grodscorp@grods.comTimmeh’s racist dog whistle
 | Posted by The Editor on Monday 12 November 2007, 1:35 pm Categories: Blogosphere, Religion Tags: DogWhistle, Islam, TimBlair |
For all the crap I throw Timmeh Blair’s way, I really didn’t think he was capable of something as base as this:
EXTERNAL COMBUSTION
Mohammed gets a motor:
Malaysia, Iran and Turkey plan to build an “Islamic car” fitted with a compass to find the direction of Mecca, and a compartment to keep the Koran in, the Malaysian state news agency said.
It also stops working five times every day. For prayers.
Malaysian automaker Proton’s managing director Syed Zainal Abidin Syed Mohamed Tahir said during a visit to Tehran that the vehicle would be aimed at the global export market.
“Aimed at.” Unfortunate choice of words.
“The car will have all the Islamic features and should be meant for export purposes,” he said, adding that it would feature a compartment for keeping the Muslim holy book the Koran, and prayer scarves.
Via Alan R.M. Jones, who suggests a naming comp: “My vote is the Martyrmobile.” Well, seeing as nine eleven is already taken …
Stereotype, vilify, smear. Muslims = terrorists; Islam = dark ages. Build it (the post) and they (the rednecked, racist commenters) will come.
“Jihadi Quattro”
– Ricardo“Martyrmobile”
– paco“Please tell me why there’s no compartment for explosives.”
– Harry Bergeron“Mohammed Atta-mobile”
– Steve Skubbina“Da Bomb”
– missred“What about EFP—Explosively Formed Parking-spaces?”
– richard mcenroe“the Moslim Oriented Totalitarian Arab Radical Drive Car (MOTARD Car)”
– Grimmy“Will rocket launchers and remote detonation capability be standard equipment or will Achmed have to pay extra for those? God, I love capitalism!”
– Kyda Silvester“The new jihadi mohammadore - blows away the opposition at the lights. In fact blows away everyone everwhere, everytime. Coming soon to your local jihadi dealer. (Option up to the paedophile pack and get a free child booster seat, wink wink).”
– Surfmaster
I could keep going but you get the idea.
Monday 12 November 2007, 2:24 pm #Jeremy
“I really didn’t think he was capable of something as base as this”
That’s the most astonishing part of the whole post, of course. Ah well, you live and learn.
Monday 12 November 2007, 4:08 pm #Bruce
Not so much a dog-whistle as a bull-horn.
Monday 12 November 2007, 4:14 pm #brokenleftleg
scratch a conservative and you find a …
Monday 12 November 2007, 4:36 pm #The Happy Revolutionary
Sadly predictable, really.
Let’s hope Howard loses, so these Orangutans miss out on their hand-out.
Monday 12 November 2007, 4:42 pm #brokenleftleg
Now if someone were to complain about this racial and religious vilification to the suitable authorities in Victoria, Timmeh could be in a bit of trouble.
Monday 12 November 2007, 5:06 pm #The Happy Revolutionary
I don’t know, BLL. Timmeh loves a bit of martyrdom - see his sulking when MediaWatch gave he and his idiot readers a little bit of scrutiny.
Monday 12 November 2007, 6:35 pm #Iain Hall
I bet that if it had been a car with special features designed to appeal to born again Christians then you lot would have been crawling over each other to make equally tasteless jokes about the car. As someone with a bit of an interest in cars I think that adding any features that pander to anyone’s religious beliefs is very worthy of mockery, yet you lot sacred to offend the followers of Mohammad that you defend this rather silly idea from Proton who make a rather crappy car anyway.
Monday 12 November 2007, 6:37 pm #Bruce
Iain, you don’t have any evidence to support your paranoid suspicion. None whatsoever.
Monday 12 November 2007, 6:39 pm #Bruce
Incidentally Iain, Tim’s humor (as well as that of the company he keeps on his blog) is xenophobic which is the point of the criticism here. When have we been xenophobic to Christians?
Monday 12 November 2007, 6:45 pm #Bridgit Gread
Grods has a post with the terms “racist” and “dog-whistle” in the title - and Iain Hall is commenting. The irony is palpable.
Personally I think if those Moooslims want a car, they should damn well quit their jobs and build one themselves from old iron bedframes and washing machines. Blogging about it would be good too.
Monday 12 November 2007, 6:45 pm #The Editor
Born again Christians only piss me off when they try to impose their values upon me via Parliament while denying any link between those values and the church, instead dressing them up in the bullshit language of “family.” I don’t resent Christians for their personal faith at all.
Timmeh and his commenters are not mocking Proton’s car features, they’re making a not-too-subtle claim that all Muslims are terrorists. Terrorists deserve all the sarcastic blog commentary they receive, but why lump all Muslims together in the terrorist category when only some Muslims are terrorists?
Monday 12 November 2007, 7:01 pm #Bruce
Iain’s just repeating the Bolt/Meuhlenberg/Pell/Wallace/Devine/Blair line that if you criticise anti-secular politics, you are Christian bashing (also repeating the state of denial that this is all they are doing). This incidentally makes quite a number of Christians, Christian bashers (bloggers like Ninglun or Stephen Clark, Catholics in Parliament that told Pell to stuff it over therapeutic cloning, and priests like Alan Matheson.)
In lieu of argument, it’s just accuse, accuse, accuse. All without evidence of course. You can’t really expect much else from some of Australia’s worst thinkers though can you?
Monday 12 November 2007, 7:03 pm #Bruce
“that this is” = “that this isn’t”… Firefox cropped me when page fully loaded…
Monday 12 November 2007, 7:27 pm #The Happy Revolutionary
I think most of the Christians I know would not be terribly impressed with the anti-Muslim sentiments of Bleh and co.
