.. no honesty, no honour - and no progress
subtitle: greedastrophe®: is that what we really want?
-=*=-
Preamble:
It gives me little pleasure to say "S/he is wrong!"
(Note: 'little' is not none. Haw!)
I am a truth-seeker - but not 'only;' I seek justice[1] via truth.
Note 'justness, fairness;' as in "Fair go, ya mug!"
My primary thesis is "Things are crook; we gotta do bedda!"
Which is why this blog-title is:
¡ NoMothS !
No more of the same!
-=*=-
Dramatis personae:
Margo Kingston: a tyrant - but 'our' tyrant.
David Roffey: the BANJO man; self-titled, for acting without thinking.
Hamish Alcorn: a dialectic dilettante.
Fiona Reynolds & Richard Tonkin: general factotums.
Paul Morrella: a filthily lying troll.
C Parsons/Eliot Ramsey: only s/he knows[2]?
Geoff Pahoff: a rabid, right-wing arch-Zionist. Makes threats of violence.
Alan Curran: not quite who he says he is.
Jenny Hume: a nutter hypocrite[3]. (Ooops! Sorry - but not too sorry: an utter hypocrite.)
(Anyone feeling insufficiently insulted may complain, anyone omitted may apply for redress.)
-=*=-
The scene: "Things are crook in Tallarook" is a catchphrase for any adverse situation. And Oh, boy - is our situation adverse!
1. The physical, 'murder for spoil;' general criminality.
2. The political, 'crippled democracies.'
3. The business, 'rip-offs dominate.'
4. The 4th estate, 'corrupt & venal MSM.'
5. The moral, 'TV-dozing, apathetic sheople®.'
6. The threat. As if 1-5 weren't bad enough, 'business as usual' is driving our once jewel-like planet towards an excess CO2-caused climate crash, aka the greedastrophe. With no effective counteraction, we humans may stuff it up in a terminal way.
Comment: All of 1-5 is (should be) known, none should be controversial, my general label for the situation is the 'pushed-paradigm.' Not much of what is superficially asserted by this pushed-paradigm is really what's going on; buzz-words here are "All politicians lie!" and "They hate us for our freedoms" and "We will disarm him!"
All of which and more being bullshit; I counter such with:
"No more war!"
"No more rip-offs!"
"Give us back our democracies!"
And, of course, over all: "Fair go, ya mug!"
-=*=-
Act one. There is only one act; aka reality. Truth is the only correct description of reality; all else is commentary - or worse, destructive distractions, lies and/or outright propaganda.
Roffey: «We don't change the world much but there are a lot of people kibitzing ...»
Me: You said it, matey; but I'd change "much" to "by anything even if at all." But that was our hope; to rescue the world. Silly? Perhaps, but I've pointed out other-when; doing nothing is no option. Then, almost nothing is worse than dashed expectations; draw your own conclusion. I'm not surprised at Roffey's deployment of 'kibitzing[6],' the key here is exactly what 'unwelcome advice' should be tendered, and to whom.
Reynolds: «Webdiary is, after all, supposed to be about the contest of ideas.»
Me: You said it, lady; but if y'wanna have a fair contest then a) y'gotta set fair rules, then b) consistently enforce 'em. And right there is *THE PROBLEM* - as you well know, and now we can invoke hypocrisy - this time, on your behalf.
Reynolds: «... accusing Webdiary management of not living up to its aim ...»
Me: Exactly, also as you well know; and when you (collectively, individually) do that, i.e. *not* live up to its aim, *then* the emails fly. And when no satisfactory 'outcome' is achieved, it can get acrimonious.
WD's fundamental problem is and always has been how to 'handle' the 'dark side,' and - IMHO - WD has consistently erred by extending their favours to the liars and cheats, at direct cost to honest truth-seekers.
Let's face it, everyone thinks (feels) they're correct; any alternative could/would most likely cause cognitive dissonance. (Except in the "No sense, no feeling" cases, which WD also has.) The 'trick' of course is to think/feel correctly, aka based on verifiable facts. Ta ra! - Enter the truth-seeker!
(Ooops! Totally wrong prompt...)
Alcorn: «... you have a race-based theory of domination, and to me it appears not just as a conspiracy theory, but a really silly one.»
Me: You little snot! How dare you?
Morrella: «Never ceases to amaze me the chuckleheads that actually think it works - on any person with an IQ above 80 that is.»
Me: Note the language; 'chuckleheads,' 'IQ above 80.' And this, on a supposedly 'safe debating' site. As for the Morrella 'murder for oil' denial, truth-seekers the world over have been digging, discovering, documenting each individual, concrete step towards the eventual oil-theft; while all that is so-called circumstantial, it is nevertheless actual, verifiable evidence; for Morrella to deny (IMHO simply not possible), without fronting a single shred of countervailing evidence is purely risible (adj. laughable, ludicrous. [Latin rideo ris- laugh] [POD]) But it's a free country, as they say; so by all means, "Go for it." (Detested Ameri-speak? Spit!) WD apparently desires, prefers, actually openly welcomes your sort'a (lying!) contributions.
