.. for allowing slander, libel, knowingly lying and general dishonesty, aka deliberately violating their own self-asserted ethics - boo! Hiss!
-=*=-
Based on the new evidence provided on the Road to the Tropics_2366 thread, for perhaps the 1st time clearly and unambiguously documenting deliberate Webdiary malfeasance, I can now initiate legal proceedings against the Webdiary company *and* associated individuals. No company structure should protect these people, each of them knowingly transgressed against their own self-touted ethics, ignoring all reasonable appeals for truth and justice; each jointly and separately allowed the publishing of filthily lying, slanderous and libellous comments, specifically issuing from the cyber-entity known as the Morrella troll.
1. Against Webdiary itself: $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages.
2. Against Margo Kingston: $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages.
3. Against David Roffey: $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages.
4. Against Fiona Reynolds: $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages.
5. Against Richard Tonkin: $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages.
6. Against David Davis: $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages - for his conspiracy/collusion in the Morrella troll deployment.
Morrella himself, as an alleged 99.9% confidence fraudulent cyber-entity (see my comparison between the Morrella cyber-entity and a certain Jay White), is thought to be beyond reach - unless his/her true name and address can be ascertained. A special mention must be made of Hamish Alcorn, although largely 'invisible' during the Morrella dramas, nevertheless he may have been involved.
One very real problem here, is that when an entity, a person, a company is known to have perpetrated any single criminal act, they can never thereafter be trusted. It's one thing to have a CWA-style Kaffeeklatsch, another thing entirely to publish untrue, damaging slurs.
At the very latest, Webdiary should'a pulled the plug on Morrella after s/he submitted his Jayson Blair libel against me.
-=*=-
I came to Webdiary in the face of the US (+UK & Aus etc.) *threat* of the "Shockin' whore" illegal invasion of Iraq, that threat was then actualised and has now been morphed into an indefinite, brutal occupation, each more criminally murdering than the other. The US object: possibly to help the (equally criminal!) Zionist's desire for a "Greater Israel," and to make the war pay for itself (over and over; estimated potential 'haul' now over $US27trio) - by stealing (even if 'only' control over) Iraq's 'patrimony,' i.e. murder for oil.
I came to Webdiary in protest against those filthy threats then being made, in the hope of uniting with similar minded people and moving towards stopping the US (+UK & Aus etc.) in their tracks. The general appeal back then is the same as now, namely for justice via truth. We know how our appeals to Howard turned out: he called us a mob, then totally ignored us all, we the (sovereign voter) sheople®.
One of the greatest shocks, deepest disappointments, was after the arrival of the lying Morrella troll just over one year ago, of having Webdiary itself turn on me.
This is, of course, no Darlinghurst courtroom. Any evidence I cared to present is other-where on this site (ancient history perhaps - but should I forget that I've been wronged?) - but look at just these few bits from Fiona Reynolds:
« ... and (2) all such moderators have received varying levels of threats during that period.»
My comment: interesting admission, to the best of my knowledge until today strenuously denied. Is not such a denial a lie?
See [1], then Reynolds:
«Incorrect, and fallacious ... nothing more to be said.»
My comment: Oh, really? Is there a statute of limitations on perfidy? By not specifically addressing Rowley's citing of "the [WD] special deal made to allow the ridiculer his pseudonymity," Reynolds gives tacit agreement that there was such a 'deal' - again, to the best of my knowledge until today strenuously denied. Is not such a denial a lie?
Some comments from another thread moved here[2,3].
Get this: ... given that we know that he knows that we know...
The prosecution rests.
Seems there are lies, damned lies - and WD-lies.
We can be reasonably assured that every criminal on the planet thinks that the crimes s/he perpetrates are acceptable (but only to themselves, natch) - but no crime against me will ever be forgiven. Webdiary jointly and severally allowed slander and libel against me, and in cases have slandered me themselves. This is cyber-crime of the 1st water writ large, and should not be allowed to go unpunished ...
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] Craig Rowley's query:
«Indeed, as one or two of you have acknowledged over time that very point about the special deal made to allow the ridiculer his pseudonymity (which is a deal it seems I cannot mention for fear of censorship), with no answer to my question I simply cannot comprehend how what's been done reflects WD Ethics.»