Furthermore, whilst I realise Families First get a bit of stick on this blog, they are hardly representative of all Christians. Also, I don’t see too many Islamic parties in Australia launching campaigns to incorporate Muslim values into Oz politics.
So nice try, Iain, but way off the mark. Again.
Monday 12 November 2007, 7:45 pm #Bruce
Furthermore, whilst I realise Families First get a bit of stick on this blog, they are hardly representative of all Christians.
Nor have they been presented as such on this blog. A radically different representation to the not so subtle inference running wild over at Bleh’s.
Monday 12 November 2007, 8:04 pm #Jimmy Scullin
Who cares about Tim Blur? Now that Iain has appeared on this thread, will the thread end up with its own page on Iain’s latest bullshit blog?
Also, will he run through the thread with an American spell check?
Monday 12 November 2007, 8:16 pm #The Editor
Iain; Hall’s mission statement:
To manually achieve (sic) the entire internet one page at a time.
Monday 12 November 2007, 8:19 pm #Bruce
I wonder if this .pdf is relevant under the section for sedition, rather than racial and religious vilification.
Monday 12 November 2007, 8:25 pm #The Editor
Sorry, not enough semi colons in Iain’s mission statement. Here are a few to sprinkle through as desired:
;;;;;
Monday 12 November 2007, 8:33 pm #Bruce
Actually, I rescind the recommendation of that .pdf, it seems misleading. The act seems to have a much broader definition of sedition.
Me thinks this .pdf is spin in the vein of “work choices won’t screw you over”.
Monday 12 November 2007, 8:33 pm #Iain Hall
The long litany of anti Christian pieces at your blog are pretty indicative of how you are prepared to mock any aspect of Christian belief, it is only cowardice on your part that stops you being equally critical of the followers of other faiths to the same extent.
I don’t accept that Tim’s Sarcasm is a demonstration of xenophobia Just how does it show A fear of the other? So if you can’t prove that aspect of your defence I don’t have to prove that you and your cries are fearful of Christianity.
Yaaaawn….. Bridgit you don’t have anything else do you?
When it comes to humour it is nothing new to take the piss out of the stereotype sadly for you and the rest of the PC brigade far too many of the world’s terrorist acts are in fact committed by those who claim to do so in the name of Allah. Now I have not read the comments thread that you quote but the quotes that you do cite are all taking the piss out of terrorists in particular and not Muslims in general so perhaps your assumptions about the commentary are actually very much in error.
Just show me one piece that you have ever written Bruce that is critical of Islamic dogma, or Hindu belief for that matter Bruce, just one, you are constantly on the case of Christianity and it’s morality but when anyone is even marginally scathing of Islamic belief you start playing the “bigot” card ..
Bruce (Monday 12 November 2007, 7:03 pm) #
“that this is” = “that this isn’t”… Firefox cropped me when page fully loaded…
Tut tut, any comment thread that you contribute to seem to be chock full of such crawling excuses and apologies….
Hap, you dismiss the shtick that Family first get here from both the writers and commenters on the basis that they are not” representative” of Christians well using your own logic it is clearly ok to mock the Jihadists because they are not representative of Islam either.
Monday 12 November 2007, 8:38 pm #Jimmy Scullin
I hereby issue a challenge.
If Iain is hoping of for 100,000 hits by Christmas, can the Editor or Bruce get 100 pages on whatever the hell IH’s new blog is called?
So far Grods has 12 pages and Bruce has 19 pages.
BTW, when is Iain going to learn how to use sub-pages. The mo’ fo’ can’t even count.
Monday 12 November 2007, 8:51 pm #The Happy Revolutionary
Hap, you dismiss the shtick that Family first get here from both the writers and commenters on the basis that they are not” representative” of Christians well using your own logic it is clearly ok to mock the Jihadists because they are not representative of Islam either.
I’ll put aside the fact that the above barely resembles a sentence.
Blair’s post was attacking all Muslims, not jihadists. It was, after all, about an ‘Islamic car’.
FWIW I don’t really care who is subject to mockery, but we all know that Blair and co direct it to the nearest minority group du jour. Also, what they do isn’t really ‘mockery’, more bigoted drivel and bile.
Monday 12 November 2007, 9:12 pm #Bruce
well using your own logic it is clearly ok to mock the Jihadists because they are not representative of Islam either.
This is correct. Mock away at “jihadists” and anti-secular varieties of Islam. But don’t expect people to cut others any slack when a whole religious tradition is subject to bigotry.
Monday 12 November 2007, 10:38 pm #Bridgit Gread
Yaaaawn….. Bridgit you don’t have anything else do you?
Iain, I don’t need anything else.
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 1:17 am #Mikey
Muslims owning cars! What’s next? They’ll want to have their own schools or something…
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 2:05 am #Bruce
I don’t accept that Tim’s Sarcasm is a demonstration of xenophobia Just how does it show A fear of the other? So if you can’t prove that aspect of your defence I don’t have to prove that you and your cries are fearful of Christianity.
Iain, if Tim wants me to demonstrate his xenophobia, he has a right to do so and if he requests I will. It is not for you to accept or reject my proof.
I have a right to expect you to substantiate an allegation you have made against me, and if I ask, you shall. I have asked, so get to it and make with the evidence.
Make with the evidence or as a result, you substantiate my allegation that you are a petty lying windbag. And stupid to boot. Oh wait, I’ve already demonstrated that last bit at Haps and at Sammy’s, that’s a good part of why you are being petty with me.
Loser. lol
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 5:56 am #Iain Hall
Jimmy Scullin (Monday 12 November 2007, 8:38 pm) #
I hereby issue a challenge.
If Iain is hoping of for 100,000 hits by Christmas, can the Editor or Bruce get 100 pages on whatever the hell IH’s new blog is called?
So far Grods has 12 pages and Bruce has 19 pages.