My comment: Notice this, that Morrella has from the very beginning and then always hidden behind WD's protective skirts. It's called dependency. It's called (mutually reinforcing) cowardice.
Hume: «It is about boundaries and protecting children from exploitation of any kind.»
Me: this is where we go breathless, at this particularly revolting piece of utter hypocrisy. Hume goes ga-ga over a few dirty postcards, while at the same time maintaining her right to otherwise corrupt what surely is the most precious commodity on earth, a child's innocent mind[3], by infecting such minds with the ghastly and cruel death/g*d fear memes. That's 'child abuse' writ about as large as is possible.
Hume: «Anyone hassling, sending abusive or vexatious emails to moderators or repeatedly attempting to post abusive comments on the site should be promptly banned from the site.»
Me: 1. How would we define 'abusive?' Like Curran's suggestion that the IDF (wrong name; should be 'offence') would be the ideal agency to bomb the crap out'a some neighbour?
Me: 2. How about the WD-commenter's 'right of appeal?' See the factotums' responses - ooops! a) They don't always answer either for their actions or their emails, going sphinx-like mute. b) In their quest for (fake!) 'balance,' they cuddle up to criminals.
-=*=-
Intermezzo: It's not *who* says it, but *what* they say. The 'what' can be truth, lies or irrelevancies. Lies to deceive, irrelevancies to distract (see WD's champ, Parsons/Ramsey.) I see the need to correctly identify the 'what' in order to progress towards useful solutions. Lying trolls etc. presumably have other agendas.
-=*=-
Fazit: WYSIWYG. WD is as it is, the inhabitants more or less as happy as pigs in shit, and they're truly welcome to it.
-=*end*=-
Epilogue: I don't *really* care (in the end we're all dead.) Of course I do care a bit - otherwise I could go and have some fun elsewhere, instead of fighting criminality, and its disgusting entourage.
Should the agents provocateurs; the apologists, accessory/agitators and outright lying trolls 'win,' (they can win merely by having no effective opposition), then what?
WHAM! Come the greedastrophe®: is that what we really want?
-=*=-
Ref(s):
[1] 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]
[2] Nah, but not sooo important. In a BANJO-type act, the 'C Parsons' blog-entity was disabled; 'Eliot Ramsey' almost instantaneously, even magically appeared. Thanks DR, thanks MK. That sure was 'transparent,' eh?
Keyword: 'remorseless ridicule,' but that's not accurate. What the Parsons/Ramsey entity does is to endlessly re-hash the pushed-paradigm, which - given the foul nature of that paradigm - cannot do any more than hinder possible progress.
[3] 'Ha, ha' hyacinth, the hypocrite[4] from the sticks.
She's a blowhard[5], sometimes as in 'blows with the wind,' but mostly as in -fly.
Most of all she's a lightweight, with pretensions *far* above her 'station.' (Haw again.)
None of that is important, but the really nasty bit is her insistence that it is her (g*d-given!) right to corrupt child-minds with cruel Christianity-crap. Boo! Hiss!
[4] hypocrisy n. (pl. -ies) 1 false claim to virtue; insincerity, pretence. 2 instance of this. [Greek, = acting, feigning] [POD]
hypocrite n. person given to hypocrisy. hypocritical adj. hypocritically adv. [ibid.]
[5] blowhard N. Amer. informal
noun a person who blusters and boasts in an unpleasant way.
adjective acting or appearing in such a way.
[6] kibitz
verb [no OBJ.] informal, chiefly N. Amer. look on and offer unwelcome advice, especially at a card game.
n
speak informally; chat: she kibitzed with friends.
DERIVATIVES
kibitzer noun.
ORIGIN 1920s: Yiddish, from colloquial German, from German Kiebitz ‘interfering onlooker’ (literally ‘lapwing’). [Oxford Pop-up]
3 comments:
G'day Phil, well, we finally have Reynolds' "detailed" response to Craig Rowley. As some have suggested it fell short of what was hoped for. Reynolds seems to have carefully kept closely to Craig's points - narrowed the response as much as possible - and ignored other complaints. One aspect of those wider complaints that has not been addressed is the serial dishonesty practiced by some. This has been seen in various forms including misrepresenting a person's comments and making false allegations against another person and refusing to provide substantiation or retraction. And all the outright lies. This behaviour does not, at least to me, fall within the definition of robust debate. WD Ethics has this to say:
4. Be truthful. Don't invent 'facts'. If you're caught out, expect to be corrected in Webdiary.
So there is an injunction against dishonesty, yet some are allowed to get away with dishonest behaviour with sickening regularity.
No wonder Reynolds did not address this.
Enough for now.
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.*
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.
Post a Comment