Fiona Reynolds response:
«Incorrect, and fallacious. IF one takes the position that (original) identity A is the same as (now) identity B, one cannot assume that identity B is the pseudonymous identity. It’s equally plausible that identity A may have been the pseudonym, and if as appears to be the case identity B is that individual’s true identity (insofar as it is possible for us to check), there is nothing more to be said.»
Repeat: Seems there are lies, damned lies - and WD-lies.
[2] justice_via_truth 11:34 said...
IF identity-A (C Parsons) = identity-B (Eliot Ramsey) (*IT DOES*) THEN either -A is false AND/OR -B is false. there's just no way out of it. It means that either -A or -B (most likely both) are undeclared pseudonyms, which WD has eternally denied, both implicitly and explicitly - and MK has gone so far as to forbid any further mention of such. As DR did on the 'map-wiping meme.' Each of these events, the deploying of an undeclared pseudonym, lying about it, or making any 'forbid' ruling and then later allowing exactly that, are all ethical breaches and border on, if not actually embrace, criminality.
Convicted. Self-convicted; CP/ER, MK, DR and the rest, your honour. Which (your putative collective honour) was obliterated then, is now and will so be for all time, the whole lying lot'a ys. Crimes do not expire - 'settled long ago' is pure BS, aka wishful thinking.
Even if we were to accept the not so veiled attempted wriggle-out "if as appears to be the case identity B is that individual's true identity (insofar as it is possible for us to check)," that still leaves C Parsons as a long term liar. Reynolds dances on the head of a pin. Liar is as liar does. No credibility. No honour. No *ethics.*
[3] justice_via_truth 12:17 said...
Addendum: WD lying then trying to wriggle-out is, of course, not the real problem.
The real problem is two: a) the lying trolls, and b) WD's not just tolerance but active encouragement of same, whilst failing to protect honest commentator troll-targets.
It is a troll's function to destroy (truth) and distract (from any attempting remedial action, say.)
Both the Parsons/Ramsey and Morrella entities do exactly that; they endlessly reprise the 'standard,' lying pushed-paradigm propaganda, and it is they and all their ilk's speciality to 'hook' honest commentators.
If we speak of fallacies, we can inspect this dirty, dishonest trick: Angering an opponent in order that he may argue badly.
That's what's referred to by 'remorseless ridicule,' say. But the lying, offensively insulting Morrella tops Parsons/Ramsey at every turn. And WD calls all that 'safe debating,' 'robust contesting of ideas;' I call it a travesty. A dishonest travesty, to boot.
[cross posted]
9 comments:
I've little doubt that the current management team of Margo Kingston's Webdiary woild refuse to publish a reply by me to Fiona Reynold's comment today, so I submit it here to enable those who seek the truth to see both sides and decide for themselves what has occurred.
What you will read below is Fiona's comment, in which she takes each point of my earlier comment and a provides her position on it. Between the "stars" is my response to Fiona's position on each point:
In detail, then
Submitted by Fiona Reynolds on May 29, 2008 - 10:19am.
It has taken me longer than I hoped to respond to Craig Rowley’s post, but the excuses are reasonable: travel preparation, a busy week on Webdiary, and the need to work through three months of last year’s posts to make sure that I responded accurately. Now, I get annoyed when Webdiarists reproduce the entirety of an earlier post, but I feel obliged to respond to Craig in that manner to make sure that I cover all the points that he raised.
CR: Over the past year my simple question (the second, censored one) has been met with anything but an answer, Fiona. It has never been answered. Not by Margo, nor by any other members of Webdiary management.
FR: Incorrect. (1) Margo made her position abundantly clear on several threads, in particular the Yep, says honest John and the Saudi Arabia behind Iraq terrorism threads. (2) I understand that Margo emailed you personally at least once about this matter. (3) I know that I also emailed you about it, and discussed the matter at length over lunch in August last year – or don’t I count as a member of Webdiary management?
*
My statement is, in fact, completely correct. Here's my email to Margo Kingston and her "answer" to that question:
Hello Margo,
Would you please just explain to me (if not all 'diarists for the sake of Transparency) why do you rule the remorseless ridicule routines of "Eliot Ramsey" as acceptable comment and rule out any questioning of your unexplained position on that?
