a MacDougall and state something with absolute certainty which could be proved wrong with a quick Google.
That little bit of credit aside, for someone to be passing judgment on the work of others where his own work has been shown to be more propaganda than an attempt at honest debate, and who runs when his motive is revealed,is a bit rich. But not unexpected.
As to Warton - making an assessment based on the "comment on Webdiary" whilst ignoring comments you, Phil, have made on the matter is SOP. And not indicative of an earnest and honest attempt to ascertain the facts of the matter.
Opinions with such unsound bases have little to commend them.
G'day Craig w,
I don't suppose I could ask both you'n DK: "What's in it for you?"
DK asked something like "Why can't WD be like HH's?" (The actual words: "Webdiary could stand to learn a little from blogs like Harry's.")
Well, I turn it around: You'n the rest of the HH-refos fled WD, why? Then, why come back?
Further, HH's failed - for whatever reason. I have occasionally dropped in over there, but I'm by no means an habitué. Then, I was mostly out'a the country when it 'blew up.'
But it seems to my casual inspection, that HH's didn't survive Nov24, but even *before* that, the movement back to WD was 'on.' Again, why? - I'm again assuming no coincidence.
My point: if you liked HH's so much, why not go back? It's still there you know; you could hire it or buy it. There was never any compunction, come & go as you please, no moderation etc etc. If DD's tantrum is permanent, he can sob into his beer all alone, who cares?
To answer your 'ban' question, you've totally missed the point, I'd say. FYI I'm primarily a truth-seeker, as I assess Bob is, and with the other dear departeds like IMcP, DL, DS and me long gone, truth-seeking is as good dead over at WD. Yair, CR keeps at it - but a bit lonely, he's starting to look. So much for 'diversity.' (Haw! - What are the CWA gunna bigot about - and to whom?) However, it's not just that 'the left' have been decimated; lying trolls etc are made welcome.
Re: Bob's banning. You've read a lot into a little, IMHO. Bob is(was) one of, if not the best. Smacks of utter madness to me. But not Bob's. (During the drafting of this I see that Bob (g'day!) has commented along the same lines.)
I repeat for effect: a lot'a truth-seekers are gone, liars abound.
You mention 'Elliot Ramsey,' s/he/it is widely *recognised* as having been 'C Parsons,' and 'spinifex' before that. On a banning-order technicality, CP/ER is WD-unethical - and a 'perfect' troll to boot - who the moderators just lurve to cuddle up to. Yuk!
WYSIWYG; why are liars encouraged, and truth-seekers banned?
That's the current WD-reality.
So once again: there's always a motive, what's in it for WD?
G'day Phil, thanks again.
Life would be much easier if people were honest, but some can't help themselves.
I notice MacDougall still thrashing about trying to justify the opinion he formed on the Iraq war 5 or so years ago, despite all that has happened and all that has been revealed. The obstinacy of age? He sacrifices sound methodology to do so - grabs at material that suits him without applying proper analysis and this leaves himself open - as shown today by Craig Rowley (careful Craig). MacDougall's approach is intellectually dishonest.
Honesty in any form is fast disappearing from WD as you noted. And their problems are of their making.
Just out of interest "Eliot Ramsey" is aka Patricia K. Kennedy, and one other I can't recall, plus aka C. Parsons, Chris Parsons, Spinifex and ... if you Google up his latest WD handle along with NY Indymedia you'll find he used the name "Penny Wong" for one of his sockpuppets.
Bob, why don't you and Phil get together and set up a team blog, one that addresses serious issues (which would preclude WD)!
I'm sure Wall/Friedham (sounds like a law firm) would quickly make a name for itself with its no-banning, no-moderation, no-trolls, no-lies style.
Why not?
"You'n the rest of the HH-refos fled WD, why? Then, why come back?"
Speaking for myself, I think 'fled' is a bit of a stretch. Why come back? I think I've already mentioned that there are a few interesting posts and comments from time to time and that's the attraction.
