29 Comments

1.   The Editor (Friday 4 May 2007, 6:08 pm) # 

   Ah, shit, John! Now you’ve made GrodsCorp accessory to the fact!

   It’s kinda like a new law of behaviour, innit?

   Hall’s Law: As the level to which Iain Hall is made to look stupid by his commenters increases, the likelihood that Iain Hall will ban further comments and threaten legal action also increases.

   Blog fights are ofter compared to the special Olympics. But I tells ya, bloggers threatening legal action makes blog fights look dignified.

   
   
2.   Strider (Friday 4 May 2007, 6:31 pm) # 

   Iain sounds like a fairly reasonable bloke. I don’t see what you have against him.

   
   
3.   The Editor (Friday 4 May 2007, 6:36 pm) # 

   Just watch. That comment of Strider’s will be on Iain’s What Others Say About Iain page before you know it.

   
   
4.   Bruce (Friday 4 May 2007, 6:39 pm) # 

   I’m still Kaking from your John Howard was a good PM line. You do parody so well Strider.

   
   
5.   Strider (Sunday 6 May 2007, 12:57 pm) # 

   Well, John Howard has been pretty good for us, and I really shudder to think what another Labor govt will do to this country. After all, Keating was appalling and he didn’t have loonies like Peter Garrett on his front bench.

   On the other hand, Rudd does have a reasonable view on uranium mining.

   But I stand by my comments that Iain Hall is a reasonable chap. His commentary on the industrial relations laws is balanced and thoughtful.

   
   
6.   Iain Hall (Sunday 6 May 2007, 1:21 pm) # 

   He then asked for an address so he could serve me. Knowing that he couldn’t possibly be bothered to sue little ol’ me for a crime he commits daily, I called his bluff, telling him to get his lawyer to email me so I could provide him with the details.

   No John it is I who has called your bluff here in response to your “so sue me” taunts made elsewhere. Because if you were so confident that I would not seek redress you would not have taken the cowards course that you are boasting about here. As I would act on my own behalf in any such matter I am entitled to demand an address for service; and I repeat that demand now. Refuse and not only is your lack of courage proven but it is admitted as well.

   
   
7.   Bruce (Sunday 6 May 2007, 2:30 pm) # 

   Just get your lawyer to email him Iain.

   
   
8.   John S. (Sunday 6 May 2007, 5:04 pm) # 

   Iain, the reason I will not give you my address is because you are the last person in the world I would trust with that information. Do what Bruce says if you are serious, because I am. This is not the first bogus legal threat I’ve had and it won’t be the last.

   
   
9.   The Happy Revolutionary (Monday 7 May 2007, 12:06 am) # 

   Strider, Iain might seem ‘reasonable’ when compared to some of the more rabid Landeryou’s and Balirs, but he did develop a rather unhealthy, stalker-ish preoccupation with blogger Mr Lefty.

   It was a funny comments thread though - to recall the words of Mark Latham (on Albrechtson), seems like Iain would die in a ditch for the Liberal party (and Andrew Bolt)…

   
   
10.   Bridgit Gread (Monday 7 May 2007, 8:31 pm) # 

    As I would act on my own behalf in any such matter I am entitled to demand an address for service; and I repeat that demand now.

    The idiom which springs to mind is the one about the individual choosing to represent himself and having a fool for a client.

    
    
11.   Jangari (Monday 7 May 2007, 8:55 pm) # 

    Two days after this ban took place, Iain used my (gr)avatar, without my permission, as the title image on a post of his own.

    Now, I don’t particularly care, on the contrary, it’s good advertising, and if I can absorb even one of his readership and perhaps help them see things from the ‘dark side’, even for a fleeting moment, then it’ll be worth it.

    I may think about a lawsuit… nah, fuck it.

    
    
12.   The Editor (Monday 7 May 2007, 9:07 pm) # 

    I may think about a lawsuit… nah, fuck it.

    Amen to that.

    
    
13.   John Surname (Tuesday 8 May 2007, 10:06 am) # 

    I got a bizarre email from Iain - apparently he wants to service me himself.

    What will my girlfriend say?

    
    
14.   The Editor (Tuesday 8 May 2007, 10:19 am) # 

    That’s enough to give you nightmares.

    
    
15.   Mikey (Tuesday 8 May 2007, 1:25 pm) # 

    Use of images and text for parody purposes and fair comment is acceptable under copyright law. Especially since ‘fair comment’ has never been tested to the best of my knowledge in a court of law. According at least to my conversations with the nice people at the understanding copyright centre. I went there after I was tired of some bloggers copying and pasting entire posts of mine and wanted to see what my rights were. Apparently it’s public domian so deal with it was their response.