BTW, when is Iain going to learn how to use sub-pages. The mo’ fo’ can’t even count.
The Happy Revolutionary (Monday 12 November 2007, 8:51 pm) #
Hap, you dismiss the shtick that Family first get here from both the writers and commenters on the basis that they are not” representative” of Christians well using your own logic it is clearly ok to mock the Jihadists because they are not representative of Islam either.
I’ll put aside the fact that the above barely resembles a sentence.
Blair’s post was attacking all Muslims, not jihadists. It was, after all, about an ‘Islamic car’.
FWIW I don’t really care who is subject to mockery, but we all know that Blair and co direct it to the nearest minority group du jour. Also, what they do isn’t really ‘mockery’, more bigoted drivel and bile.
Bruce (Monday 12 November 2007, 9:12 pm) #
well using your own logic it is clearly ok to mock the Jihadists because they are not representative of Islam either.
This is correct. Mock away at “jihadists” and anti-secular varieties of Islam. But don’t expect people to cut others any slack when a whole religious tradition is subject to bigotry.
Bridgit Gread (Monday 12 November 2007, 10:38 pm) #
Yaaaawn….. Bridgit you don’t have anything else do you?
Iain, I don’t need anything else.
Mikey (Tuesday 13 November 2007, 1:17 am) #
Muslims owning cars! What’s next? They’ll want to have their own schools or something…
Bruce (Tuesday 13 November 2007, 2:05 am) #
I don’t accept that Tim’s Sarcasm is a demonstration of xenophobia Just how does it show A fear of the other? So if you can’t prove that aspect of your defence I don’t have to prove that you and your cries are fearful of Christianity.
Iain, if Tim wants me to demonstrate his xenophobia, he has a right to do so and if he requests I will. It is not for you to accept or reject my proof.
I have a right to expect you to substantiate an allegation you have made against me, and if I ask, you shall. I have asked, so get to it and make with the evidence.
Make with the evidence or as a result, you substantiate my allegation that you are a petty lying windbag. And stupid to boot. Oh wait, I’ve already demonstrated that last bit at Haps and at Sammy’s, that’s a good part of why you are being petty with me.
Loser. lol
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 6:55 am #Iain Hall
Still playing the unpaid proof-reader of my blogs eh? Thanks for the note about the page naming I will look into that.
Oh and as much as they may despise me I doubt the either Everett or Bridges has the desire or the time to write that much stuff about Moi.
Tell you what you write a few words about how evil I am and you can either send it to my email or post it to the guest book page at Troll Tales and true I promise not to censor or edit it. Can I be fairer than that?
I said before you have not established your claims that Blair’s piece or it’s commenters are being scornful of Muslims in general or that even the mockery of using religion as a marketing tool for cars is at all unreasonable.
One of our fine western secular traditions is the freedom to mock all religion and religious dogma. Were the car to be made with a bible compartment, a glowing crucifix on the dash and a container for holy water I bet that you could not contain your self. Now you are making the claims of “bigotry” so it is up to you to prove it. You have not even begun to do more than to assert that it is so. And someone who is in love with “logic” as much as you are should have no trouble in doing this if the comments are in fact so clearly examples of “xenophobia”.
Well you do if you don’t want to look like a spiteful bitch who has nothing of substance to say. (an apology to all of the female dogs out there who are sullied by the above comparison BTW)
This is not the point and you know it.
This sounds suspiciously like one of your very convoluted cop-outs. This is a forum open to anyone and as I am the one calling you out on your use of the term xenophobia then it is me that you have to answer too not Tim Blair, failure to do so is a very good indication that you can’t prove your claims (you do not actually offer any proof BTW) of xenophobia.
Everett you do have tickets on your self don’t you? What allegation are you talking about here? Do you mean my claim that you have never written any critical pieces about any religion other than Christianity? Well I have read most of your blogging output and I can’t think of any, but please do cite something that is critical of Islam or any other faith and I will give you the appropriate brownie points for doing it.
Those tickets you have on yourself must be clouding your judgement because as I remember it over at Haps blog you finally had to concede that you can’t prove either the real existence or the age of the person you have been so long claiming could prove my villainy, in any terms you have nothing now and you have never had anything in the past either.
Note to Scott
the previous comment which is just a cut and paste of the responses to my last comment was posted in error so please delete it if you wish.
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 10:19 am #Bridgit Gread
Well you do if you don’t want to look like a spiteful bitch…
Good to see we’re getting closer and closer to the ‘real Iain Hall’.
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 12:50 pm #Bruce
Everett you do have tickets on your self don’t you? What allegation are you talking about here? Do you mean my claim that you have never written any critical pieces about any religion other than Christianity? Well I have read most of your blogging output and I can’t think of any, but please do cite something that is critical of Islam or any other faith and I will give you the appropriate brownie points for doing it.
I have tickets? You’ll give me brownie points?
And lets not alter your allegation. Your allegation was Christian bashing, not criticising Christianity or Christians to the exclusion of Islam.
More to the point, don’t ask me to point anything out. The allegation is yours, so is the burden of proof.
Now get to it Iain. You have an allegation to substantiate. More time researching your interlocutors arguments and less time researching their personal live, eh? Chop, chop.
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 1:00 pm #Bruce
Oh, and BTW…
Malaysia, Iran and Turkey = “The Other”.
Xenophobia is easy to prove in this case, Iain. One need only point to Blair’s article to substantiate in the same way one can point to the sky to show it is blue.
The fact that you don’t accept this doesn’t speak to the fact, but rather to your dubious reasoning. Dubious reasoning that if I recall, saw you getting all excited over some inductivist, pseudo-science NAZI inspired race theory if I recall.
Keep your brownie points Iain. I prefer them from Brownies, not brown-shirts.