Sincerely
Craig
Margo's response was:
"He' interesting, and he doesn't complain when he's DNPed I don't think he crosses the line, Craig. Simple as that. You disagree. That's fine with me. But I've ruled on Eliot several; times and I'm not going to change my mind. So you accept my view and move on at Webdiary, or go elsewhere. Simple."
In other words, Margo said as his content was interesting, therefore his "remorseless ridicule" campaign was acceptable to her; and, most importantly, she would not explain her rationale. Take it or leave.
If we're generous then there is one potential clue to her rationale in the statement she provided. It could be that where she points out that "he doesn't complain when he's DNPed" this is the core rationale. If so, then Margo's priority was no longer what was reflected in WD ethics through statements like:
"I will do my utmost to ensure that Webdiary is a space to which all readers, whatever their views or style, feel safe to contribute. If you are offended by something in Webdiary, feel free to respond. I won't publish any material which incites hatred."
And:
"I will publish most contributions made in good faith which are critical of Webdiary's content or direction, or of me."
Clearly the new "ethical" standard applied at WD is not to openly and transparently work through any issues raised by 'diarists.
Indeed, Margo's priority had become to devote as little, if any time as possible to the running of WD.
Take her near complete absence from the pages of WD (and even from behind the scenes) over the past year as evidence.
Fiona has been similarly motivated to not deal with essential issues, such as how WD ethics are applied, and that's due to not wanting to take the "time" necessary to deal with such issues.
Further, when Fiona and I shared lunch last year we did not discusss this matter "at length". There is, however, one item that did come up in our conversation that day and on other occasions that now needs to be made clear to all interested parties and that is this: Fiona Reynolds' nickname for "Eliot Ramsey" is ERII. It signfies that "Eliot Ramsey" is the second identity used by a person whom had been previously registered with Webdiary using a different identity. That earlier identity was "C Parsons."
*
CR: And yes, I am a parent. I'm one who shared his real identity here; and to a degree put my family at some risk by sharing that genuine identity. You know I'd been threatened during the time I was moderating Webdiary.
FR: To the best of my knowledge and belief, (1) all people who have been moderating on Webdiary over the last two and a half years have shared our real identities here, and (2) all such moderators have received varying levels of threats during that period.
*
The issue I had raised was not pseudonymity amongst moderators. I've never taken issue with that aspect of WD. Indeed, for me the issue is not even pseudonymity per se. I understand that some people need to be protected behind a pseudonym. The issue I have, in fact, raised with WD management is a breach of WD's published Ethics. Specifically, the promise in those published Ethics that has been breached is:
"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."
If current WD management doesn't want to honour that promise any longer, then fine; but they could/should be transparent about it and simply alter the WD Ethics to say they will publish attacks by pseudonymous'diarists on other 'diarists.
*
CR: I'm also one of those whom you and the others allowed to be targeted by the ridiculer (engaging in what is a form of bullying; a most cowardly form as he sheltered behind his false identity).
FR: Incorrect. All moderators (perhaps me more than the rest) have taken considerable pains to protect Webdiarists and, indeed, you in particular, from much of what you have deemed to be “targeting” by the “ridiculer”.
*
No, considerable action would have been to very simply and straightforwardly tell him in editorial "bold" comment to cease targeting people. In other words, TROLLING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
*
CR: Why? Well now you reveal it was because you consider his abusive personal attacks to be "entertaining" and "piffle."
FR: Incorrect – but we need to clarify something first. So-called remorseless ridicule, if it involves personal abuse, offends Webdiary’s moderation guidelines and is not published. So-called remorseless ridicule of other people’s points of view etc. does not amount to a personal attack but to robust contesting of ideas, and as such does not breach the moderation guidelines. Secondly, I have never regarded “abusive personal attacks” as entertaining. Thirdly – and I probably didn’t make this sufficiently clear, my observations were confined to so-called remorseless ridicule of ideas and opinions, and I did not say that I found that to be entertaining piffle – all I did was suggested that others might find it so.
*
CR: Do I really have to remind you that those targeted don't feel that it was particularly "entertaining" to be targeted?