My point: if you liked HH's so much, why not go back? It's still there you know; you could hire it or buy it.
Yes, it's still there but the comment box isn't open last time I checked. Many of Harry's posts were photos (especially in the last months) so it was the comments box that was the main attraction. The history of why some people left Harry's place is for them to explain - I was still commenting there right up to the end. In any case, there are others where the regulars who posted there 'hang out'. Jacob and Father Park have a co-authored blog and Caz has one, too. Both are also without moderation, too, and both are consistently interesting.
Just a few quick comments (out'a time):
I don't care what any troll calls him/her/itself this week, last or next, it's the dissension, division & distraction that's destructive.
Only entities happy with the way things are would set out to hinder anyone wishing for progress. Such dregs can go to hell, because without reform, that's where the world is headed. Not for no reason is this blog called nomoreofthesame.
Not only is the world headed for hell, it is powered by crime disguised by filthy lies. So trolls, by definition, are criminals by association, and are active to prevent any reforms that could put the world onto a sustainable and equitable track.
Goodnight.
I see Jenny Hume at WD is pontificating about Iraq again. Perhaps she has been talking to an 82 year old German woman and feels qualified to pass judgment on the matter and on other people's views.
You have to laugh when you read things like "One assessment I read .." without a citation to indicate exactly which assessment - and by whom - it was. Hume does not like to provide such details, or anything much that would indicate what informs (and I use that term advisedly) her views. Laughter increasing as I recall her recent demands of another commenter to provide evidence to back his claims. Add to this her history of accusing others of using material selectively and you have a good case for the charge of hypocrisy.
On the matter of selectivity, I, and others, have posted a great deal of material on WD that should inform people of who, what, where and when in re Iraq. Hume's comments indicate that she has ignored this and preferred ignorance and prejudice as the bases of her stance. With strong indicators of a bad case of Hitchen's disease.
Hume closes her post by taking the moral high ground. Oh dear, aside from the aforementioned hypocrisy and the selective use of material, an analysis of Hume's work might indicate even worse behaviour.
I say, I say, I say...
G'day Bob,
just had a squiz 'over there.' See one'a your 'fans' complaining about someone "viciously slagging off" at her.
Sooo, although I know a gentlemen shouldn't ask, but have you been visiting "on other sites," seen any such slagging off?
G'day Phil,
No I haven't been visiting other sites so I haven't seen the slagging off Hume refers to. Perhaps she was referring to me and comments I made which are all based on fact - and I am willing to substantiate them, which is something more than Hume is willing to do.
I would quite happily put these points to Hume directly but am unable to do so. And even if I had not been banned it would be difficult as I have perceived a tendency by the moderators at WD to protect particular friends. It was somewhat surprising and quite refreshing that Fiona Reynolds published the counters to the Hume post that initiated the sequence.
I have asked in the past what qualifies Hume to pass judgment, demean and dismiss other commenters in the way she does. If you do not toe the Hume line you are an extremist or trapped in a paradigm. Just why does she think she is qualified to do this? Of course the question remains unanswered as you are given the treatment and Hume runs away. Gutless? Indeed. Hasn't the courage to debate these life and death issues honestly. A classic example was her refusal to debate the legality of the war with me. Why? It is a very important matter. Perhaps some what uncomfortable for her. An example is this from one of her kickoff post:
"But by and large the western Christian world is not into deliberate mass murder these days."
Perhaps she was excluding the invasion of Iraq which was illegal and therefore a war of aggression and hence included the aggressor states committing mass murder.
Another quality Hume makes much of is honesty. Perhaps soon I will examine that issue.
We serious bloggers carry a huge responsibility. Potentially, we're the only ones who can save our world from extinction.
To spend time discussing the merits or otherwise of someone who contributes to another blog would seem rather pointless. Even discussing another blog is probably a waste of good time because, if it's unsuitable for whatever reason, then simply find another or set up your own blog!
We serious bloggers must allow nothing to hinder us in our mission to make the world a better place.
Don't you agree?
you wouldn't ...