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 1:14 pm #Jimmy Scullin
Iain, how come you call the Editor a troll, make umpteen pages about his threads, complain about being harassed and continual provocation but yet you still post at his site even after you banned him from your own?
I think it says an awful lot about you and your exploits.
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 3:17 pm #Iain Hall
I can only call your stuff as I see it sweetie.
Your problems (and they are many) begin with the fact that I have never used the term “Christian bashing” My actual words were
Now I have hardened my resolve and given your categories listing a bit of a workout and I am even more sure of this statement now than I was when I made it. You do not even have a category of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or another type of religion except Christianity, even your more general topics that deal with religious issues lead to pieces that are actually critical of Christians and Christian belief.
Accusation proven beyond reasonable doubt Milord
Now you are getting very desperate aren’t you Herr Everett? I would have thought that to try to claim that you don’t have to prove your claims of xenophobia because it is self evident is a real cop out, if that is the case then you will have no trouble explaining why this is so because we more sensible souls need more than the pontifacations of a sad sorry south Australian who has lost both the plot and the argument on account of his favourite law of argument , Godwin’s law is hereby invoked.
As I say on the home page of Troll tales and true there are no restrictions on any of you lot with regard to posting comments there, so Scott is just as welcome as you are to post what ever you please there as I write there are two comments in the guest book now from one of those who I would categorise as a troll, so you will be in good company if you decide to take up my offer to denounce me there .
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 3:33 pm #The Happy Revolutionary
Short Hall - unless you’re dissing Muslims, you’re not allowed to argue.
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 4:14 pm #Jimmy Scullin
[For the second time because you failed as usual to answer the questions put forth]
Iain, how come you call the Editor a troll, make umpteen pages about his threads, complain about being harassed and continual provocation but yet you still post at his site even after you banned him from your own?
I think it says an awful lot about you and your exploits.
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 6:20 pm #Iain Hall
JS
As I say on the home page of Troll tales and true there are no restrictions on any of you lot with regard to posting comments there, so Scott is just as welcome as you are to post what ever you please there as I write there are two comments in the guest book now from one of those who I would categorise as a troll, so you will be in good company if you decide to take up my offer to denounce me there.
Finally if Scott did not want me to comment here he would say so wouldn’t he?
Hap
Is that the best that you can do son? Struth the lefties these days are such wimps.
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 6:42 pm #Bridgit Gread
Iain, when your youngest boy goes off to kinder next year, there’ll be no need for you to be at home - so will you please get yourself a job?
The entire Internet waits with bated breath for your answer.
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 6:56 pm #Jimmy Scullin
Don’t forget this quote from Iain Bridgit:
“Oh and I don’t need to look for a job I actually have one and I enjoy it very much because it is very satisfying and rewarding”
Iain, is the Editor banned from posting comments at iainhall.wordpress.com or not?
From memory you did take away his commenting privileges did you not?
Also, I don’t need to denounce you Iain, you do it yourself by:
1. Writing your latest blog of lies and mistruths
2. Begging people who you call trolls to post there
3. Being lulzs for everyone in doing so
4. Commenting at blogs from which you have banned the authors of those blogs from commenting at your own blog
Further, will this thread now appear at your latest seeing that no one is posting in the guest book like you thought?
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 7:15 pm #Bruce
Accusation proven beyond reasonable doubt Milord
Accusation not proven at all.
You do not even have a category of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or another type of religion except Christianity, even your more general topics that deal with religious issues lead to pieces that are actually critical of Christians and Christian belief.
No, I don’t have an Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism or other type of religion category. But I don’t have a Christianity category either as you clearly state as an exception.
You were required to provide evidence, not outright lies.
The long litany of anti Christian pieces…
I.e. Christian bashing…
…even your more general topics that deal with religious issues lead to pieces that are actually critical of Christians and Christian belief.
Iain, this is horse shit. My criticism has been of the Christian beliefs that some Christians hold and that they have tried foisting on others, either through abuse or though preference by the state. If Islam had the representation within and done the deals with the major parties and public institutions that many Christian-hegemonic groups do, Muslims would feature more in my writing.
This is in no way anti-Christian though Iain. To be anti-Christian, one requires a general opposition to the practice of Christianity, or a desire to see discrimination against Christians wherein they enjoy less rights than other groups, or at least a lack of appreciation of the diversity within Christendom. This is what you have to prove Iain.
I am consistently and have always consistently maintained that neither the state nor other persons, can oppress the religious rights of Christians. I have always where the topic is broached, acknowledged that Christendom is more diverse than either I or the popular opinion realise. I challenge you to find an exception to this.
Iain, provide me of some evidence of where I have written any “anti-Christian” piece. Show me where I mandate the un-warranted intrusion into Christian worship or where I want Christians to be given less rights than other Australians. All you need is one example. One true example, not a vague, context devoid and distorting allusion to a supposed litany of examples.
Like I said, better off to spend your time researching the arguments of your interlocutors than spending time researching their private lives. That’s what you’ve been doing isn’t it Iain? That’s why you can’t reproduce my arguments faithfully. You’ve been busy.
Wasting time researching into the person of your latest grudge (Hap)? Or have you decided you want someone a bit more vulnerable who hasn’t done you any harm, like Mikey or Ms Politics? Mikey is pretty vulnerable at the moment. That’s your style isn’t it?
I suspect that on past form, you are neglecting the argument at hand at the expense of your personal, sick, obsessions. Am I right Iain? Please tell me I’m wrong. I’d like to be wrong about this Iain.
As for Tim Blair and Xenophobia. You don’t deserve this, and I expect you to repay me by way of the (quite reasonable and fair) demand below (which I’m entitled to anyway).
Xenophobia is by definition the distrust and bias of and against outgroups demonstrated by a cognizant demarcation between one’s own group and the outgroup, outgroup biases such as outgroup homogeneity bias (making generalisations about the out group) where the biases lead to negative stereotypes.