FR: Partly accepted. I sometimes don’t find it entertaining to have my opinions challenged, but I don’t see that as a personal attack on me. On the contrary, I see it as part of the cut-and-thrust of the contest of ideas. What I (and other moderators) certainly do not find entertaining is being “targeted” by remorseless, relentless questioning (or, more accurately, banging on and on and on about something that was resolved long ago).
*
Three things are wrong here.
First, if Fiona was as dedicated to the contest of ideas as she claims then she'd not be party to censoring any debate on the ideas themselves.
Truth is she's censored a whole series of comments I'd made responding to the ideas expressed by her friends Jenny Hume and Ian MacDougall because they didn't want me to make those comments. They didn't want me to make comments on their comments because Jenny Hume had demanded (via Fiona Reynolds) that I make an apology to her friend Kathy Farrelly and when I didn't she judged me (the person) unworthy of Webdiary.
And yes, you read it right, Fiona Reynolds had made phone calls to my home to relay Jenny Hume's demands.
One rule for some, eh?
Second, if simply being asked to explain how a decision they'd made matched their published ethical standard caused so much discomfort to Fiona Reynolds, why is it that she cannot comprehend how unwelcoming, how unsafe Webdiary had become to those who were targeted by "C Parsons" and other trolls for "remorseless ridicule" (presumably in order for him to get off on the Schadenfreud).
BTW I've so often use that particular phrase and place it in quotation marks because "C Parsons" had actually stated that was his specific purpose in a comment that had been marked DNP.
Third, the issue has never been resolved. Not "long ago." Not recently. Not now.
*
CR: So now I understand the "why" (you thought it was fun to facilitate the bullying), but I still don't see how it squares with WD Ethics?
FR: Incorrect. See above.
*
Wrong with "incorrect" and lazy with "see above." Fiona's dodging the key issue which is this: How does the decision WD management had made square with their published ethical standard? They refuse to explain it; they don't seem able to explain it. I reckon it's because the decision simply cannot be shown to meet the published ethical standard.
*
CR: Indeed, as one or two of you have acknowledged over time that very point about the special deal made to allow the ridiculer his pseudonymity (which is a deal it seems I cannot mention for fear of censorship), with no answer to my question I simply cannot comprehend how what's been done reflects WD Ethics.
FR: Incorrect, and fallacious. IF one takes the position that (original) identity A is the same as (now) identity B, one cannot assume that identity B is the pseudonymous identity. It’s equally plausible that identity A may have been the pseudonym, and if as appears to be the case identity B is that individual’s true identity (insofar as it is possible for us to check), there is nothing more to be said.
*
Fiona's argument is that which is fallacious and this is what more is to be said. Whether one take's her "hypothetical" position, or even the position of any reasonable person apply simple logic, then one sees clearly that the person changing from identity A to identity B has either lied to Margo Kingston about their genuine identity when using identity A or when using identity B. Unless Margo Kingston had agree to provide pseudonymity twice. She's never admitted to that, and if she had agreed it during the "C. Parsons" period, then her poorly phased question to "Eliot Ramsey" about this issue was either absurd or devious.
*
CR: That's the very reason why I have asked the question more than once. I would really like to hear a reasoned response that attempts to demonstrate how the decision made to give that person a second identity could be ethical. It seems I never will.
FR: And so ad infinitem. This particular topic is closed. Permanently.
*
Aside for the "silencing" aspect of Fiona's final position, it is also once again avoiding an answer to my question. Where's the reasoned response I was seeking? Telling me to, in essence, "shut up and shove off" doesn't even begin to demonstrate how the decision to give "C Parsons" / "Eliot Ramsey" (CP=ER) a second identity is ethical.
Interestingly, in times past Fiona must have found it unethical to allow CP=ER another pseud. When suspended back in February he'd tried to fly a third and fourth (and possibly a fifth) identity. Hence the appearance and quick disappearance of "Patricia P Kennedy" and "Lesley Partika."