.. be pulling my leg - just a bit?
-=*=-
I mean really: "Potentially, we're the only ones who can save our world from extinction... We serious bloggers must allow nothing to hinder us in our mission to make the world a better place."
G'day David G.
You ask Q: Do I agree?
A: Yair; I'm very agreeable.
-=*=-
Ok, riddle me this; if one sees a crime happening, Q: Does one walk away?
A: IMHO no, one tries to do something - useful!
-=*=-
Now, everyone (ort'a!) know me an' my mantra by now "Murder for oil!"
It is, of course, 'the main game;' the crime of our times, where I measure our times from the (equally murdering) A-bombing of Japanese (mostly innocent) 'collaterals.'
(One can sublimate some guilt guilt here - in fact, anywhere it concerns otherwise innocent collaterals - by saying "Well, their government did it! - And they are responsible for their government - eh?" But be aware, that the same reasoning reflects on us; when the blame is being handed out for 'murder for Iraqi oil,' we, the electors are also 'deep in it.')
This appears to be getting off the track a bit - and it is, of course, but I always need to 'set the scene.'
We, the serious (honest!) bloggers have the task, of counteracting - well, wrong word: exposing - them, the "Blog charlatans" for what they are, namely trolls, along with apologists and/or propagandists, those who seem only to exist to provoke/cause dissension, division & distraction, those set on preventing progress, my general term for whom is 'antidestinationists' - Phew! - Well, that's who we have to confront.
And 'the mentioned' is one such, a complete hypocrite and irredeemable bigot.
Well worth the time & effort, I reckon, to hand out a *smack* to one such as she! (But don't go gettin' any tickets on y'darl.)
update to previous comment:
In the NewScientist of 2Feb'08 is an article suggesting political stances may be genetically based, "Born that way."
This could explain said lady's support for the US' illegal invasion of Iraq, now turned brutal occupation: that's just what squatters do. And, of course, to hell and buggery with any previous, legal owner/occupiers.
That could also explain another murdering for spoil, cancerous blot on the ME landscape; an illegitimate sprog in a squat.
G'day Phil,
Interesting thesis. Which means it's difficult to get some people to examine the evidence objectively. Or even to exam the evidence at all.
Add to that the ravages of Hitchens; disease ...
Which leads us back to MacDougall desperately trying to justify a position which was not sound 5 years ago not to mention the evidence and events since. Of which Justin has provided more - but that, or similar, material has been provided previously. Some people choose ignorance to suit their prejudices. Also, people should be far more circumspect if they do not understand the legal bases under which the international system operates. Research on the limitations of the UN and how they arose is a process I have previously advised. Until an understanding of such matters is attained a degree of circumspection and humility is required. It also helps to be aware of what is happening before passing judgment. MacDougall might like to try to find out about US involvement in Sudan ... although I have posted om the matter.
Advice would be lost on others such as the creature whose name keeps changing and who repeats the bs he has been parroting for years. Contemptible behaviour given the death and destruction that is occurring. No wonder one of the directors of WD has had concerns about his mental state. And yes, they are aware of the false identities, but don't mention the ethics and guidelines - they don't like being reminded, as a few people have found out. Lie and insult and disrupt, that's OK. Seems to be corrupt to me - perhaps that crusader against corruption, Richard Tonkin, could look much closer to home. I would suggest to RT that he think about whether he is in a position to write about corruption elsewhere given what he has been party to at WD.
Perhaps the WD "community" could ask for explanations of the inconsistencies I have mentioned - and much else besides. A good question might be if there have been discussions with an influential element about curtailing criticism of certain states. Given the banner "Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent" one would think management would be only too willing to provide the information.
If not, why not?
The world seems divided into two distinct groups of people:
- those whose life begins and ends with the tiny, rather meaningless world of WD and its endless machinations and petty intrigues,and
- those who are involved with issues like global warming, the dropping of nuclear bombs on Iran, WW3, American hegemony, Palestine, child sexual abuse, etc.