All of these criteria are met in Blair’s little piece. He identifies Muslims from overseas as different from “us” (demarcation). He establishes an outgroup homogeneity bias by failing to acknowledge exceptions within the group while reinforcing negative stereotypes that the outgroup (without exception) is dangerous and untrustworthy.
That’s xenophobia Iain and that’s what a proof looks like. Case closed.
Now I was never entitled to meet your demand Iain (nor was I the first time that I satisfied it, not that it’s easy to credit you with the ability to tell), so I expect you will be appreciative that I have entertained you in this respect. You can demonstrate this appreciation by substantiating your allegation against me, albeit this time without resorting to lies.
Bruce
PS. Oh, and by the way. Your claiming that I had a Christianity category, something which I have never had nor would I want to have (why else do you think I deliberately use the term “theofascism” instead of “Islamofascism” or “Christofascism”?), you have substantiated my allegation that you are a lying windbag. Very handy that.
PPS. I didn’t make analogy with anything of Nazism, I made direct reference to something of Nazism. Godwin’s law only refers to moral equivocation / analogy. Said race pseudo-science isn’t equivocal or analogous to NAZI race pseudo-science, Ray’s work on racial intelligence is NAZI race pseudo-science.
This reminds me of previous times you have tried imitating me Iain. Faux-falsificationism, “ad-homonyms”, the list goes on. Now it’s Godwin. I’d almost be flattered if your opinions on such things were any good.
PPPS. I’ve now sewed-up your red-herrings to my own satisfaction, so in future on this thread, I’ll only reply (briefly) to you on xenophobia (presumably to laugh at your almost inevitably silly response or perhaps be surprised that you develop some honesty and conceed) or your constant deceit about me being
a Christian Basher(ahem) “anti-Christian”.Tuesday 13 November 2007, 7:17 pm #Iain Hall
Well who is asking personal questions now?
Would YOU answer such a question about your future employment plans?
By way of reply does your child run to you for comfort when hurt or does he call out for the nanny/ carer that you employ? (Do you pay an award rate to the carer by the way?)
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 8:43 pm #Bruce
Well who is asking personal questions now?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 9:02 pm #Iain Hall
Yeah mate and I stand by that statement
Scott can comment any time he pleases just by undertaking to respect my comments policy just as anyone on my moderation list can.
the lies and mistruths are all there , in the pieces from tolls like you that I quote.
I don’t care if you comment there or not and offering you the opportunity to vent your spleen ,as you so clearly desire is not begging
WTF is a “lulzs”?
Yawn see my previous comment.
You never know your luck in the big city matey.
I just have to be pedantic here because I don’t claim that you have a “Christianity category” I say that you don’t have or another type of religion except Christianity,That you don’t have a category called“Christianity” does not alter the fact that when it comes to discussing religion that you don’t always write about varieties Christianity
I am under no obligation to do anything Everett, I choose to engage with you here and I have been entirely truthful , It is beginning to sound like you have a bad case of the “Jannine Aussies” insofar as you can’t tell the difference between an opinion and an untruth ..
You did not proof read your response now did you? this is a classic Vicky Pollard defence that ends up with you admitting that you do focus on Christian religiosity above that of other faiths. Exactly as I suggested. Your rationale for doing so is irrelevant.
Err No , it is not necessary to prove a general opposition to the faith when you provide so many examples of particular aspects of the faith that you repeatedly denounce.
Your pieces denouncing George Pell and claiming that he should not be putting his opinions on abortion to his parishioners who happen to be MP’s come to mind here.
This one will do You want to denounce Fielding because he is openly Christian and admits that his political voting decisions are predicated on his faith position.
An easy one to give a categorical answer too, I have not been researching the personal lives any of you lot at all
Whoa you are paranoid aren’t you? I have a truce with Mikey that I have steadfastly respected. I have no beef with Vicky Kasatis. Why should I try to hurt either of them? They have nothing but good wishes coming from me.
Sadly for you your suspicions are ENTIRELY wrong I have no obsessions with any of you lot. I am only commenting here for a bit of fun and the way that you have got so het up here, going off into flights of paranoid fantasy makes it worth enduring Greado’s taunts and provocations.
ROTFL !!!!!!!!!!
But that is not what Blair does with his piece, he quotes a news item that tells us that Proton are going to build a model that is specifically intended to pander to a religious sensibility, Blair is not creating the demarcation it already exists in the piece, nor is he making generalisations about the group he is mocking the religiosity of the manufacturer, and the commentators are likewise mocking the religiosity of Proton not Muslims in General, Finally none of the mockery demonstrates fear or distrust.
You do have a bad case of the “Janine Aussies” at present don’t you? You can’t seem to tell the difference between a lie and an opinion at all these days can you?
No it just shows that you are relying on pedantry to cover the fact that my claims about your focus on criticising Christian religion and dogma to the exclusion of other faiths is spot on.
Blah blah blah …. More empty pedantry that won’t save you this time.
Why would I want to imitate you? Don’t flatter yourself with such conceits.
You have been on the turps haven’t you? You usually do a better job than this when you are sober. The booze will wreck you liver too.
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 9:12 pm #Bridgit Gread
Iain, this is a nice neighbourhood when you stay out of it and we’re worried about property values sliding downwards… can you please head off back to Tripe Tails and Tool? Cheers matey.
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 10:39 pm #Bruce
Sorry, I can’t restrain myself… This is too laughable.
I just have to be pedantic here because I don’t claim that you have a “Christianity category” I say that you don’t have or another type of religion except Christianity,That you don’t have a category called“Christianity” does not alter the fact that when it comes to discussing religion that you don’t always write about varieties Christianity
BS Iain. I know what a category is in wordpress blog-context, and I know you know it as well. I have no Christian category of post, end of story.