*
FR: After all of this, Craig, you may find it difficult to believe that I have great respect for you. You are an informed individual who demonstrates great compassion and an interestingly lateral approach to many troubling issues. Your contributions to Webdiary over the years have been appreciated by many people, including me. Your obduracy on this matter, however, is disturbing, unproductive, and frankly does you no credit. Maybe it’s time to take a break from Webdiary – but you know that you will always be welcome to contribute in the constructive way that you can do so well.
*
Welcome I may be, but return to WD I will not. Certainly not as long as WD management's obduracy on this matter continues to show them to be unethical, and lacking in empathy for those who were targeted by a pseudonymous nasty precisely because that had contributed to WD in the constructive way. That's looking like it means probably not ever.
My apologies, I've mangled a sentence in the last paragraph of my previous comment. It should be:
Certainly not as long as WD management's obduracy on this matter continues to show them to be unethical, and lacking in empathy for those who were targeted by a pseudonymous nasty (and they were targeted precisely because they had long contributed to WD in a constructive way).
Note this about JW=PM, i.e. whomever it is that has used the identities "Jay White" and "Paul Morrella" on WD.
Aside from the evidence of that identity fraud which has been presented in the past on ¡no more of the same!, there is another exhibit presented in the material Fiona Reynolds pointed 'diarists toward today.
On the thread associated with the WD post "Saudi Arabia behind Iraq terrorism", you'll see that "Paul Morrella" said:
"If Ian has been offended by any term used: I apoligize."
See his misspelling of the word "apologize" (American spelling).
Put "apoligize" into WD's Google search tool to look up and see who has made that error. You'll find only "Paul Morrella."
Now do the same again but search on the word "apoligise" and you'll find the one person who'd made that particular spelling error.
Jay White.
He did it twice on "apoligise" and then, mindful of the "North American" disguise he uses now, he did it once more, as Paul Morrella, on "apoligize."
Now it's becoming a longer list of particular and often repeated errors in spelling, syntax and grammar:
I'am (rather than I'm)
Did'nt (rather than didn't)
Apoligise/Apoligise (when he means apologise)
Plus there's been the less particular, but still telling:
Quiet (when he meants quite)
Than (when he means then)
Fiona Reynolds view on this is informed by David Roffey's claim that when he checked "Paul Morrella" had a Canadian ISP address.
I say: So what? One can tee-up proxy ISP address from almost any place on the planet and do so in seconds.
Besides, how is the location of an ISP address in any way a valid proof of genuine identity?
G'day Craig,
there're a few things to be said vis-à-vis trolls in general and the lying, abusive Morrella in particular.
The general: IMHO, it doesn't matter *who* says what, but a) the content and b) the 'how.'
The particular: Morrella barrelled in (haw!), denying 'murder for oil.' S/he did not (IMHO could not) a) prove her/his case, nor b) disprove mine.
Normally - and here we speak of reasonable humans - if one were to attempt a contradiction - and then fail to justify that attempt, one would apologise and withdraw the attempt.
And Morrella? Failed utterly, as we can see on the original thread(s), and some stuff repeated in this blog. The reason for the repeats 'in here' was to appeal - for justice - to the WD management. But no deal (recall that WD does do deals, like the one not just allowing, but encouraging another filthy troll, known as Parsons/Ramsey.)
But not only did Morrella fail, he got abusive. Seriously, provocatively abusive - which WD allowed. So we see at least two trolls 'over there,' laughing their stupid heads off.
Almost anything I post I expect could be challenged - as part of the advertised WD 'business as usual;' so I am always careful to either supply copious linked info from independent 3rd parties, or at least have such stuff 'in reserve.'
The next 'normal' - and here again we speak of reasonable humans - I directly, repeatedly, per thug-offence, challenged Morrella to justify or withdraw - but here again, Morrella just laughed, 'upping' my fury and frustration. As per the lying troll's plan.
Refer: Angering an opponent in order that he may argue badly. Here Ms Reynolds herself laughs, and recommends 'ignore.' It's one thing to ignore 'normal' opinion differences, but quite another when it comes to filthy - and untrue - character assassination attempts, a particular Morrella 'speciality.'
WD can be a place for serious discussion, a CWA-style Kaffeeklatsch or anything it wants to be. Whatever, it is their choice, and as they point out, we may accept their terms - or walk.
The problem, as in a lot'a areas, is hypocrisy; say one thing and do another.