Now I happen to fall into the second camp. I don't give a stuff about who is up who on WD or who's paying the rent! I don't think it really matters a damn in the grand scheme of things.
WD is just a blog not the U.N!
Cheers.
G'day David,
So why aren't you writing to the UN instead of posting here?
Bob, I keep hoping that Phil's blog will morph into something great rather than to continue to be used as a temporary forum for a procession of complainants who have been banned from W.D.
Cheers!
G'day David,
Back to your suggestion about Phil and I teaming up - such matters are under consideration. Meanwhile there are matters I think need clarifying and exposing. And a bit of venting helps on the personal level.
Think of WD as a sort'a microcosm like a meeting between a small-town CWA and the dastardly crims in a maximum security gaol, with the few remaining honest types thrown in for spice; a laboratory of psychopathology. The honest types bravely try to have rational discussions (like saving our humanity, the country, the planet, stopping illegal invasions turned brutal occupations, generally abhorring lies, cheating, theft & murder), but find themselves repeatedly coming up against 'blog charlatans,' namely the filthy trolls (example: 'murder for oil' deniers), along with other criminal accessories like I/J/Z-plex lobbyists, Lib-apologists and/or pro-war propagandists supporting bits'a when not the whole venal MSM relayed/amplified pushed-paradigm, as epitomised by the ravings of B, B & H + O, all those nasty types who seem only to want to destroy possibly productive discussions by provoking/causing dissension, division & distraction... and as long as the inmates behave, using the 'max-sec-prison/jolly-hockeysticks' rules of politeness, anything goes - no matter how brazen, rotten and/or deceptive the lies, aka whoppers are that are deployed.
Disagree with the warders though, and out you go
As far as 'a temporary forum for a procession of complainants' goes, a) there is a legitimate complaint over the hideous hypocrisy of the WD-management, b) it's only one of many possible themes, and c) people 'in here' are free (except for trolls of any form. Hence enabled moderation.)
And as for who's up whom for what rent (bewdy DG); it really is a fascinating question: "What's in it for the crims?" (You know who you are.)
I think the 'management' of said organization is having a wonderful time pushing peoples' buttons, pulling their strings, watching them dance, giving little rewards here, little smacks there, awarding detentions, even suspensions!
Bob, I'm all for venting. Why don't you throw caution to the wind, let it all hang out, tell it as it is, give them a blast that is thermo-nuclear in ferocity and dimension.
I'm very excited by the thought of the two of you working as a team. It will be a blogforce to be reckoned with!
Take care.
Phil, why do you persist in this stupid over-the-top style? As an outsider, I can say that it is completely off-putting. and the bad grammar grossly negates the impact of any point of view you have.
Eg, "loads' a truth" should read "loads o' truth" (the apostrophe comes where you leave something out..der). Your hyperbole makes your posts easy to skim past. Why not just tone it down, and be like ordinary people?
Do you seriously expect to get a friendly / cooperative / constructive response after deploying "stupid?"
And I just don't 'do' "der."
Then, exactly what is an "ordinary person?" - One who denies / ignores / couldn't give a stuff about USrael murdering for spoil, say?
G'day Phil,
Nice response to the "ordinary people" bit. The person who posted that must be very ordinary to have no name.
Onto other matters and MacDougall continues to try to justify his stance by a relentless avoidance of facts and evidence that undermines him. I think it is a process that Hume describes as selective. And is there anyone more selective that MacDougall? His dishonesty is so deep and determined that it is contemptible. It is likely that some will respond but equally likely that MacDougall will carry on regardless, and yes, it is quite farcical.
Something else grabbed my attention - it was Fiona Reynolds' statement:
"I distrust organizations and (perhaps because I am an only child) have a preference for acting from reasons of integrity – probably a basis for loose alliances at best, rather than blind adherence to a predigested platform."
To which I respond - but you are part of WD management. This fact seems to counter all of Reynolds' comments. Perhaps she would care to come here and ask me for evidence to support my view. I will provide it but would be sad that it would be necessary.
Post a Comment