I am under no obligation to do anything Everett…
Actually, you are Iain. Making derogatory claims about people without paying due care to the truth is defamation. Just ask AB. You stated categorically that I’m anti-Christian which without substantiation, is defamation.
So toughen up that soft little mind of yours and substantiate.
But that is not what Blair does with his piece…
It is precisely what he did. Islam overseas = outgroup. No exception mentioned (outgroup homogeneity bias). Implied threat of violence. All criteria accounted for.
You can’t seem to tell the difference between a lie and an opinion at all these days can you?
False dichotomy. Iain, all lies are a form of opinion. When a question is a matter-of-fact-question, and all the evidence to support the fact is available, stating that you have a contrary opinion does not prevent it from being a lie.
For example. “It is my opinion that Iain Hall is a pedophile”. Now if you are or aren’t a pedo Iain is a matter of fact, not a mater of opinion. Either you touch little kids or you don’t.
If I were to assert that it was my opinion that you fiddle with kids, and you never fiddled with kids and that the evidence was available to me, I would be lying. It would still be my opinion, but it would also be a lie.
If reasonable people were to accept that something being an opinion also prevented it from being a lie, then there wouldn’t be such a thing as a lie. Every Baron Munchausen capable of doublethink could simply state “it’s my opinion” and get off the hook.
You claimed I had a “Christian” category (whichever pedantic version of the term you subscribe to) and the facts of my stance towards Christianity have been made and are still very much available to you. You lied. End of story.
More empty pedantry that won’t save you this time.
Save me from what precisely Iain? Please elaborate? Are you actually making a threat or are you having delusions about what making a buffoon out of you spells for me. Is Godwin going to sue me?
Goose.
Why would I want to imitate you? Don’t flatter yourself with such conceits.
No, as said, I almost flatter myself. Being imitated by you isn’t something to brag about Iain. I’m certainly not bragging about it. I’m laughing at it.
You would want to imitate me for the obvious reason, that while my merits are not necessarily obvious or spectacular, they are a vast improvement on what you’ve got.
No it just shows that you are relying on pedantry to cover the fact that my claims about your focus on criticising Christian religion and dogma to the exclusion of other faiths is spot on.
Okay. Let me get this straight. Before, in
bullshitting about“defining” your use of the word “category”, you claimed that you “just have to be pedantic”. But now you are calling my account of “category” pedantic?Does the law of non-contradiction keep you awake at night or are you that adept at doublethink, Iain?
Incidentally Iain, as far as proofs and your capacity for logic goes, I’ve been charitable with you. I deliberately left one wide open for you that you could easily grab if you had any grasp of logic. You are remiss in not taking it up, because then you could have substantiated that I was a hypocrite.
The necessary reasoning should still be fresh to your mind.
When predicated only on a negative premise, a conclusion can only be negative. Remember your positive proof from a negative when you made an accusation whatchamacallit about Bridget?
What’s this?
“Make with the evidence or as a result, you substantiate my allegation that you are a petty lying windbag.” - Me, above.
I can’t believe that you didn’t catch that one Iain. Oh wait, I can. I was counting on it going over your head, despite the fact that I had called you on it only recently.
So many steps ahead of you Iain and you make it so very easy.
You do realise that I am in “discussion” (and trust me on the quotation marks) with you here for entertainment purposes only don’t you, Iain? You don’t seriously think you’ll influence anything that anyone here thinks, other than to confirm what they already know about you and to give them a good chuckle?
And lets face it, after having someone like you try to rummage around in my private life, I’m entitled to more than one chuckle at your expense.
Tuesday 13 November 2007, 11:20 pm #Bruce
Oh… And…
I say that you don’t have or another type of religion except Christianity…
Yeah, I don’t use Islamic states as prime examples of what I argue against. And I’ve always been afraid to do anything other than give respect to those of Islamic high office, or their sacred holy men.
Yeah, I’m anti-secular Islam’s bestest buddy in the whole world. Holy Shit*! I’ll be grand mufti of Australia if I keep this up!
Haw haw…
* and I decree it holy…
Wednesday 14 November 2007, 1:16 am #Mikey
I see someone responded directly to a comment of mine. If he does it again I will list the reasons why I do not respond to his comments.
Wednesday 14 November 2007, 3:08 am #Bruce
I missed this
This one will do You want to denounce Fielding because he is openly Christian and admits that his political voting decisions are predicated on his faith position.
No it won’t do at all. I denounce Fielding because he doesn’t have and respect for the separation of Church and state and because he hides that his political voting decisions are predicated on his faith position. That makes me anti-theocracy, Iain, not anti-Christian.
I guess whether or not I actually wrote “and while not openly admitting it, does mix religion with his politics” is a matter of opinion, not fact Iain?
I’m entitled to one example without misrepresentation from you, Iain. Give me the one example you owe me and quit with the fabrications.
Or you could just read the CliffsNotes version which would tell you that there isn’t a single anti-Christian post on my blog, and admit you are wrong. That’s what a person of at least adequate character would do.
Well I’m finished with my exam cram for the night, so nitey, nite all.
Wednesday 14 November 2007, 7:09 am #Iain Hall
Before I get on to what you do say, by way of response, I feel I should say something about what you don’t dare mention. I bet that right after you clicked on the “go” button that you regretted your paranoid raving about me seeking personal information about other bloggers. Especially as you have absolutely NOTHING to back up those claims beyond your own paranoid ravings, made when you must have been well in your cups.
Yawn, (it is early morning ) I just love the smell of burning lefties in the morning… Cue music “the flight of the valkeries ”
Crikey are you threatening me with a writ??? ROTFL BIG TIME!!!!!
Nah, at the very worst Tim Blair’s piece is sarcastic , it is satirical and it is legitimate mockery.