WD promised a 'safe space,' and then encouraged a vicious thug.
And this is reminiscent of exactly what?
USrael, that's what. As WD's prime example, Geoff Pahoff actually threatened me, and not just once. Pahoff is an arch-Zionist, and from him I heard lots'a new words. Like 'hate' (not itself new, but the context:) 'blood libel.' A real charmer, 'our' Pahoff, and - wha'd'ya know? - Another WD-encouraged thug.
WD has joined the modus operandi of the so-called ruling élites of the US and Israel - when they can't get something they want the way they want it (i.e. on the rip-off 'cheap,') - they call in the thugs (CIA, Mossad, Pentagon. Rendition, torture, mass-murder from on high. How honourable - not.) In Iraq it's called 'murder for oil,' in and around the now sadly mostly ex-Palestine it's 'murder for land and water' - and in webdiary it's thuggery to 'murder the truth.'
-=*=-
Here's a laugh: I'm reminded of when Roffey tried to ban "G'day!"
As I mentioned 'above,' it doesn't matter *who* says what, but a) the content and b) the 'how.'
If the content is crook - as Morrella's vis-à-vis me often was, it's a g'diarist's job to point that out and I did. Did it help? No, Morrella just kept on lying.
If the 'how' is crook - as Morrella's vis-à-vis me often was, it's wediary's job to not publish it. Did wediary do its job? No, Morrella just kept on thugging.
Message to Fiona Reynolds: these are some of the facts - recalled now from up to one year down the track - illustrating how WD favoured Morrella's lying thuggery over my truth-seeking. But not just mine. Other truth-seekers like Bill Avent, Ian McPherson, Chris Shaw, Craig, and Bob Wall come to mind (g'day!) You work it out Ms Reynolds - ooops! But you already did 'back then,' as you descended into ... exactly what sort'a Hell? Whatever sort, it is neither truthful, ethical nor honourable. To use one'a Morrella's more charming expressions, Ms Reynolds (as WD-mgt. others) has acted like somebody's tool - or so it looks like.
Dear reader, you may assign whatever qualifiers you like to describe Fiona Reynolds and the rest of WD management's treatment of lying, abusive trolls vis-à-vis honest truth-seekers. I can hardly say "I don't care," - but I still crave justice, the justice WD denied me.
Finally, this: the trolls set out to impede honest discussion. In this they (Parsons/Ramsey and Morrella) have succeeded admirably. With active assist from Webdiary. Cui bono?
[cross posted]
G'day Phil and Craig, I note that WD has published a post from PM on Reynolds' thread. As I have previously stated, and made representations to FR and RT about, I do not consider it appropriate to be publishing comments about this matter where some of those involved (e.g. Phil and myself) cannot directly respond. I also remind readers that WD ignored my request to publicly discuss the issues surrounding my suspension. Yet Reynolds started a thread about the charges being made against WD and has not been honest in her comments about the matter. She has even grossly misrepresented my position, as I have also previously pointed out. But does she have the honesty and decency to confront me directly and either defend her comments or retract and apologise?
Roffey has taken a "don't read those sites" approach which allows him to ignore substantive charges and issue blithe dismissals. Good trick, deny someone the right to debate an issue and then ignore (or pretend to) their comments elsewhere.
One thing that struck me about Roffey's comments:
"... though on a couple of the less frothing-at-the-mouth sites I would simply correct any facts that were misstated, ..."
Doesn't always do this, even on WD. Once on the matter of the "map meme" he commented that Craig and I had said that the president of Iran had never said what was alleged and that the use of "map" or perhaps "wiped off map" in the speech in question was not in dispute. I sent an NFP correcting his statement - I had never said "never" and the use of "map" or ... had indeed been disputed - as exampled in the first article I linked on the matter - and reposted on other occasions. So did Roffey correct the record? No. He had the evidence that refuted his statement yet refused to do the honest thing.
And there was the whitewashing of Hamish Alcorn's freakout.
Craig - on the matter of IP addresses, I seem to recall pointing out at the time that they could be easily acquired and the "Canadian" aspect was meaningless. A quick google was all that was required to find out. Yet the claimed Canadian IP address was decisive, allegedly, for WD management.