    
    
16.   Bridgit Gread (Tuesday 8 May 2007, 4:04 pm) # 

    I got a bizarre email from Iain - apparently he wants to service me himself.

    Sounds like he wants to put his obiter dictum in your animus nocendi, John. You’d better be on your guard… we know from Mr Leftygate how Iain goes all gooey and loses his marbles when it comes to the law.

    
    
17.   The Editor (Tuesday 8 May 2007, 8:14 pm) # 

    Couldn’t help but notice this.

    Iain Hall is, quite honestly, one of the funniest people alive.

    
    
18.   Bridgit Gread (Tuesday 8 May 2007, 8:43 pm) # 

    Well, Iain’s hypocrisy as revealed by BB is nothing new. But I happened to follow the link to his Photobucket account and … *shudder*. I wonder what a good psych would make of that Rorschact blot-like collection of images.

    
    
19.   The Happy Revolutionary (Wednesday 9 May 2007, 5:34 pm) # 

    There’s been a good bit of Hall bashing at his moronic blog today, because of this post:

    http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2007/05/09/finished-the-book/

    Hall is struggling a bit.

    
    
20.   Bruce (Wednesday 9 May 2007, 8:23 pm) # 

    I got a bizarre email from Iain - apparently he wants to service me himself.

    Publish it.

    
    
21.   The Editor (Wednesday 9 May 2007, 8:28 pm) # 

    The last time I received an email from Iain Hall it had the following post script:

    This email is private correspondence and I explicitly deny you the right to
    publish it in any form on your blog or elsewhere either as a whole, or in
    part.

    He obviously had his large and formidable legal team formulate that watertight clause.

    
    
22.   Bruce (Wednesday 9 May 2007, 10:41 pm) # 

    Yeah, somewhere on my blog, I’ve got a “indicate your consent to abolish your confidentiality clause by making the content of your email abusive” clause, or words to that effect, somewhere in my blog.

    Incidentally, isn’t that post script confidential?

    
    
23.   Mikey (Wednesday 9 May 2007, 10:46 pm) # 

    Actually if you’re a party to a conversation, unless you are in a contract that specifically forbids you from talking about that issue (ie you signed a piece of paper such as the official secrets act) you can discuss it to your heart’s content. For example it is not illegal to tape a conversation you are part of and not tell the other party. It’s only illegal if you are not part of it and you haven’t told the people.

    
    
24.   Bridgit Gread (Thursday 10 May 2007, 12:01 am) # 

    It’s not a legal question. Iain does not consistently adhere to rules of confidentiality or respect for privacy, so as far as I’m concerned he has abrogated any personal claim to those rights. He pestered me with unsolicited e-mails, each carrying that disclaimer - so I posted one on Bourbon Boy’s blog. Funnily enough he hasn’t e-mailed me since, which is just dandy.

    PS. He’s made his Photobucket account private since I mentioned it above, or rather since BB linked to it. Something to hide, perhaps.

    
    
25.   Steve (Thursday 10 May 2007, 11:47 am) # 

    Curiosity led me to read some of the blog you are discussing - and now my eyes hurt. Thanks a lot.

    
    
26.   Bruce (Thursday 10 May 2007, 1:22 pm) # 

    I was told (unofficially) when I was working at the AEU, when appending a confidentaility clause to my email signiature, that it was done for looks and that it wasn’t actually legally binding.

    Example given was if X sent an abusive letter to Y, and added a confidentiality clause at the end, X could still seek council etc from others (not necessarily lawyers) and show them the letter.

    Interdepartmental stuff being different of course. I gather Mikey, if you got an email from within your (or another) department, with a clause added, you would be bound to keep it under wraps. But that would probably have more to do with terms of employment right?

    
    
27.   GrodsCorp » Iain Hall update (Sunday 13 May 2007, 3:43 pm) # 

    [...] I reported that everybody’s favourite pseudo-intellectual Iain Hall had banned me from his blog, leading to a (failed) suicide attempt on my behalf out of [...]

    
    
28.   Mikey (Sunday 13 May 2007, 8:31 pm) # 

    Yep. Any correspondence about work within the public service is regarded as Official Use Only. It is not to be disclosed to the public or outside the org unless permission is granted.

    Personally I think far more govt info should be public. We’re hardly transparent. And all govts hide mistakes under Need to Know. I think we’re something like number 35 in terms of freedom of press, behind Bosnia and some tinpot nasties.

    
    
29.   Krypto (Wednesday 31 October 2007, 3:25 am) # 

    Isn’t public information a wonderful thing?
    [link removed]
    Many are the chickens and long may they roost.

    The Editor edits: Sorry, Krypto. I just can’t let you post other people’s addresses on this blog. Doesn’t matter how much of a dickhead they are.

    
    

Leave a reply

Live preview