So now you resort to this Eh?? No wonder you count Hap as one of your blogging pals…
Had you finished the beer and gone on to whiskey by this time because you are repeating your self a bit in this comment.
what is this your third repetition of this claim , either you believe your own propaganda or you were too pissed to notice that you had already said this?
From yourself and your stupid paranoia Herr Everett, you really have to lay of the sauce I’m sure that it does not mix well with anti depressants.
Why would I want to imitate a boorish fellow who is an eternal student, who lists his occupation as “a carer” (do you get a centerlink payment for that?) h, who has paranoid delusions and a drinking problem? Get outta here you do have tickets on your self.
You really are like a dog worrying a bone on this aren’t you? My statement that you quote (in italics above) above is absolutely correct and I stand by it Your semantic prevarication is just nonsense.
You constantly hide behind your own vision of logical discourse citing this rule or that and then you throw in something that is entirely off topic and irrelevant. But I will say this about making any sort of accusation against a pseudonym. It is in no way actionable because a pseudonym cannot be defamed or slandered because in law only a real identified person can be so wronged. So if I pleased I can make the most outrageous claims against say, “Bridgit Gread” and no matter how much of a smear those claims may be I would be immune from any action in the courts.
In any case this is blogland and your personal rules of discourse are not with shit here.
Those tickets you have on yourself must be like the chains that the ghost of Marley had to carry clanking for all eternity. Do you ever look at what you have written and just shudder, or are you delusional enough to believe your own propaganda? In a conversation, and that is what we are having here, one party does not get the right to dictate the terms of discourse without the other party agreeing to these terms. You seem to think that you do have the right to dictate the terms don’t you? You are such a boor about such semantic bullshit, and desperate when it is rightfully ignored.
Well it is your drunken antics that are providing all of the laughs here Everett , it is you who is going of into little paranoid cavorts about what you erroneously think I do with my computer time , so who do you think that people will laugh at? I don’t mean the usual suspects but anyone else who reads this thread?
Ah here is Bruce (paranoid) Everett’s greatest conceit, that anyone would care enough to pay him this kind of attention. I certainly don’t care enough to do so and I don’t know anyone else who would either.
You did not re-read the first sentence here did you Bruce? Wow it is a doozy and that is before we get to the fact that arguing about Islamic states is different to arguing about aspects of the religion of Islam, or Christianity for that matter. Finally Islam is by definition not secular and the faith does not accept any notion of a secular state or society.
Just a small note about the truce agreement between Mikey Capital and myself. The terms of the agreement as simple and they are that neither of us will bad mouth the other at our own blogs or at third party venues and I make the point that I have ignored several instances where the other party has breached the agreement by doing exactly what he suggests in his latest comment on this thread.
This is just semantic nonsense, again, from you Bruce. Theocracy is rule by a religious oligarchy Fielding is one senator among many, who is both openly a Christian and entitled to base his voting decisions on anything he pleases. You just dress up your anti-Christian ranting under the label of “anti theocracy”.
You are entitled to nothing from me at all, I read what you write and I call it as I see it if you don’t like the way that I see what you write there is only one word for me top say about that and it is “tough”.
Well I hope that you have some paracetamol for the morning after the night before.
Cheers Comrades.
;o)
Wednesday 14 November 2007, 9:43 am #Bruce
I bet that right after you clicked on the “go” button that you regretted your paranoid raving about me seeking personal information about other bloggers.
No paranoia, no regrets.
Especially as you have absolutely NOTHING to back up those claims beyond your own paranoid ravings, made when you must have been well in your cups.
I didn’t claim anything! Talk about paranoid!
I voiced a suspicion and I asked you to assure us that you haven’t been up to the same kind of antics you have form for. Nothing unreasonable about that.
But while we are on the topic, how far out of the way do you have to go to send other bloggers a bottle of scotch? You know, the kind you offered to people on AWH to out Hap only the other day?
Sounds a bit drastic to me. Certainly grounds for reasonable suspicion that you haven’t given up your old games.
A parole check isn’t an arrest Iain.
Crikey are you threatening me with a writ???
You of all people shouldn’t balk at this. You who was just the other day reading a post of Legal Eagle’s on the very same topic (defamation on the blogosphere), and crying foul over Hap’s comments for which you yourself couldn’t possibly have sued him over (even if your claims about the defamatory content were true).
Do you honestly expect us to believe that not being able to sue Hap, that you didn’t think him obligated to substantiate (a claim he never made - again how paranoid)?
Sorry Iain, but the evidence shows otherwise. You were up in arms making demands and you were deadly serious.
Such double standards.
Nah, at the very worst Tim Blair’s piece is sarcastic , it is satirical and it is legitimate mockery.
Iain, no amount of denial will change the fact that it’s xenophobic or that the sky is blue. All of the criteria for xenophobia are there.
All your denial does is show you as colour blind, in keeping with the analogy.
So now you resort to this Eh??
Resort to what, Iain? I haven’t resorted to anything other than to give a hypothetical example of an unsubstantiated lie and openly state that it isn’t true.
I haven’t resorted to anything untoward. You are sounding quite defensive. Paranoid even.
From yourself and your stupid paranoia Herr Everett, you really have to lay of the sauce I’m sure that it does not mix well with anti depressants.
Yes Iain. I balk at your allusion to something I can’t be saved from and that’s paranoia. Such feats of mental gymnastics. Should I be worried that I’m not worried?
I think I’ll skip your anecdotally based medical advice.
In any case this is blogland and your personal rules of discourse are not with shit here.
My “personal rules” Iain, just happen to be societal norms. And no, they aren’t with shit, unlike your rules of discourse which come direct from the sewers.