More as required.
G’day all
Well, Phil, you seem to have rattled the Morrella/white cage successfully. It seems its war then?!!
Craig, of course, is right; the Morrella/White syntax is identical just as the Parsons/Ramsey syntax is. Both are utter frauds. Just to add to the list of similarities; White could never quite grasp the correct use of the word ‘an’ when used to prefix a word that began with a vowel. Invariably he would write ‘a’ when he should have written ‘an’. Morrella has the same problem.
What’s really interesting is the way Morrella/White was attempting to manipulate Webdiary Pty. Ltd. into taking legal action against Phil. Naturally, Morrella/White could not possibly take legal action himself since this truly would expose him for the fraud that he actually is.
The other point is that there is a certain irony in the way Morrella/White waffled on about being threatened when he writes:
“What is apparent is an escalating pattern of cyber harassment, threatening behaviour, and attempted intimidation…” And this from someone who in his previous paragraph had just suggested that a ‘cease and desist’ (or else!) letter be sent. If that isn’t attempted intimidation, then I don’t know what is!
Just as interesting was David Roffey’s response. It demonstrated two things; first, Roffey, as usual, has his head buried firmly in the sand in the belief that life begins and ends at Webdiary, and, secondly, in pleading ignorance in this way, he conveniently provides himself with a let-out from actually taking any legal action. He realises, of course, that if he did, it would also ultimately expose him and the entire Webdiary team to be complicit in the fraud and lies associated with Messrs. Ramsey/Parsons and Morrella/White.
It’ll be interesting to see how this develops.
Read some of Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine this weekend -- particularly the parts on what the United Fruit Company did in Guatemala and elsewhere, and the parts on the damage that was done by the fundamentalist followers of Milton Friedman and other Chicago School ideologues -- and my thoughts went to the claim made once or twice by "Paul Morrella" re his "work" in South America and then his claim, made very early in his targeting of Phil, to have had some sort of business connection to occupied Iraq.
Recall this: "I am employed by a firm that completes contract work for a large company involved in Iraq (not Halliburton)."
I've got to say his comments on WD over the past year have displayed enough to suggest he's had a low level of educational attainment; so I wonder what "work" he was doing for that firm?
Recall his "just a very small fish" reply when I tested his status as an "insider" with knowledge of corporate deals done to do-over the Iraqi people.
I reckon he's a "Walt" who would like to have done some of the "work" of the Friedmaniacs, but has never been tapped on the shoulder to actually do it. True Chicago School alumni would just laugh at him. But it's motivation to pretend to be Chicago School, and that's why WD suffers his constant crapping on as if he knows whats what in the world of economics.
We have not moved on.
G'day Craig,
.. we have not moved on - because we *can't*.
The phrase comes from Frank Rich via NYT via huffpo[1].
We can't move on because the crime, solved as it is, *continues*.
We know who dunnit, and why.
We also know who helped then, and who helps now.
The 'grand-theft oil[2],' via illegal invasion, brutal occupation goes on and on, and the murdered bodies pile up, and the lives continue to be shattered.
It's not 'just' Iraq; it's ex-Palestine too, and all points on the compass where the US (+Israel = USrael) projects its might - but it never makes right. And they threaten Iran. The criminality did not stop in '45, it continued, revved up.
In a microcosm, is a once-fine blog.
Those who can see, know. Those who can't/don't - are sheople®.
Those who do - the wrong thing, 'over there' - are culpable (management and trolls both).
They will not stop, they will not change - all those who "Just can't help themselves." Haw. Those whose "can't stop" is criminal, are irretrievably lost. Boo!
I would actually like to move on - to somewhere *just[3]*, where the clean, shiny-white truth reigns (looping;) we need a different strategy.
-=*=-
[1]:
OP-ED COLUMNIST
McCain's McClellan Nightmare
By FRANK RICH
The American public views the old story of how the White House ginned up the Iraq war as a crime story, and we won't be satisfied until there's a resolution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01richedit.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
[2]Grand Theft Definition
Grand theft is the crime of taking someone else's property against their will with the intent of permanently depriving them of the property.
[3] just —adj. 1 morally right or fair. [POD]
Post a Comment