Well it is your drunken antics that are providing all of the laughs here Everett , it is you who is going of into little paranoid cavorts about what you erroneously think I do with my computer time , so who do you think that people will laugh at? I don’t mean the usual suspects but anyone else who reads this thread?
The strange old hairy man who gets overly defensive and alludes to a scenario where people are calling him a pedo and claiming that he’s recently been spying, when in fact they haven’t.
Ah here is Bruce (paranoid) Everett’s greatest conceit, that anyone would care enough to pay him this kind of attention. I certainly don’t care enough to do so and I don’t know anyone else who would either.
It’s not conceit and you know it Iain. The sky is still blue and you solicited someone to spy on me on campus, or had you forgot that?
What was your justification? You wanted information in a “know thy enemy” kind of way, those were your own words, Iain.
That doesn’t sound at all disinterested to me. The conceit is yours Iain. Nobody expects your symptoms to go away anytime soon, so don’t bother trying to convince us otherwise.
This is just semantic nonsense, again, from you Bruce. Theocracy is rule by a religious oligarchy Fielding is one senator among many, who is both openly a Christian and entitled to base his voting decisions on anything he pleases. You just dress up your anti-Christian ranting under the label of “anti theocracy”.
Semantics? Semantics? LOL. You represented what I said as the exact opposite of what I said! And nowhere in that post do I have a problem with anyone being Christian and you’ve utterly failed to demonstrate that I do.
But for the sakes of pedantry Iain, which you seem to have a love-hate relationship with, what I mean by anti-theocracy is pro-secular (which I’ve previously stated). A pro-secular stance being entirely at odds with Fielding’s behaviour as a senator.
This is blatantly obvious.
You are entitled to nothing from me at all, I read what you write and I call it as I see it if you don’t like the way that I see what you write there is only one word for me top say about that and it is “tough”.
Iain, I know your obligations, and that’s just not true and it’s not really the case that anyone cares how you see anything. We just get to laugh as you go cross-eyed to contort what you see to suit your prejudice.
But don’t worry Iain, I’m not going to sue you for (multiply) lying about me being anti-Christian. I don’t care that you can’t meet your obligations. I never expected otherwise.
Putting up evidence, or recanting, is what a person of character does. You simply aren’t that kind of person.
And let’s face facts, your fibs would prove a much greater threat to my reputation if they weren’t uttered by someone with such a credibility problem as yourself. I’ve stated as much.
Your defamation of others is only a threat in as far as it is a symptom of some of your prior net-hobbies.
I’ll tell you how this is going to pan out from here on in, Iain. You’ll copy/paste this to your new blog, claiming that it will serve you well. Flame War Chronicles, or Being Nice; how did they turn out Iain? That’s right, this new blog is “different”. Keep telling yourself that.
Another 6-18 months, when nobody other than complete loons give a rat’s (which I guess is the case now admittedly), you’ll realise that at least in front of sane people, the few of which actually read TT&T, you have embarrassed yourself yet again.
You’ll then find some way of quietly covering things up again, probably “achieving” (ahem) what you have posted to TT&T, selectively at first or perhaps just password protecting the lot. Then you’ll pretend it all didn’t happen the way it happened and that you are a respectable conservative who is altogether sane.
Well I hope that you have some paracetamol for the morning after the night before.
Iain, neither am I a drunk or a burn out. A late night still won’t slow me down in the morning.
I can’t sympathise with the dilemmas that clearly you can. All the same, I’d keep the paracetamol if I were you. You’ll be needing it when TT&T doesn’t pan out the way you think it will.
Wednesday 14 November 2007, 9:53 am #Bridgit Gread
Why would I want to imitate a boorish fellow who is an eternal student, who lists his occupation as “a carer” (do you get a centerlink payment for that?)
Oh, the irony… the irony!
Wednesday 14 November 2007, 11:48 am #The Happy Revolutionary
Nah, at the very worst Tim Blair’s piece is sarcastic , it is satirical and it is legitimate mockery.
I think much the same of Bourbon Boy’s pieces on Hall. Live and let live, eh?
Wednesday 14 November 2007, 12:02 pm #Iain Hall
Still you try to hide behind semantics you wrote:-
This is an accusation beyond any doubt, you assert that I have been researching the lives of other bloggers this is not couched as a suspicion , it does not contain any qualifiers, or caveats . My citing this as an example of your paranoia is entirely correct.
This is also an assertion that I have been acting improperly that is couched as a question and it likewise has no caveats or qualifiers to down grade it from being an assertion to it being a “suspicion” as you claim by way of a furious back peddle session in your latest comment.
Here you finally do apply the qualifier “I suspect” But of course by the time you do that here the other two sentences have already made it plain that this is more a sign of regret on your part for going too far in the previous two rather than being a qualifier for this entire diatribe.
And who exactly made you a sheriff of the blogosphere? You do love to play vigilante games don’t you? In any case when a nameless scumbag casts aspersion on my character I see nothing wrong with offering an incentive for his being made to own the words he so blithely throws about on the net. It is no biggy to offer a small token of appreciation (costing less than $50 posted) and as Australia post will deliver world wide not out of the way at all.
I was taking the piss out of your own implicit threats you idiot! This,
Is a threat and from you very worthy of mockery indeed.
Talk about the colour of the sky as much as you want it does not make your case.
As i said you and hap make a good pair your politics and characters are so similar.
No the medical advice come straight from the leaflet inside the drug box and you really should heed it if you are taking the medication.
Yawn you are really deluded if you think that everyone has to argue their case on the same terms as you do, it’s those tickets tripping you up yet again.
This sentence does not even make sense and that is before you consider its lack of any relationship to the truth.
You are still trying to buy dinner on that aren’t you? I notice that you dropped your usual claim that the person in question was a minor. I contend that this person was never real or in fact a minor and you have had to concede as much before so don’t you think that it is time to stop using that little entrapment exerc